The Notre Dame Fire

Cassius Liantinis never said that he was an Epicurean. He was more as an eclectic, for this sometimes his views are controversial like Nietzsche's. Liantini's admiration was for Ionian philosophers, for Nietzsche, for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and not for Epicurus especially. But for Epicurus and his philosophy, he had pointed out some good things, but he did not study epicurean philosophy as a whole like you and me, and many others.

I found this post to FB in many greek profiles of my friends.

The area that is now «Notre Dame» was an island, and on top of it was built the temple of Zeus Carneus by Tiberius Caesar Augustus. It was then the center of the French-Romans. For to visit the temple there were sailors with boats who carried the pilgrims and protected the Temple. Then Paris was called by Romans Lutetia.  A column that was found writes : "To Zeus Carneous, Carnous" for the Celts.

In 1710, during the construction of a crypt underneath the temple of «Notre-Dame», a column dedicated to Zeus with the foundations of a Roman temple that was dedicated to Zeus. This was first published by Baudelot de Dairval in 1712. /http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/.../baudelot-de-dairva..., and testifies the excavation.
The column is dated by a dedication of the Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar August who took over his emperor in year 14.
The Roman temple was dedicated to Zeus and existed there before the advent of Christianity.

The column of the temple is called "the column of sailors" of Parrasia or Parisias.
The column says:
TIBerio CAESARE
AVGvsto IOVI OPTVMO
MAXSVMO
NAVTAE PARISIACI
PVBLICE POSIERVNT
"During the reign of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, to the High and Great Jupiter,
the Parisian sailors raised this column with public money.

The origin of the French Parisians comes from a breed known as the Parrasians who were people of Arcadia. The 15th-century Italian humanist and poet John Baptist Mantuanus writes that: the Parrasians, who led from a place of Arcadia by Hercules, came to France, where they settled and gave to the nation the name of Paris.
With the advent of Christianity, the temple of Zeus was destroyed and to its place Christians built 4 temples before «Notre-Dame».

GOOD GRIEF ! https://www.facebook.com/groups/Epicure…29058483809767/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoNa-nNOY18

From a tv show and at 40.40 minutes there is a remarkable excerpt of a conversation between the journalist Mr. Pantelis Savvides and the Dean of Theology at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki Mr. Miltiades Konstantinou.

- Μr. Konstantinou: Whoever reads the gospels will notice carefully that all the discussions that Christ does with the theologians of his era are on this: who is the true Israelite…

- Mr. Savvidis: Who is?

- Mr. Konstantinou: He who truly respects the Law of God. And Christ always gives his own interpretation in all these conversations every time. Therefore, here comes Christ saying: I tell you the authentic interpretation of the Law (of God).

- Mr. Savvidis: So, Christianity is a continuation of Judaism...

- Mr. Konstantinou: An evolution of Judaism ... yes, from somewhere it starts ...

- Mr. Savvidis: That is, Christianity is a development of the Judaism…

- Mr. Konstantinou: Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism…

(We repeat thrice the absolute acceptance) : Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism… Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism… Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism…

Quote from elli

(We repeat thrice the absolute acceptance) : Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism… Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism… Certainly, Christianity is another version of Judaism…

Christianity has been defined as a ‘morality of slaves.’ What genealogy and psychology lay behind this new forma mentis?

Nietzsche believed the Jews, as a historically oppressed group, were responsible for the spread and triumph of ‘slave morality’ over the ‘master morality’ of noble, culture-creating aristocracies:

“All the world’s efforts against the aristocrats, the mighty, the masters, the holders of power are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by the Jews—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realized that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred—the hatred of weakness—this contrary equation, namely, the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!”

(Genealogy of Morals)

Judaism was the soil out of which grew Christianity—the flower of slave morality. Though a single unified system, it carried different emphases for the two groups. For the Jews, the foci were self-pity, ethnic solidarity, thirst for revenge, obsession with freedom, hatred of the strong and powerful, and desire to recover lost wealth. The Christians—through the figure of Jesus—preferred to emphasise the value of the downtrodden (‘blessed are the meek’); faith in God to bring justice (‘the meek shall inherit the Earth’); salvation in the afterlife—and a fixation with love as means for ameliorating suffering.

Nietzsche considered that the struggle between these competing moralities was the single most important event in all of history, symbolised as a conflict between Judea, representing slave morality, and Rome, representing master morality:

“The symbol of this fight—between the two means of valuations—written in a writing which has remained worthy of perusal throughout the course of history up to the present time—is called, Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome. Hitherto there has been no greater event than that fight, the putting of that question, that deadly antagonism. Rome found in the Jew the incarnation of the unnatural, as though it were its diametrically opposed monstrosity, and in Rome the Jew was held convicted of hatred of the entire human race; and rightly so, insofar as it is right to link the well-being and the future of the human race to the unconditional mastery of the aristocratic values, of the Roman values . . . The Romans were the strong and aristocratic; a nation stronger and more aristocratic has never existed in the world, has never even been dreamed of . . . The Jews, conversely, were that priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence, possessed by a unique genius for popular morals . . . Which of them has been provisionally victorious, Rome or Judea? . . . Rome is undoubtedly defeated.”

(Genealogy of Morals)

The quotation is extracted from the First Essay of „Genealogy of Morals“, entitled ‚Good and Evil, Good and Bad.‘

In it, Nietzsche argues that the two opposite pairs 'good/evil' and 'good/bad' have very different origins, and that the word 'good' itself came to represent two opposed meanings. In the 'good/bad' distinction, 'good' is synonymous with nobility and everything which is powerful and life-asserting; in the 'good/evil' distinction, which Nietzsche calls 'slave morality', the meaning of 'good' is made the antithesis of the original aristocratic 'good', which itself is re-labelled 'evil'. This inversion of values develops out of the ressentiment of the powerful by the weak.

„Writing“ is the translation of „Schrift“ in the original German version. Sometimes, „Schrift“ can also be translated as „Script.“ Nietzsche is describing a sort of primeval ‚clash of civilizations,‘ so to speak.

„Let's bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values "good and bad," "good and evil" have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years...“ (Genealogy of Morals, Essay I, 16)

This fight among two moralities i.e. the bravery and slavery is given inside a Nietzsche's book with graphics. The picture is with a brave eagle that wants to fly free onto the skies and a snake that tightens its body. The snake's body is made of sheep that always are connected with the slave morality... if the snake-sheep will manage to choke the eagle then the sheep will go inside the sheepfold for eating their stupid-grass and waiting for their slaughter...

Sorry, Cassius I do not have this book in my home now. There is in my son's home. It is a greek edition that I do not remember many details. Long time ago I had scanned this photo with the eagle and the snake, because our friend George Kaplanis used it for one of his articles.

I like Nietzsche enough that I've written a full series of essays with CRITICAL Epicurean content about Nietzsche, both praising and criticizing his ideas

http://societyofepicurus.com/essays-about-n…-will-to-power/

I mainly criticize his idea about truth as an expression of will versus truth as an expression of nature (which is the Epicurean concept of truth), his aristocratic ideals, and while his genealogy of morals is interesting and useful we have to be mindful not to dismiss all community and friendship and the values that sustain them as "slave morality". Just like Marx gives a great critique of capitalism but fails to PREDICT future capitalist relations and fails to create a useful utopian ideal, similarly Nietzsche gives a good methodology to critique and study morality, but fails to produce a useful alternative.

This link popped up in my feed recently and I just got around to reading it. It's an excerpt from a little girl's school journal in the 1930s; the portion of her journal dealing with a field trip to Notre Dame cathedral. Just (I hope) an innocent counterpoint to the discussion above.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/notes-fro…-dame-de-paris/

That is a great find, Godfrey! I've tried many times to be the kind of person who keeps a journal, but just can't keep at it. Her illustrations are lovely!