saphira_xxx asked:


Also, what time period would ancient Greece be associated with? Does it include the Classical period? the Hellenistic period?

And it would really help if someone could clearly explain the Greeks’ relationship with their Gods.

If anyone knows of any good books about Greek religion that would help me for the report I am writing, than please let me know. Particularly if you know any on Questia.com. Thanks.

3 Responses to “What is the difference between Greek philosophy and Greek religion?”

1. MathJakko on February 26th, 2008 3:54 am

   The (ancient) Greek religion is polytheist religion, invented by poets on the fly.

   Greek philosophy, say the philosophy of Aristotle, is an effort to give a rational explanation of the world, including Man. Philosophy addresses problems and questions that are not even mentioned in the Greek religion, like the nature of intelligence, the type of motions and so on.

2. thraling on February 27th, 2008 4:42 pm

   It’s a question a lot complicated..
   Starting from easy: “ancient Greece” it’s a general label that referres to a period that roughly goes from VIII cent. B.C. since the byzantine era (IV-V cent. A.D.), so including also the classical, the hellenistic and the roman period.
   About the greek religion we have first to say that, as all others polytheisms, it hasn’t the distinction between true and false in its myths. So it accepts also the false, sometimes laughting at it, but accepting it if is functional: in this type of religion counts the functionality, not the truth.
   So, e.g. for the roman word, no one cares if a granny in his hearth believes or not if Nero is a god, the important is that she make sacrifices to him. An attitude (not casually) very similar to modern “superstition”.
   Note also that polytheisms haven’t the concept of orthodoxy or heresy (lacking the concept of truth), that makes them so open to accept and absorbe others religions (inserting new gods in the pantheon, as Mitra, or “reinterpretating” others gods, as Thot-Mercury). Limitations to some cults (e.g. bacchic cults or Christians) were ever motivated by reasons of public order or political ones, and that demonstrate the link between religion and politics. But in effects in a polytheism it doesn’t exist a distinction between what’s religious and what’s not (even the philosophy, as we’ll see has deep religious roots). The Christianity introduced a clean distinction between the religious sphere and the civic one, adopting the second and thrashing the first following the (own, but extraneous to polytheism) criterion of truth/falsity.
   We spoke about myths: a myth “founds” the reality (not “creates” it, as in monotheisms). A foundation of reality is similar to a creation, but it explains also why and how does it work. A myth is not a tale, but an interpretation and an explanation of an actual state (in monotheisms the myth, with the presuppositions of truth, become history).
   That means that the history is still open, and new myths could rise to explain new forms of reality. This is an effective risk for all ancient polytheisms: if a myth indicates to what gods (we’ll see now this category) we are ought to addresse ourselves and how, a multiplication of myths can drive to a multiplication of gods (problem resolved in Greece with the definition of 12 major gods).
   In a polytheism the gods are not omni (-potent, -scient), they have some limits due to their “speciality” (that is known from the myth, and could be a set of competences quite complex and not homogeneous), and that implies the need of a plurality of gods. Their antropomorphism (name, genealogy, story, character) linked to their competences can lead to a personalism or a personalization (uncorrect the reverse thinking to a personification of the elements).
   But their main charactersitic is the immortality, that brings them to be impassive and steady, in contact with humans quite only through the sacrfice (others relationships are rare, equally cold, without èlan and fully controlled by gods).
   Another form of religiosity, more “hot” and partecipative is the one that comes from mysteries, but I prefer just to give a hint about it, ask me if you want more.
   Now that we have discuss about the religion as an interpretation of reality, an in particular in relation to the control of the sacred (that is the “other”, sometimes the “unknown”, but ever the “beyond”) we can cope with the origin of philosophy.
   Before philosophy explicitelly started, arts and religion had already outlined some general reflexions about man and reality. Formally this is visible above all in mythic cosmogonies, in the religious doctrines of mysteries, in the essays of Seven Wises, and in the ethic-politic reflexion of poets.
   But the first philosophy has for major research point the study of nature and its forces (the indian Induism of 1300 B.C. or the Buddhism of late VI cent. B.C. are instead types of religious philosophy, concentrating more on existential or religious problems). In this consist the main difference between Greek philosophy and oriental ones: if the second is a type of knowledge traditional and religious (helded by a class of priests), the Greek one is a rational research born by the freedom from tradition, so that every man can develope it because his truly base tend to be the pure strength of the understanding. So e.g. the Babylonian astronomy, that was mostly a religious practice, was interpreted by Greeks, with their teorical approach on nature, in a form of scientificity unknown for the contemporaries, because it wasn’t stopping to the description, but was trying to explain the causes (unexplainables in a religious point of wiew).
   The understanding as a base to reach the truth is a deep difference with religion, that of course gave all the basic interpretations for the reality to early philosophers, but was never interested to furnish a truth, but a just, complete and perhaps easy way of life.

   I hope I had give some help or at least a cue.. Ask me if you want something more.

3. amleth on February 28th, 2008 2:12 pm

   as someone has pointed,there is such difference,though both have the greek label.
   One came by inherited tradition,more or less evolved and even ritualised.But the other came by sheer brow development.The factors that merged for the greek miracle to happen were a sort of unique circumstances that like in the italian states of the late middle ages came to disregard religion as the answer to all mysterious or unknow.
   A privileged maritime access with all the cultural contacts that trade gave her platform,an arrange of mostly independent entities -or polis-,that allowed (though rather disallowed) changing alliegances for disidents -as german thinkers will have later-of the local Thought policies and ethos….Think Sparta.
   And byproduct of that maritime geography with rich neighbor Cultures to contrast and raise the tastes and curiosity,was the development in new techniques in production,art(maybe even the Poetry spinning),the navegation,and even warfare,that required new approaches of/to thought,and by side order>the techniques of Thought itself,they stumbled upon.
   When they realized,what the difference is from beliefs you were handed down and sufficed to your living contentment,to what you have “to handle up” in order to believe to.