Re: You're right and wrong. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 11/03/2012 12:34:47 AM
Also: good post. Hee.
I think generally speaking you're quite correct in your points about Iconoclasm in the Judeo-Christian tradition prefiguring many of the most prominent contemporary atheist arguments, and it's interesting to see just how prominent and widespread they are in the bible. A girlfriend in a college told me that she thought Abraham was the first Philosopher in positing a one supreme god as a ground of being(s), and I find very little to dispute in that statement, and in yours, except for one point. The notion of "first" and in your case "earliest" examples are not exactly correct.
I think generally speaking you're quite correct in your points about Iconoclasm in the Judeo-Christian tradition prefiguring many of the most prominent contemporary atheist arguments, and it's interesting to see just how prominent and widespread they are in the bible. A girlfriend in a college told me that she thought Abraham was the first Philosopher in positing a one supreme god as a ground of being(s), and I find very little to dispute in that statement, and in yours, except for one point. The notion of "first" and in your case "earliest" examples are not exactly correct.
It comes down to Sumer, whose foundational role in Western civilization was largely forgotten with knowledge of its language, until the latters relatively recent rediscovery. I once had an English professor who essentially argued all Western narratives are just recapitulations of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but if there is nothing new under the sun, every thought had an origin, however ancient. Whether or not Abraham or Gilgamesh are more than mythical figures, they embody Sumerias seminal role in contributing many of Western monotheisms (at least) 4000 year old fundamental principles.
Abrahams own founding role in the three great Western religions is inextricably linked with his place in the Wests founding civilization. Unfortunately, most reassessment I have seen of Abraham and Judeo-Christian literature through that lens consists of fringe conspiracy theories that homo sapiens and Sumeria are both products of extraterrestrial genetic engineering. Many seem to feel interstellar contact with ancient Earth more plausible than divine contact, but that ultimately just replicates rather than resolves the problem, dulling rather than applying Occams Razor.
Anyway, I think you're pretty correct in your statements, but the thing is a lot of similar bursts of both 1) iconoclasm and) ontology happened around the same time, between 600-400 BCE. Certain scholars call this the inception of the "Axial Age". I'll cite two examples in the Indian and Greek traditions.
I had not consciously considered an ontological-iconoclastic link, but in retrospect it is rather unavoidable. The transitory passive nature of created objects argues any deity requires a more robust transcendant nature.
Indian
As far as I can tell (not very far), the bible was composed between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. This also, incidentally, is the exact same time period given for the life of Siddhartha Gautama and the inception of Buddhism. Hinduism (some parts? there's some question as to how unified it is) is in fact theistic religion in a lot of ways, furnishing proofs and analyses of their own Prime Mover that they identify as Ishvara. Buddhism is mainly remembered as attacking the notions of karma, reincarnation, and caste, but it also dealt a massive blow the overarching theism present in the typical Hindu religion. The result was a number of schools of Indian philosophy reacting directly against typical buddhist atheist arguments for the next 800 years or so. The Nyaya and Vaisheka schools stand out most particularly, both giving interesting proofs for a prime mover of sorts.
It's also worth noting that even prior to Buddhism, around 700-600 BCE, the Upanishads were written and the Vedanta school of Hindu Philosophy was established. The latter tradition tended to search for a unified (or dual for some schools) ground for all beings, with heavy emphasis on consciousness. These traditions are where the Atman is Brahman sayings come from. I'd think such a thing qualifies as iconoclastic, and ontological.
As far as I can tell (not very far), the bible was composed between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. This also, incidentally, is the exact same time period given for the life of Siddhartha Gautama and the inception of Buddhism. Hinduism (some parts? there's some question as to how unified it is) is in fact theistic religion in a lot of ways, furnishing proofs and analyses of their own Prime Mover that they identify as Ishvara. Buddhism is mainly remembered as attacking the notions of karma, reincarnation, and caste, but it also dealt a massive blow the overarching theism present in the typical Hindu religion. The result was a number of schools of Indian philosophy reacting directly against typical buddhist atheist arguments for the next 800 years or so. The Nyaya and Vaisheka schools stand out most particularly, both giving interesting proofs for a prime mover of sorts.
It's also worth noting that even prior to Buddhism, around 700-600 BCE, the Upanishads were written and the Vedanta school of Hindu Philosophy was established. The latter tradition tended to search for a unified (or dual for some schools) ground for all beings, with heavy emphasis on consciousness. These traditions are where the Atman is Brahman sayings come from. I'd think such a thing qualifies as iconoclastic, and ontological.
Indian philosophical thought strikes me as a mostly independent parallel development, but its antiquity and Western proximity make it hard to distinguish what originated where. If East met West in Mesopotamia, West met East in India, which is historically documented at least as far back as Alexander. Hinduism consequently evolved an amazingly diverse eclectic character over millennia, in which panentheism, pantheism, animism, polytheism, agnosticism and monotheism can each find a home in one sect or another. Hinduism as a whole might be called the ultimate agnostic religion, allowing room for virtually any spiritual belief.
I must note in passing that I am not aware of explicitly or actively atheist Buddhist positions. That may be merely my ignorance, but my understanding has always been that Buddhism argues (much as the first logical positivists did) that whether any deities exist is a fundamental unknowable and therefore practically irrelevant question. There is a critical difference between saying inaccessible deities may well exist and saying no deities can exist. Obviously that distinction can be lost (as it often has been in later generations of logical positivists) but represents a basic misunderstanding of the core philosophy rather than a development of it.
Greek Philosophy
The second and perhaps more relevant case is that of the Ancient Greek tradition of Philosophy. Socrates was born in 469 and died in 399 BCE. But actually more interesting philosophers for our purposes are what nowadays called the PreSocratic Philosophers. The most prominent one relevant to this discussion is a man named Xenophanes of Colophon, who was born around 540 BC and and lived to almost a hundred, reputedly. His best known verses were attacks on the typical Homeric theology of personal polytheism, which he thought nonsense: "But mortals suppose that gods are born, wear their own clothes, and have a voice and body. Ethiopians say their gods are snub-nosed and black; Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired." It was fairly revolutionary, and it carried all the way to Socrates', who in Plato's Apology, was executed for atheism for arguing against this received view of the Gods.
Ontology is also very present in the Presocratic philosophers. Xenophon was reputed to be a Spinoza-like Monist, however that's less well-documented I think. His most prominent student, though, was Parmenides of Elea, who was the first Greek to explicitly single out "το ον" or "Being". He posited that Being was One and Unchanging, and Nothingness quite impossible. He also was the first to explicitly make reference to the distinction between Truth and Illusion, or the way of truth and the way of appearance. The earliest Ontological statement, though, if I recall correctly (and this is according to Heidegger, so) is from Anaximander, who posited Void as the substratum and origin of all things, which "must return to the void according to justice" or something like that.
The second and perhaps more relevant case is that of the Ancient Greek tradition of Philosophy. Socrates was born in 469 and died in 399 BCE. But actually more interesting philosophers for our purposes are what nowadays called the PreSocratic Philosophers. The most prominent one relevant to this discussion is a man named Xenophanes of Colophon, who was born around 540 BC and and lived to almost a hundred, reputedly. His best known verses were attacks on the typical Homeric theology of personal polytheism, which he thought nonsense: "But mortals suppose that gods are born, wear their own clothes, and have a voice and body. Ethiopians say their gods are snub-nosed and black; Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired." It was fairly revolutionary, and it carried all the way to Socrates', who in Plato's Apology, was executed for atheism for arguing against this received view of the Gods.
Ontology is also very present in the Presocratic philosophers. Xenophon was reputed to be a Spinoza-like Monist, however that's less well-documented I think. His most prominent student, though, was Parmenides of Elea, who was the first Greek to explicitly single out "το ον" or "Being". He posited that Being was One and Unchanging, and Nothingness quite impossible. He also was the first to explicitly make reference to the distinction between Truth and Illusion, or the way of truth and the way of appearance. The earliest Ontological statement, though, if I recall correctly (and this is according to Heidegger, so) is from Anaximander, who posited Void as the substratum and origin of all things, which "must return to the void according to justice" or something like that.
I did a little more online reading after we discussed this, and it seems probable Hebrew ontological and iconoclast arguments (slightly) predate even pre-Socratic ones. There are competing archaeological schools of analysis, but the prevalent view in all but a few schools is that the Torah, as well as Joshua, Judges, I&II Samuel and I&II Kings, were first written at some point in the century or so following the 8th Century Assyrian conquest of Israel, as a result of politics in Judah and the natives comingling with Israelite refugees. The clearest and strongest ontological arguments (such as "I am 'I AM'") mostly lie there, while the purely iconoclastic arguments are mostly in the Prophets, whose chronology ranges from the 8th Century (most notably Isaiah, which is rich in iconoclasm) to the 6th (or even 5th in a couple cases.)
The critical point is the Tanakh (with significant exceptions in Jeremiah and Daniel) was extant in written form prior to the 586 BC fall of Jerusalem and destruction of Solomons Temple. While it is worth noting significant post-Exilic revisions are widely acknowledged, that "pre-pre-Socratic" date is generally accepted. Calling that a pivotal era is almost understatement; not only did it initiate the Greek Golden Age, the Fall of Jerusalem perfectly coincides with the Babylonian emergence of monotheistic Zoroastrianism. While Daniel is generally considered a 2nd Century BC pseudoepigram, it is hard to imagine TWO distinct monotheists in the polytheistic Babylonian court, and Josephus claims Alexander was presented with a copy of Daniel (and its famous prophecy of Alexander) upon Alexanders 4th Century arrival in Jerusalem. Many Christians (myself included) consider the MOST pivotal event of that era Daniels prophecy dating the Messiahs arrival five centuries after the order to restore Jerusalem and its temple (there seem to have been several such orders, but the text is generally agreed to refer to the Edict of Cyrus ca. 530 BC.)
Anyway, we see two almost exactly parallel traditions of both iconoclasm and ontology, which is good evidence for something like the Axial age. Undoubtedly they eventually cross-pollinated each other, but I don't know really quite how much. It's definitely unclear what came first. In fact, my guess is that the thoughts had been around for some time and it simply took a while to get them written down. One mediary between the Jewish monotheism and the Greeks could in fact be the Egyptians, and I'm sure that Xenophanes was influenced by them. I'm not sure how to fit Akhenaton into things, but he's certainly, certainly a fascinating contemporary (or predecessor? Need to read a bit more) to the Jewish tradition.
Well, that is the problem with innovative philosophies in ancient cosmopolitan cultures: Tracing a particular source among the myriad millennia dead possibilities is almost to accomplish with any certainty, further complicated by oral traditions frequently existing for centuries before being recorded. Cross-pollination IS all but certain, facilitating the spread of both Christianity and Gnosticism (where ontology and iconoclasm were as integral, if less militant, as in Judaism and Christianity.) Akhenaton merits a thread of his own, because once again, the popular contention the Pentateuch was, like Daniel, a fictional retcon makes the monists pharaohs presence at almost exactly the moment the bible claims Joseph arrived in Egypt an odd coincidence.
Anyway, that's all for now. Please forgive the inevitable typing errors and lack of citations or full quotes. I haven't been able to refine this with a computer proper. Anyone who's more interested in anything or wants quotes I will discuss happily until you are tired of it!
No worries; if this were a dissertation I would edit far more as well.
And to paraphrase Fat Tony Damico, "I don't get tired; I get wordy...." 