Mathematics and the use of formulas have played an important role in the development of the modern world. Two main ancient civilizations, Greece and Egypt, have developed their specific deduction methods to increase the stability and quality of buildings constructed during these times. While in ancient Greece, people used the concept of trial and error to solve mathematical tasks and calculate astronomical changes, in Egypt, the deduction was used for more practical uses.
Deduction in Ancient Greece
Greeks have always been popular for their spiritual beliefs and image myths. Therefore, deductive calculations in this part of the world were more oriented toward the balance in the universe (Sidoli, 2018). The concept was used mostly in geometry, where abstract figures were created. Moreover, the use of images allowed ancient Greeks to use the method of Babylonians, where measurements played an insignificant role, but deduction stayed popular.
Deduction in Ancient Egypt
Egypt is popular for its massive pyramids, which were built without modern technological equipment, but with the use of deductive calculations. The system of numbers that the Egyptians introduced was not appropriate for multiplication, but it was convenient while building pyramids as the number were not high. The Golden Ratio concept was used in this part of the world (Imhausen, 2020). However, the work of this rule stays unknown because of worn instructions written on pyramids.
Differences
Both types of deduction techniques played an important role in the development of algebra and geometry. However, even though Greek methods influenced Egyptians, the use of the concept is different these days. For example, the Greeks explained to the world how the process of organization could be executed using deductive calculations. Nevertheless, Egyptians used this concept to show how architecture can be developed to ensure the stability of buildings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, mathematical calculations have remained the same from ancient times, and people continue using the deduction concept of Greece and Egypt to make their lives convenient and forward-looking. Some people use the deduction method to develop new technologies, but others might use this technique as a planning tool to estimate deadlines and succeed at managerial work. Consequently, mathematics continues developing based on the main concept provided by ancient civilizations.
References
Imhausen, A. (2020). Mathematics in Ancient Egypt: A Contextual History. Princeton University Press.
The river Nile is known to be the world’s longest river (estimated to be 6500 kilometers long) and is strongly attributed to the ancient Egyptian civilization. The source of the river remained a mystery to the early inhabitants of ancient Egypt for a considerable amount of time. At first, it was believed to be an outpour from an underground tunnel that originated from a cataract.
Years later, travelers were of the opinion that its origin was located further to the south. The discovery of the source was made however established in the 19th century. It was said to feed from two tributaries, the Blue Nile and the White Nile (Rosalie, 2007).
Nonetheless, they considered it a great gift from God as and it was said to be responsible for the productivity of the lands located along its waters. This is because the river flowed across desert land, which was the more reason for the people to appreciate its waters.
Rosalie (2007) mentions that inhabitants of Ancient Egypt had little or no knowledge of the existence of the life beyond the river. The river Nile was the only thing that mattered to them, as it was their source of livelihood.
The Nile contributed to the people’s livelihood in a number of ways. These include the use of papyrus, an invaluable raw material, which grew along the river.
It was mainly used to make rope and was also a raw material in the making of boats (used in navigation along the river).These boats were used in fishing and hunting, which brought food to the table at the end of the day (Erlikh, 2000) .
The waters of river Nile were also useful in cultivation of land. The people used the water to irrigate the land (given the desert conditions in Egypt).This provision enabled them to grow various fruits and vegetables.
The river banks also provided good cultivating lands because of their rich fertile soil. This was a great impetus to increased tendency to cultivate; with crops such as barley used to make beer and wheat which was used to make bread (the staple food for many peasants) (Erlikh, 2000).
The Nile was also essential to civilization as it provided a mode of transport for the local inhabitants as well as foreigners who crossed the river to the other side. This facilitated communication, interaction and trade of commodities among the people. It is implicitly clear that the River Nile contributed majorly to the ancient Egypt civilization. This is because it brought a new life to the inhabitants who were able to cultivate and communicate with other people (since they could transcend the lake barrier by use of boats).
Reflection
The river Nile took a number of years for its source to be correctly identified. I feel that this was a major contributor to development and civilization taking a comparatively longer time. Had the discovery been made earlier, I feel that the people would have had more awareness of their potential as a country.
They would had forged towards the region’s development many years before it essentially happened. I also feel that ancient Egypt inhabitants were proactive in nature.
This is exhibited by their efforts in making use of the available resources provided by the Nile. Initially, they were gatherers and had the option of continuing with this practice. However, they decided to make use of the Nile and this brought great benefits and changes to their lives.
My opinion on the activities of the people in ancient Egypt is that these activities empowered them to improve and sustain their lives. Nonetheless, this created independence on their part and led them to center their activities on themselves. I think this was facilitated by the natural barrier formed by the river Nile.
I chose this topic because I was fascinated by the fact that the river Nile’s potential remained undiscovered for a long time, despite the fact that it is the longest river in the world.
The rich impact it had on Ancient Egypt is also a fact to behold. This is because ancient Egypt is a desert and the people would have been hopeless living in such deplorable conditions, had it not been for the presence of river Nile.
The topic was worthwhile as I have gained knowledge of the ancient activities of Egypt and it contributes to a better understanding of the beginnings of the country and the extent to which the river Nile contributed to the country’s development.
References
Erlikh, H. (2000).The Nile. Histories, Cultures and Myths. New York. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Rosalie, A. (2007). Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt: Oxford. Oxford University Press.
A text discovered by archaeologists, called the Assyrian Prophecy, as well as four other passages from the Jewish Bible, tell of prophecies. Each passage is a kind of instruction from the gods to their chosen kings. Both the Assyrian Prophecy and the Bible passages use similar images and interesting themes. Various distinctive details and themes show the conceptualization of the gods, representing their characteristics and features.
First, the theme of each passage is a kind of prediction and instruction for the chosen kings. In the Assyrian Prophecy, the goddess calls out to her prince, who will soon become a king. She assures the prince that he has nothing to fear because she will always be there for him and will lead him to the right goal. An interesting feature of this passage is how often affirmative sentences with the particle shall are used. Such proposals show the perseverance and confidence of the goddess in her prince. The same particle is used in other passages from the Jewish Bible, indicating the persistence of the speaker. However, the Book of Isaiah 45 uses the will particle, which shows the confidence of the prophet. He promises his chosen king that he will stop at nothing to protect him from misfortune.
Thus, the theme of each of the passages is the prophecy of the gods for the chosen kings. In their prophecies, the gods describe what measures they are willing to take to protect the chosen people and also promise them wealth and power. The conceptualization of the gods lies in their confidence, perseverance, and selflessness. Such distinctive features as statements and promises show how confident the goods are in people and their choices.
The Tower of Babylon is a structure built on the land of Babylon a certain time after the Deluge. This Biblical story is narrated in Genesis 11:1-9, and it aims at explaining the origin of the diverse human languages. The verses state that Babylonians intended to make a name for themselves by building a mighty tower whose top would touch the heavens. God was not happy about this plan, and He disrupted the plan by confusing the Babylonian’s languages, making it hard for them to understand each other. As a result, the building plans came to an end, and the workers could never finish the mighty city and the tower. The people then dispersed themselves to every corner of the earth, resulting in the different languages present in the world. This essay entails eight questions regarding the passage, which will focus on its content and context, and a brief write up of six sources addressing the questions.
The questions of interest regarding the Tower of Babylon are:
Which language did the people speak before the Tower of Babylon?
Does the story of Tower of Babylon belong to the science fantasy genre or the myth genre?
The people said to each other, “c”, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” “Why did they use bricks instead of stones?
God took action after He saw the tower that the people were building. Isn’t God omnipotent, meaning that He saw their initial plans? Why did He wait for them to build the tower and interrupt them?
Was the trinity involved during this time? Because God said, “let, us go down and confuse their language so that they will not understand each other.”
According to the history of events, people began building the Tower of Babylon about 300 years after the flood. Where Noah during was this time, and why wasn’t he preventing the people from forming a rebellion against God?
Following the history of events, Abraham might have been alive during this event because he was born 290 years after the flood. Why did he not prevent the people from building the tower?
Did the people’s cultures change, or was it only the languages?
This section entails different sources that cover the story of the Tower of Babylon, a summary of the author’s understanding of the passage, and how they address the questions highlighted in the previous section.
Modern Scholarly Commentaries
Cooley, Richie. The Tower of Babel: A New Translation and Commentary of Genesis 11: 1-9. Vol. 7. Richie Cooley, 2020.
This commentary offers an in-depth analysis of the story of the Tower of Babylon. He states that the events in Genesis 11 are different from those in Genesis 12 because the latter chapter is where the Bible introduces Abraham. The author states that Genesis 11 represents the original nature of human beings of sinning and trying to go ahead of God as Adam and Eve did. The story of the Tower of Babylon is a summation of all the events in the previous Genesis chapters after man tried to build a grand city, similar to the ideal paradise that God had created for Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. The author addresses where Noah was during the building of the Tower of Babylon. During this time, the people had gone back to sinning, and it seemed as if they had already forgotten the flood incident. The author states that Noah’s family was part of the people building the Tower of Babylon and therefore, the curse extended to them.
Richelle, Matthieu. “Was the Tower of Babel Really Left Unfinished? Genesis 11: 5 in Light of Hebrew Syntax, the Septuagint, and Jewish Reception.”
This commentary analyzes the Genesis 11 events by focusing on interesting ideas about the passage. The author’s understanding of the passage is that the Tower of Babylon was already complete before God caused the language mixture. Verse 5 states that “God came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.” The commentary states that some authors argue that the people had already completed building the tower, and they were in the process of building the city when God interrupted them. Matthieu answers the question of why the people used baked bricks instead of stones. He states that they used the baked bricks because they would last longer than stones, and this was a depiction of their permanence in the area and not spreading out to the whole world.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, un-creation, re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11. A&C Black, 2011.
This commentary analyzes the stories of Genesis from Chapter 1 to chapter 12. The chapters entail an unfolding of events and how the Tower of Babylon came to be. The author identifies a pattern in the stories, from how Adam and Eve lived in a paradise world until they disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. The author also notes a pattern that people follow in going against God’s will and God punishing them. Before the Tower of Babylon, God punished people by evicting and cursing Adam and Eve and sweeping them with the Noah’s flood. This commentary answers the question of why God waited for them to build the Tower for Him to interrupt. God did so because He gave them a chance to identify their mistakes and repent their sins. When they failed to do so, He punished them by mixing their languages and scattering them all over the earth. This shows that God does not prevent people from sinning.
Journal Article
Livskaya, Eugenia V., and Maria A. Konkova. “Mythopoetical Aspect of Ted Chiang’s Tower of Babylon Short Story.” “Modern European Researches 1 (2019): 49-52.
The article depicts the scientists’ understanding of the story of the Tower of Babylon. The authors use historical, comparative, and typological methods to explain how they understand the story of the Tower of Babylon. The authors analyze the mythopoetic aspect of the passage that, according to them, is a short story written by Ted Chiang. The authors compare this short story to the original Biblical story and use it to highlight the presence of postmodernism in both narrations. This journal article provides a connection between science fiction and historical myths. Therefore, it answers the question of whether the story is science fiction or a myth by stating that it has both aspects of science fiction and historical myths.
Dictionary Articles
Stander, H. F. features of patristic exegesis exemplified by the narrative of the Tower of Babylon (Gen. 11: 1–9).” “Acta Patristica et Byzantina 1, no. 1 (1990): 32-59.
This dictionary article focuses on Babylonia. The author states that Babylonia is an ancient cultural region found in Southeastern Mesopotamia, between Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Presently, the place is Southern Iraq, from the Persian Gulf to Baghdad. Babylon was the capital city of the area for many years, and therefore, the culture is referred to as Babylonian culture. This article answers the question of whether the peoples’ cultures changed after the change in languages. People had acquired the same cultures because they lived in the same area. When God dispersed them throughout the world, they adopted different cultures depending on where they settled.
Lundbom, Jack R. “Builders of Ancient Babylon: Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II.” “Interpretation 71, no. 2 (2017): 154-166.
This article focuses on two men who were the main builders of ancient Babylon, and they participated in the building of the Tower of Babylon. These men are Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II. Archaeologists found inscribed bricks among the ruins of the ancient Tower of Babylon that connected to these two builders. These men were known for building with baked bricks compared to stones because of their strong nature. These men guided the workers in how to build the tower and passed on their skills to many other men. If the plan to build the tower had been completed, the structure would have been strong and lasted for many years.
Conclusion
The story of the Tower of Babylon is interesting because it shows the relationship between God and His people. The passage also illustrates the original nature of human beings, of trying to outsmart God. This nature is present until today, when people try to invent things that go against God’s original plan. After reading the passage, several questions have arisen, and different authors have used their knowledge and understanding of the story to answer them. An examination of the different sources helped me understand the story more because they answered the questions that needed further clarification.
Bibliography
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, un-creation, re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11. A&C Black, 2011.
Cooley, Richie. The Tower of Babel: A New Translation and Commentary of Genesis 11: 1-9. Vol. 7. Richie Cooley, 2020.
Livskaya, Eugenia V., and Maria A. Konkova. “Mythopoetical Aspect of Ted Chiang’s Tower of Babylon Short Story.” “Modern European Researches 1 (2019): 49-52 Web.
Lundbom, Jack R. “Builders of Ancient Babylon: Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II.” “Interpretation 71, no. 2 (2017): 154-166. Web.
Richelle, Matthieu. “Was the Tower of Babel Really Left Unfinished? Genesis 11: 5 in Light of Hebrew Syntax, the Septuagint, and Jewish Reception.”
Stander, H. F. features of patristic exegesis exemplified by the narrative of the Tower of Babylon (Gen. 11: 1–9).” “Acta Patristica et Byzantina 1, no. 1 (1990): 32-59. Web.
Religion is part and parcel of the complex whole in any given social structure. Religion as a whole covers people’s belief systems, which enable members of society to adapt and survive in a given environment. Some people may believe in the existence of one god (monotheist) while others may believe in the existence of many gods as well as goddesses (polytheist). From polytheist, we derive polytheism which simply refers to a belief system whereby members of a society believe in or worship multiple supernatural beings.
These supernatural beings are either good or bad and do hold a special position in people’s day-to-day activities. They are worshiped and from time to time feasts or ceremonies are held in their honor. Polytheism is predominant in both the ancient Greek and Babylonian societies’ religions. Like many societies, Greek and Babylonian polytheism do share some common characteristics and they also portray a good deal of differences which will be outlined in this essay.
Common Features
To begin with polytheism as per my definition represents the presence of many gods in society and this is evident in the Greek society as well as among the Babylonians. The Greeks, for example, have gods and goddesses with names such as Athena, Zeus, Hera, and Apollo among many others while among the Babylonians we have Anu, Mardux, Kingu, Ishtar, and Ea among others. All these gods are united and they function together but they are not given the same treatment during feasts and ceremonies. This is due to the fact that some gods are seen as being more important than others although we all understand that they all fulfill the same purpose in society.
Johnstone (2004) points out that the Greek and Babylonian polytheism ‘know three spheres of dimensions of divine presence and religious experience.’ These three religious spheres are the cosmos, cult and political organization, and myth. Cosmos basically represents a system that is orderly and all the sub-parts of the system are in harmony with one another and they work together in addressing various societal problems. In the two societies, one can confidently say that the deities work closely in creating and maintaining the world of the people. This aspect expresses itself very well in the social and political structures of society. Among Babylon’s, we have Marduk while the Greek has Zeus.
Turning on to the cult and political organization the gods do participate in the political and governance structures of the societies. Johnstone (2004) argues that ‘town names are associated with a deity whose temple is the chief temple of that town.’ The Greek city Athens is associated with Athena which is a deity while the big city in Babylon is Marduk which also represents one of the deities among Babylon’s. Remember that the deities are worshiped and this makes the divinity ideology in the politics of this society become a cult. The deities receive cultic worship in terms of ceremonies as well as feasts that are celebrated by the people who dwell in the city because to them they represent the roles of a town lord or a lady who deserves and commands respect.
Myths on the other hand represent the personal or biographic aspect of the divine world (Johnstone, 2004). This basically means that at no one time can a person speak of one deity without mentioning other deities. This is due to the fact that although deities may be many and different they make up one body which enhances the survival of the society. In addition, Johnston points out that all these gods ‘live, act, and display their personalities and characters in interactions in relations to other gods.’ Thus from a look at the relationship of the deities in a society one can easily construct a lineage, i.e. we end up talking of a husband and wife, mother and daughter, father and son, brother and sister, etc.
To add more weight to this Lloyd-Jones (2001) reporting in the Proceedings of the American philosophical society gives us the myth of the ancient Greek which gives us a good example of the relationship that existed among the deities in ancient Greek. ‘Hera is the consort of Zeus ant the patroness of marriage, she is also the mother of craftsman’s god Hephaestus and of the war god Ares and she was not the mother of Athena the goddess of wisdom and Apollo.’ Tallon (2007) presents the case for the Babylonians. He points out that ‘The moon god Sin, was the son of Enkil, consorted with Ningal and fathered other god Ishtar, Shamash and Eris Kigali.
Differences
The Babylonian culture was more advanced compared to the Greeks and this is due to the fact that the Babylonians had well-documented evidence which gave hints into their gods and goddesses. Babylonians were very good at building structures and through archaeological excavations, a lot of information on deity worshipping has been obtained. King (2005) argues that ‘from the records of building operations, and from the votive tablets deposited in the temples, we gain much information regarding worship of the deities.’ The bible which is very well documented also gives us a good account of the Babylonian religion.
Among the Ancient Greek religion, written records on their religion are not many. Instead, they valued art and literature. Thus the Greeks had more emphasis on poetry and other forms of literature which is not recorded. The poetry work was passed on from one generation to the next and therefore the vital information on their deities could not be lost easily. Lloyd also points out that the Greeks ‘had no conception of soul, and there was no heaven for departed souls.’ Although there was no heaven or hell the ancient Greeks did obey their deities because failure to do was attracted contagion or pollution which called for a cleansing ceremony.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the ancient Greeks and Babylonians were polytheists; they did not believe in the existence of one Supreme Being. Their religions were characterized by the presence of many gods which were worshipped at different times. Although these gods and goddesses are not equal from society’s point of view they are important since the beliefs around them enable the society to address the problems which are beyond human comprehension. The two societies also share the same cosmic, political organization and myths in terms of their religious experiences even though they are totally different. The Babylonians had a more advanced culture in that written records could be traced easily while the Greeks had very well-detailed poems which carried all the information touching on their religions.
Work Cited
Johnstone, S. I. Religions of the Ancient World: A guide. New York: Harvard University Press, 2004.
King L. W. Babylonian Religion and mythology. London: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005.
Lloyd-Jones, H. (2001): Proceedings of the American Philosophical society: promoting useful knowledge (Volume.145, 4).
Orrreux, C. and Schmitt, P. A history of Ancient Greece. New York: Blackwell publishing company, 1999.
Tallon, J.: The scientific origin of God-a Response. New Zealand Science Review. Vol. 64 (2) 2007.
The Sumerian account of creation is founded on the polytheistic nature of its adherents and essentially holds that the universe was created through a complex intermingling of convenience, bad judgement, evil and twists of fate. On the other hand, the genesis creation myth revolves around the monotheistic nature of the Hebrews and Christians. Consequently, the manner, purpose and events in this creation story are founded on Yahweh God. Through a comparison of the two accounts, it shall be argued that the Genesis version is a more satisfactory account.
Comparison
The story of creation as found in Genesis is quite similar to the Sumerian creation account with regard to the scientific basis of both narrations. The Sumerians and Christians believed that the gods first started with energy through the creation of light and then followed this up with form as seen through creation of the planets, then that form was filled using land and water. Plants were the next item in the creation agenda and then the seasons followed this. Sea animals were next and then beasts that lived on the earth.
Man was the ultimate and final creation in both accounts (Dalley, 246). It can be stated that these versions of creation both make scientific sense because certain creatures would not have survived if they were created first. For instance, if light came before the plants, then the plants would lack a means of synthesising their own food and this would have made them extinct. Likewise, animals, came after plants so that they could feed on them. Both the Sumerian and the Genesis version had a fair degree of order and this testifies to the supremacy of their deity. These versions illustrate that the creation actions were scientifically plausible. However, the Sumerian version is less orderly and complex than the Genesis one.
Both accounts also allow for the possibility of interpreting the actions in separate ways. For instance, in the Genesis creation story, it is asserted that God created all things within seven days. However, scholars have debated this issue and asserted that the seven days could be interpreted to be longer than the normal 24 hour day as we understand it today. Christian scholars believe that in the eyes of God, time was defined differently meaning that one day could be one week and one week for man could one year to God.
Other interpretations of the Sumerian tale have also asserted that the gods discussed in the narrative are not actually real gods but are symbols for the major elements of the solar system like the sun, moon and the earth. Conversely, other scholars believe that these ‘gods’ as discussed in the Sumerian and hence Babylonian account of creation could also be the gods that were in charge of those heavenly bodies. In this regard, both creation accounts are quite similar in that certain insertions are more symbolic than factual (Wolkestein, 45).
The Sumerian and Genesis accounts are similar in terms of the creation of man. In Genesis chapter 2, it was asserted that man was made out of dust and God breathed into him. Similarly in the Sumerian account, it was asserted that man was made out of clay and water and the goddess of birth was responsible for fashioning him so that he could be a living creature.
In either creation account, there was the issue of a fall from glory for man or the creation of sin and evil in the world. In the Sumerian version, the gods Ninmah and Enki started out well because their intention was to create man so that he could be a servant to them. However, these gods let pride and selfishness get in the way and wanted to prove their supremacy over one another.
They started creating deformed creatures and it was as though those gods kept getting worse the more they let pride and ego get in the way. This represented the introduction of sin or evil in creation. Likewise, evil was also introduced in the Genesis creation story through such a way. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden and had been instructed not to eat fruits in the middle of the garden. However, because they let greed come in the way then sin became a part of their lives and they now had knowledge of good and evil. This was the beginning of their fall from grace as it occurred amongst the Sumerians.
Contrast
One of the most outstanding differences between the Epic creation (Sumerian version) and the Genesis version is the fact that there are multiple deities in the former and only one Supreme Being in the latter. In the Epic, there were a number of contributors to the creation of the universe and some of them included Apsu or the Sun, An (The sky deity), Ki (Mother earth) and Enlil (son of the sky God). It starts with the sea god called Nammu who was responsible for the birth of the heaven (An) and the earth (Ki). (Kramer, 39) However, her role in creation ended there when a child of the latter called Enlil separated heaven and earth.
More creations were done by other gods and goddesses such as Ninlil – air god and Enlil- wind god. Ninlil and Enlil then created Nana or the moon. As can be seen, this myth gives different roles and responsibilities to separate divinities thus forming a complex interrelation between parties. Conversely, the Christian or Hebrew version of creation focused on one sole divinity. He did not even get assistance from another creature- an aspect that would have undermined the greatness of this God. He was the one who separated light and darkness hence creating day or night, he created land and sea and man. Everything was done by God Yahweh thus denoting that the two stories were radically different.
It is also interesting to note that the manner of creation in the Sumerian account was fundamentally different from the Genesis one. Here, creation was sometimes done through the combination of two deities by birth, accident or some twist of fate. For instance, in the story of the creation of the moon, Enlil falls in love with Ninlil and seeks to seduce her. He wants to make love to her but Ninlil does not let him. Eventually, he follows her and rapes her. (Jacobsen, 174).
This leaves her with the pregnancy that eventually results in the birth of the moon – called Nanna. Such incidences are common throughout the Sumerian creation account and they illustrate that the process of creation was done randomly. In the Genesis, the manner of creation was quite distinct. It was carried out by Yahweh who used his spoken work to form everything except man. For example, in genesis chapter 1 verse 3, it is stated that: “God said, let there be light and there was day and night” on Genesis 1:9-10, he again used his spoken word to separate water from land by commanding each to gather in a different place.
He does the same on the sixth day when creating the animals because he commanded land to bring living creatures forward. Essentially, this illustrates that the manner of creation in the Christian version is one that revolves around Yahweh’s spoken word (Ury & Mortenson, 69). It is therefore more consistent and predictable than the Sumerian version. This manner of creation in the Genesis version illustrates why Christians look at all creation as one with them.
In other words, they have the responsibility for caring for other things in the universe because these were all created by one being who Yahweh is. This instates a duty of care among its adherents and hence allows for the creation of harmony between man and other creations. The same thing cannot be expected from adherents of the Sumerian version because creation was carried out by many different entities and in different ways so this separates the creatures (Feinberg, 105).
Perhaps one of the most central factors that differentiate the Genesis story from the Sumerian one is the significance of divine purpose in either story. In the Genesis version, it was God’s intention to bring in everything that filled up the earth; however the same may not be said of the Sumerian version. Here, most heavenly bodies, creatures and the like were created by accident, deviance or even as a means of solving particular problems. On the other hand, Christians believe that God intended to have the earth and the universe as it was. He knew what he had set out to do and this explains why he was very orderly in the creation process.
Man’s importance in the two creation accounts is significantly different. In the Sumerian version, man was created as a product of laziness of the gods. They just wanted a supply of food and man was the means with which they could achieve this. Jacobsen (154) explains that the gods initially were expected to till and work for their food. Nammu the sea god then tells her son Enki that they should go and create servants for them. He utilises water and clay to do so but then combines this with the efforts of womb goddesses who can eventually give birth to it.
The gods had a feast after making the new creation and took beer for their pleasure. They were happy about these efforts because they now knew that they could be relieved from the problem of fending for themselves. It was as though man was nothing more than a convenience to them or an afterthought. On the other hand, in the Genesis creation account, man was seen as the central creation. In fact, even the approach used by God to create him was different. While Yahweh had consistently used word of mouth to bring forth day and night, light and sea and plants and sea creatures, he altered this principle during the creation of man.
In the book of Genesis chapter 1, God created man in his image and his likeness and then told man to “go forth and multiply or fill the earth” (Genesis 1:26-28). In the second chapter of genesis, greater details have been provided about the creation of man. Here, it is stated that Adam was formed from dust and then placed in the Garden of Eden. However, woman was created in a slightly different way because she was formed from a rib in Adam’s body; she was supposed to be his helper. From these explanations, it is evident that there is indeed a very different approach towards the creation of man because he was central to the narrative (Smith, 21).
The manner in which the divinities were depicted in both tales is very different. In genesis, God was depicted as a flawless being that did not possess any negative attributes. On the other hand, in the Sumerian version, the gods would rape one another, drink beer or even indulge in unnecessary vices. In fact, during the creation story of man, the Epic version asserts that the gods wanted to illustrate their supremacy through man.
For example, Enki told Ninmah that he is capable of finding something for all disabled people to do. In a show of might, Ninmah creates a sexless person, a barren one and other deformed individuals (Woolley, 53). Enki responds to this challenge by finding a place for sexless persons in the king’s court and also by looking for another place in the singing industry for the blind man. He does this for all the other deformed creatures. This tussle or competition between the two divinities led to the creation of extreme and deformed human beings. In the end, the gods’ inability to exercise good values is what led to flaws in humanity.
Conclusion
The epic/ Sumerian account is random and seems to lack a general order about it. Heavenly bodies and creatures simply came up without any real meaning and this creates disunity between man and his environment. Also the motivation for creating man and the other creatures was quite feeble. Laziness, pride and twists of fate are really inadequate in convincing followers of the reason why they were created. On the other hand, the centrality of purpose and the uniqueness of man make the Genesis creation account a satisfactory version of creation.
Works Cited
Kramer, Samuel. History begins at sumer. NY: Anchor, 1959.
Jacobsen, Thorkid. Sumerian Poetry in translation. NH: Yale University press, 1987.
In every culture and era, death has been taken as an important period of human existence. This is characterized by the rituals, beliefs and items used during burial. The ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians also had their beliefs associated with death.
This is evidenced by the rituals and the items used during the funeral practices as pointed out in the excavations. Consequently, this paper intends to highlight the importance of the krater as a monumental marker in ancient Greece and the mummy mask as another item used in the burial rituals of ancient Egypt. It will also highlight the rituals and beliefs associated with the two items.
Hornung (7) indicates that the ancient Egyptians’ belief in immortality was the basic reflection of their richness of rituals. The goods and rituals, according to Hornung were necessary items that would prove useful in the afterlife of the dead person.
Similarly, the ancient Greek culture had an equally strong emphasis on the phenomenon of death. The rituals and beliefs associated with it led to the development of several practices that would clearly reflect the meaning of death in the culture. On the other hand, the burial rituals of the ancient Greeks in the period of 750BCE and 700BCE were affected by the age of geometry.
Most of the decorations on the items used during burial were designed to acquire some geometric form. The krater, for instance is one of the items used during burials. It was the monumental marker of graves during the 750BCE-700BCE.This vase was clearly decorated using geometric figures that depicted a ritual referred to as prothesis. The general presentation highlights a series of vertical and horizontal arrangements of geometric figures that, under close scrutiny, reflect a scene (Boardman 26).
The paintings on the krater depict a dead person laid on a bier. This farewell ceremony depicted on the vase shows the emphasis laid on burial by the ancient Greeks. For instance, they emphasized more on the deceased person’s life on earth and his relations. This is pictured in the paintings on the vase. Standing at the head of the bier is the priestess who is usually present to perform certain rituals that would assist the deceased to navigate in the two worlds.
At the foot of the bier is a woman seated on a chair with her feet rested on a three legged stool. On her lap she carries a baby. Probably, this is the deceased’s wife and a child. At the foot of the bier are two figures, one slightly larger. These are depictions of the other children of the deceased. Women are seen mourning by pulling their hairs. This was the original sign of morning in ancient Greece (Boardman 27).
The paintings on the krater also show some gifts and presents offered to the deceased. Under the bier are animals both four legged and two legged. These are sacrificial animals that are offered during the ceremony to ensure that the deceased gets a decent farewell.
The presents of swords or other paraphernalia offered during the ancient Greek burial ceremony is a clear projection of their belief in life after death. They strongly believed that lack of decent burial would lead ghostly haunts (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, para. 3). The ancient Egyptians also offered items to the deceased.
Contrarily, the items were not meant for a decent burial but as Malek (351) argues, for a comfortable life after death, the ancient Egyptians buried their deceased with certain goods that would assist them carry on with life. The most basic goods that accompanied the deceased were everyday utensils like comps, cups, bowls and several other useful trinkets. In addition to this, the deceased would also be given food that would be necessary for his afterlife.
The economic status of the deceased also dictated the amount of items to be available for burial. For instance, wealthy people were buried with jewelry, furniture and anything that would add value to life. This however became a great attraction to tomb robbers. It was this ritual that led to tombs of the early dynastic period to be filled with utensils of daily use and other valuable goods (Murnane 63).
On the other hand, the ancient Egyptian’s item of burial was the mummy mask. This was a mask that covered the head and chest of the deceased. It was worn on the head of the deceased which would originally be wrapped. This mask was made from wet linen that was glued together and a thin layer of plaster applied. Once hardened, it could be painted or gilded (The British Museum, para. 4).
Just like the krater in the Greek culture, the mummy mask also had several decorations that had meanings. The decorations were a clear reflection of the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians concerning the afterlife. First, the Egyptians believed that the dead would live again after burial.
They strongly believed that the spirit, also referred to as Ba, would leave the tomb time after time. The mummy mask would therefore be the only way that the returning spirit would recognize its body which has its face wrapped in bandages. The belief in reunion with Re, the sun god is further evidenced by the presence of a winged scarab beetle. This was a symbol of the sun god and would therefore act as an identifier that would assist the mummy reunify with Re. it also symbolizes the issue of resurrection (The British Museum, para. 3).
Behind the mask are other symbolic depictions that highlight the ancient Egyptians’ funerary practices and beliefs. There is a picture of a human headed bird. This is a symbolic representation of what they believed to be the aftermath of life. This was the symbol of Ba, the spirit that would resurrect.
Finally, there is the picture of a hawk whose wings are stretched out wide. This bird is a sign of protection. It represents Horus who protected his father Osiris. This would offer protection for the deceased in the afterlife. Typically, this falls within the beliefs that form the practices of the ancient Egyptians. Their basic belief was to ensure that the deceased enjoyed his afterlife and that he was well protected (Malek 354).
Furthermore, the mummy mask was coated with gold as a clear reflection of the belief that the mummy would be reunited with Re, the sun god. The gold coat would be a form of identification as the sun god Re was made up of a body of gold. The formation of the broad chest and raised relief at the collar provided space through which the funerary text would be placed. The funerary literature marks another ritual symbol used in ancient Egyptian burial ceremony.
Due to their profound belief in life after death, the ancient Egyptians believed that information on how to start life and carry on with it in the next world was necessary. As a result, they buried their mummies with what is referred to as the funerary literature. The information contained in the literature gave the mummy directions on how to navigate through to the next life. This information was kind of a secret that was never availed to other people but the Pharaoh during the 1st intermediate period.
However, the information started finding ways to other high ranking officials during the middle Kingdom before becoming necessary for all burials in the New Kingdom. In the 1st Kingdom, it was referred to as the pyramid text by scholars because it belonged to the Kings; it became the coffin texts in the Middle Kingdom before ending up as the Book of the dead in the new kingdom. The changes in names were also accompanied by changes in the content of the text.
The newer versions carried over the original spells but also had additional spells and slight changes. These books played important roles in the afterlife of the deceased. For instance, the pyramid text ensured that the pharaoh attained a royal resurrection and that there were no malignant influences in his afterlife (Murnane 45).
A distinct contrast in the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians is the destiny of the soul or spirit. The mummy mask contained a distinct wide open eye. This could be a clear reflection of their burial beliefs. It showed the mouth opening ceremony, another ritual involved in the preparation of a mummy in the ancient Egyptians’ burial. As mentioned earlier, the Egyptians believed in life after death.
They, therefore, wanted to ensure that the dead person would be able to perform his day to day activities in his life after death. The re-animation ceremony involved the mouth opening ceremony. This was a ritual conducted by a priest by touching the dead person’s mouth using a blade made of copper or stone also referred to as an adze. This practice was accompanied by utterance of certain words meant to cast a spell on the mummy.
The meaning of this ritual was to ensure that the dead person would be able to speak and breathe in his life after death. Apart from enabling the mummy to speak and breath, the priest also uttered some spells that would re-animate the dead person’s legs, arms and other body parts that are necessary for a normal performance in his life after death (Forman & Quirke 24). On the other hand, the Greeks believed in a decent burial.
It was only after a decent burial that the living would not be pestered by ghosts. As a result, the deceased had to be buried with closed eyes and mouth in order to ensure that the psyche would not leave the body before all the relevant rituals had been carried. They also believed that if the psyche left the body, it would meander between this world and the other world because it lacked enough information to guide it through the two worlds.
From both cultures, it is evident that both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians both believed in life after death. This is evident from the gifts that were accompanied by the deceased on his final farewell. However, we identify differences in the conception of the life after death.
In the Greek context, the dead, if not given a proper farewell would come back to haunt the living as evidenced in the feast of Anthesteria. This was a feast carried out every year that marked the chasing of ghosts. On the other hand, the ancient Egyptians do not believe in this. They believe that death was simply a transition period that enabled one to graduate from this life to life in the other world. As a result, they ensured that their deceased went away with adequate tools and utensils to ensure that their life was facilitated.
Works Cited
Boardman, John. Early Greek Vase Painting: 11th-6th Centuries BC. London: Thames and Hudson.
Forman, Werner and Quirke, Stephen. Hieroglyphs and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, London: British Museum Press, 1996.
Hornung, Eric. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Afterlife, Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1999.
Malek, Jaromir. Egypt: 4000 Years of Art. London: Phaidon Press.
Murnane, William J. The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. (2nd Ed) Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1996.
Overall, it is possible to argue that the philosophy of ancient Greece is mostly associated with the names of such prominent thinkers as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This paper is aimed at discussing their intellectual achievements in greater detail. One can say that these people laid the foundations of various important fields such as political science, education, epistemology, ethics, rhetoric, and so forth.
One should not suppose that the ideas expressed by these thinkers are always taken for granted. More likely, scholars discuss their works very critically. Nevertheless, each of them contributed to the development of philosophy. These are the main issues that should be discussed more closely.
At first, it is important to speak about Socrates. Modern people can learn about his life and work primarily through the writings of his pupils, especially Plato. Researchers believe that Plato could have changed or distorted some of Socrates’ ideas (Gill and Pellegrin 101).
One can say that he is famous for the so-called Socratic Method (Gill and Pellegrin 141). This approach is based on the premise that an educator should prompt pupils to display their critical thinking skills. In particular, a teacher may prompt a learner to re-evaluate the validity of arguments that many people take for granted. In order to achieve this goal, a teacher should ask a series of questions that enable a person to understand the nature of a certain claim or an argument.
This method was critical for the development of educational techniques that continue to be used nowadays. Furthermore, Socrates contributed to the development of epistemology. In particular, he continuously emphasized the limitations of human knowledge. Still, one should keep in mind that many of his real achievements remain unknown to modern scholars because Socrates did not leave any written works that could throw light on his ideas and convictions. This is one of the points that can be made.
Additionally, it is important to discuss Plato. On the whole, this thinker is renowned for introducing such a field as political science. One should mention that his book The Republic that raises significant questions about such notions as justice and the efficiency of different forms of government. Furthermore, Plato is certainly famous for establishing the so-called Platonic Academy where students could learn rhetoric and philosophy (Gill and Pellegrin 236).
Many of Plato’s students could play a prominent role in ancient society. To a great extent, this institution was the prototype of medieval universities (Gill and Pellegrin 236). Moreover, Plato contributed to the development of metaphysics. Overall, he highlighted the idea that the information derived through their people’s senses can often be misleading or even delusionary. Furthermore, Plato focused on the way in which knowledge could be produced.
He laid stress on the importance of dialectic. In particular, he was able to demonstrate that knowledge could be produced through the synthesis of ideas that could often be conflicting. This principle is widely applied by modern scholars. Certainly, Plato’s works have often been disputed by various thinkers such as Karl Popper; nevertheless, even his critics recognize the importance of Plato’s works and their influence on philosophy as well as politics. This is one of the aspects that can be identified.
Finally, one should focus on the works of Aristotle. It is possible to say that he was a very versatile individual who was interested in different fields of study. At first, one should mention that Aristotle laid the foundations of logic (Gill and Pellegrin 245). In particular, he was able to show how a valid argument had to be structured. Additionally, Aristotle outlined the principles of rhetoric. In particular, one can mention the use of appeals to reasoning, emotions, and credibility.
Apart from that, this thinker contributed to the development of political thought in the ancient world. In addition to that, Aristotle outlined the principles of literary criticism. In his works, Aristotle focused on such notions of plot structure and character development. Apart from that, Aristotle was interested in the development of natural sciences such as physics. Certainly, many of his ideas were later refuted, but they provoked extensive research.
Finally, Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great who was greatly influenced by the ethical and intellectual principles outlined by this philosopher. Thus, one should not suppose that Aristotle’s works did not have any practical implications. He was an intellectual leader whose ideas could shape the attitudes and decisions of political leaders. These are some of the issues that should not be overlooked.
On the whole, this discussion indicates that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle significantly contributed to the development of different fields such as philosophy and education. Certainly, many of the ideas that they introduced were later elaborated and disputed by scientists and philosophers who could employ more complicated research methods and analytical techniques.
Nevertheless, their importance was recognized by intellectuals, who could represent different societies and cultures. This is why their works are studied in modern universities. These are the main details that can be distinguished.
Works Cited
Gill, Mary and Pierre Pellegrin. A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Print.
Suffering has been conspicuous in human race for centuries. In fact, every human being has suffered in one way or another. Suffering crisscrosses all cultures of humankind. Suffering has no limit. To some people, it is part of life while to others it is a punishment from the gods. Besides, to some people it acts as a corrective measure while to other it acts as evil.
Different people from diverse cultures define suffering in variant ways. However, the processes they undergo during suffering tend to converge. This paper will explore the theme of suffering in the ancient, Roman and Greek periods (Steiner, 1906, p. 1).
Suffering
Every human finds him/herself facing suffering. It comes with or without invitation. Suffering may come as a warning figure or as an enigmatic one. Suffering has troubled man since the beginning of the world. Based on different views, religious sectors have believed that suffering started with the sin of Adam in the garden of Eden. On the other hand, others have believed that it began with man once he came into being.
However, one convergence is that suffering has formed part of human race ever since. Ancient people experienced suffering as well as the modern ones. In this regard, suffering has traversed humankind. Whenever people try to value life, they find it necessary to consider the input of suffering in it.
Suffering has been considered as the eradicator of peace. Moreover, it has also been considered as a damper of hope and pleasure. However, it is necessary to note that world and cultural developments have worked to reduce human suffering (Reisinho, 2012, p. 1).
Ways in which suffering is mirrored
Ancient stories tell of individuals who suffered from many issues, which affected their physical conditions. Among these included Cicero and Philoctetes who experienced despair and depression in their public and private lives. Archeologists have also managed to prove conditions of suffering in the ancient worlds.
They have unleashed a number of personal as well as environmental factors that contributed to suffering in ancient times. These included torture, mental anguish and depression, social and political oppression, physical handicap and chronic illnesses, among others. Notably, suffering was highly prevalent in ancient world since they experienced tyrannies, poor infrastructure, and mythical cultural aspects.
Suffering in Greek society was interpreted in many ways. For instance, Aeschylos, a tragedian saw it as a way of acquiring knowledge in ancient Greek. In essence, he saw it as something that brings both the benefit and detriment. In fact, Greek philosophers believed that suffering was experienced deeply by people who valued life.
Moreover, Selenus found it wise for a man not to be born since it only brought him/her suffering. However, influence from religion also made some Greeks to accept suffering as part of life since sin, evil and suffering are bound together (Reisinho, 2012, p. 1).
It can also be noted that in the ancient western culture, suffering was seen to result from a defective universe. In this regard, some theorists in that era thought that the universe had a defective nature and thus an evil quality. For instance, Hippocrates believed that this defective nature of the universe came about due to the differences between qualities and elements of space. On the other hand, Christians believed that suffering came from original sin.
Still, other theorists like Manichees believed that suffering came about because the creator made derisory work by the creator he believed to be a demiurge. Again, others like Stoic refused to acknowledge the existence of suffering. Furthermore, Galen and Aritole believed that suffering was felt by an emotional soul. In essence, the ancient, Greek, and Roman periods understood suffering in divergent ways ranging from discipline to defect, among others (Pilch, 1990, p. 1).
Similarity and Differences Between Suffering in Ancient and Suffering in Modern World
It can be noted that in all cases suffering was seen as evil in some quarters of the ancient world as is seen today. For instance, just as Hippocrates believed that it came because of defects in the universe, the modern world (which has grown to be materialistic) believe that people undergo suffering because of inadequacy in their efforts.
Another similarity is evident in Rene Descartes’ argument that suffering could be good. This sentiment is shared by Aeschylos, who believed that suffering helped people to acquire knowledge. Religious world has not changed extensively as they share a common believe that through perseverance in suffering they will overcome evil.
However, the contrasts have also risen over suffering. For instance, modern world oversaw the separation of body from Saul, in the process, categorizing suffering with the physical body. This was not common in the ancient world. Furthermore, Leibniz managed to make a distinction between bodily and ethical evil. In this regard, suffering was classified with physical evil as opposed to the ancient times when there was no separation (Reisinho, 2012, p. 1).
Conclusion
Suffering has been understood with mixed reaction in humankind. While some sections have denied its existence, others have accepted it. On the other hand, those who have accepted it have also differed on its origin, ways of mitigation, and reason for being. However, religion has played a central role in it understanding among other faithful. In addition, philosophers have also made steps in their discovery of its workings (Fiero, 2011, p. 15).
References
Fiero, G. K. (2011). The humanistic tradition, Book 1: The first civilizations and the classical legacy (6th. Ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Pilch, J. (1990). How We Redress Our Suffering: An Exercise in Actualizing Biblical Texts. Web.
Reisinho, E. (2012). Life Is Cruel: Pain and Suffering. Web.
Buddha’s or Confucius ideas are the religious teachings according to the Siddhartha Gautama that occurred starting from 566 and 486 before Christ. People during that period called Gautama Buddha to define his ideas of awakening people from the traditional beliefs (Simon 98).
The ideas of Buddha consisted of much knowledge on the happenings and the wisdom to shape peoples ways of life. According to the Buddha, the middle way was an important aspect if people practiced and emphasized on it. This essay people will be focusing on the ideas that were common between the Buddha and the ancient Greek thinkers, and also their differences. His awakening call had some similarities with the traditional Greeks, and in some cases they differed.
One major issue was the life after death, and the two philosophers Plato and Aristotle had some similarities and differences concerning that issue. Plato was known as one of the most honoured philosophers and he was a student of Socrates. During his time, Aristotle was his student in philosophy.
Plato used theories that existed before his time and brought them together to develop some ideas concerning his main concern that was the human soul (Sahni 102). Plato wanted to advance the peoples ways of thinking especially the culture of reducing human soul into fire or atoms.
Plato was a serious spiritualist who emphasized much on the human soul. As far as the soul and the body were concerned Plato believed that these two were distinct parts that only worked together during the life time of an individual. Plato emphasized on the fact that the soul was the most important part of a human being, and that is why he used to define the soul as “self initiating motion”.
The soul being the source of motion, Plato insisted that the body is supposed to rely on the soul for directions and ideas. In other words, Plato said that the soul is what any human being is, and it stays inside a person just waiting for it time of release. Plato said a person is what he or she is just because of the soul inside him or her.
As far as the body and the soul interacted, Plato also commented on the things that the soul could be influenced by the work or the actions of the body. In his famous work referred to as republic, Plato talks about the body physical exercises, and created some types of opposition on some music due to their negative impacts on the soul (Nakamurai 432).
To some extent, although Plato regarded body and the soul as separate, he also knew that there was an interaction that existed between the soul and the body before death of a person but in a shallow manner.
In his famous work of republic, Plato tried to compare the work of a human body with that of a city-state. He explained that people involve themselves with the same functions, and show some features, and contain the same features just like a big city. Plato used this example to demonstrate how complex the body of a human being is. The body of a human being is made up of various parts with each part playing a different role.
He gave an explanation of how someone gets contrary ideas from when deciding to make a certain decision. In his teachings, Plato gave a wide explanation of the three types of souls that he believed existed in a human being. First he taught about the rational soul, which he believed its location was in the head, he then talked of spirited soul that is found in the breast, and finally the appetitive soul found in the abdomen (Sriwarakuel 211).
Aristotle had also his views concerning the soul of a human being. According to the Aristotle, the soul was also very crucial to all living things not necessarily the human beings. In his expressions of ideas, Aristotle emphasized much on the psychological effects and metaphysics. Aristotle was not only concerned about the soul of a human being but the souls of all the living things like he plants, and the animals.
He explained that both the plants and the animals exist because they have souls. In his studies and application of philosophies, three types of substances such as the matter that was well expressed as the potentiality of the living things, form that meant the actual status of something, and finally the combination of both the form and the matter mainly concerned Aristotle.
Relating this theory to the human beings, Aristotle said that the body is not life “it’s the soul that has life”, and hence the body just acts as a matter to he soul. This qualifies the soul to be the major act of the body (Cooper 58).
The major factors in Aristotle’s view of the soul were four and started with the formal cause of something, the efficient cause, the material and the final cause. Aristotle compares the body and the soul with the maters that are separable. Although the body exist because of the potentiality of the soul both of them are separable according to the Aristotle.
The Buddhists and the ancient Greeks have a common idea of believing that there was a presence of a soul in a human being and it was the most important part of a human being. For the human beings to exist, the power and the motion was the soul. Another major idea that they all shared in common was the fact that the soul had different noticeable levels, in which level was a different faculties (Joseph 102).
The soul according to them had some parts with a higher capacity of reasoning than the rest and that is why any human being was encountering some doubts when in the process of making a certain decision.
As for matters concerning the soul and the life after death, Buddhist had some differences in ideas with those of the ancient Greeks. Although both believed on the existence of souls, Buddhists believed that the soul pre-existed while on the other hand, Aristotle did not believe on the pre-existence of the soul. Another major difference in ideas of Buddha and that of ancient Greeks was about the after life of the soul.
The ancient Greeks believed there was no more than the burning of the soul after death and breaking it to the fire, as it does not have much value. The Buddhist idea about the soul after death was quite different as his religious teachings insisted about the life after death, and the soul had to undergo some processes of judgement for the both things that were done by it and the body.
Another major idea of both the Buddhists and the ancient Greeks is their ethics. In the Aristotle book of metaphysics, he expressed many theories of ethics and politics (Gier 97). According to him, he expresses that there is need for justice, friendly relationships, and communal gatherings the same way as for the goodness of knowledge. Much of the Aristotle’s theory of ethics described men as social animals, who requires to interact and share with others to make his life complete.
Human beings as social animals also need to enjoy their lives and the benefits of living together according to the Aristotle. The human kind is explained as a race that requires training on the behavioural factors by Aristotle to shape their lives. When human beings are trained to adapt to certain behaviour when they are still young, they have a big impact in their future lives than when they learn when they are still old (Yuanghei 107). Behaviours learnt at an early age are better and more encouraging according to philosopher Aristotle.
Moreover, the Buddhists ideas concerning the ethics in human nature had some similarities and differences with that of Aristotle. They both believed that the content of our humanity has the capability of producing both the virtues and the vices.
Both the Buddha and the Aristotle explains the importance of the human beings undergoing some form of training and education to shape their ethical values at their late ages (Bartley 290). The major difference of the Buddha ethics and that of Aristotle is that the Buddha links moral values interdependently.
Aristotle tries to link the moral values, meditation, and the insight as one aspect to be involved in human race to create a path for spiritual movements. Buddha has a special moral ethics of compassion and a culture of meditation if any human being is in need of leading a good life full of awakening factors. The ethics of Buddha are full of moral values to waken humankind from their past believe that they had inherited from the ancient Greeks.
The major differences that existed between the Buddha and the ancient Greeks concerning the moral ethics were that the Buddha had a metaphysics, which was more complicated than that of Aristotle and tried to give people a more developed basis of practicing ethics.
The Buddha ideas were morals of one living several lives in one model, but on the other hand, Aristotle insisted on developing an individual capability throughout his or her one life (Nakamurai 345). Any person practicing virtues in his or her life would practice the wisdom required for responsible enough and adhere to the morals of the society.
Buddha appealed most of his ethics on the daily loving and kindness that every individual is supposed to express to his fellow human beings. According to Buddha, the word virtue was explained as an individual letting go of all his or her self-esteem through the efforts of trying to exercise the mediation, moral values, and the best use of ones brains.
This is a clear explanation of someone in a metaphysical world, which advises the readers to disintegrate the subject, object, and be the only determinant of how one is thinking and experiencing (Sahni 86).
Buddha needed the human beings to shape their world by each individual taking into consideration that he or she is part of the world in his or her actions and body functions like breathing. Aristotle’s ethical views were very different as he took a societal dimension in a manner that one cannot determine or plan for his or her excellence, as there are no limits to measure the level of excellence.
Excellence according to Aristotle is not something that can be thought and be dealt with all the time, because it depends more with the society and not the individuals (Pioneai 113). Having the major factors as the society to determine the overall excellence of an individual, it becomes hard for any individual to come up with their own factors of goodness and welfare.
Aristotle mainly considered the whole society to be the major determinant of individual’s welfare, and the Buddha knew that every person had an obligation of making his or her world to be full of happiness and excellence.
There are major similarities that were seen to exist between the Buddha ides of ethics and that of the ancient Greeks. To some extent, the moral ethics of the two were almost alike as they were based on the same ground.
The ethics of Buddha and for the ancient Greeks were base3d on moderation, whereby Aristotle through his mean doctrine, and Buddha through the doctrine of middle way come together and form teleological moral values (Simon 58). According to these ancient Greeks ideas of ethics, they believed that for anyone to enjoy a good life, he or she must practice the ways of virtue and no any other way.
For people to understand the ways of virtue, they have to rely on the teleological background for both cases. The human beings in both cases have to believe in their conception of a certain nature that would help them to determine their intended goals and perspectives that marks their end (Gier 114).
For both Buddha and the ancient Greeks, it was clear that the application of virtues in human beings lives is a mark for the right path to be followed in achieving the life objectives. Through ignoring, the use of virtues may result in many barriers on the way of attaining the objectives and one may finally not reach the intended destination. The life of virtues has a lot to offer in terms of happiness and fulfilment; it affords better things that an ordinary person who is practicing vices cannot afford.
The terminal of the Buddha invites people to come for drastic change of human nature through serious mental and physical training full of morals as well as exercising the compassionate love (Bartley 102). This would be possible if one will escape from the hardships brought about by karmic regeneration in the process of existence.
The final and most successful release will result from people letting go of all their self-esteem to practice the moral values. For the human beings to perfect their lives there should be application of successful meditation and practice of moral values in continuous manner toward the end of attaining the goals and marking the end of a human being.
For both the Buddha and the ancient Greeks, there were derived some common ethical lessons through the explanations of their ideas. Through their ideas there was a lesson to the parents, as they are the primary source of the moral education to their children (Yuanghei 112). The parents’ were left with an obligation of passing the message to their children of being good by knowing what is good to be practiced, and at the same time doing good for the sake of their future lives.
Another moral lesson from both the Buddha ideas and those of old ancients was directed to the formal education facilitators for instance teachers. It is also an obligation of the teachers in schools and other social gatherings to pass the message to the children about ethical values. The moral development in children is a continuous path, starting from home to the schools and other places where they meet with their peers. Teachers have a professional obligation of teaching the children, but they still need to take care of their moral values.
Although both the Buddha and the ancient Greeks used different ways of explaining that moral ethics would not be considered as the specific science that people look for, they made efforts of giving the guidelines of how people can apply the morals in their lives, especially the young generation in schools. Human beings now have clear guidelines on hoe to apply the ethics in their normal lives especially when about to make a serious decision.
Unlike the Buddha’s ideas, most of the ancient Greeks believed in pluralism, whereby the things that are found in the world are made up of different atoms. They claimed those tiny things known as atoms (Gier 96) make up all the living and the non-living things in the world.
Another thing that they believed and differed a lot with the ideas of Buddha is about the animism, this is whereby they claimed that both living and non-living things have a soul inside. The ancient philosophers had another idea about the reality of the world that was completely different from that of Buddha.
According to them, the reality is aspects that that should live forever and should never change (Sahni 84). To their arguments they added that our experiences that we get in our world are never real as they keep on changing, this was completely different from the ideas of Buddha who knew that our worldly experiences were very real and they were bound to changes as the world also changes. The dynamic changes of the world according to Buddha were as real and acceptable like the reality of the existing human beings.
The views of the Buddha and that of the two great Greek philosophers had some similarities and differences. Buddhists ethics were known to be full of humanity and on personal grounds just like the ideas of the ancient Greeks. Most of the ethical lessons learnt from Buddha were very similar to the ones by Aristotle. The major difference between the Confucius idea with that of the ancient Greeks was that the ancient Greeks concentrated more on the inside part of the soul and the Confucius ideas of virtue concentrated on interpersonal relations ( Simon 107).
The morals that were found in the Buddha’s moral lessons were mainly on the virtues, characteristics of human beings, and the moral values meant to guide people in the society. According to Buddha’s ideas, the interpersonal; relationship that existed among the individuals had a great impact to the peoples lives. As far as one was advised to practice moral virtues in his or her deeds, it was also important to relate with one another well.
Works Cited
Bartley, James. The ancient Greeks Philosophies. Michigan: Routledge, 2007.