Did remorse (as opposed to mere regret) as a feeling, come from Christianity? I Think Judas is the most poignant example of remorse from ancient literature. Orestes is the closest example to remorse in pre-Christian pagan literature, but his quest is not for forgiveness, but for acquittal, so it's fundamentally different for, say, someone like Raskolnikov.
Here's the Orthodox FAQ and reading list again, btw: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x I've made some updates, and particularly revised the FAQ for liberals.
>when you realize this tripfag isn't trolling with this response lol
Thus, remorse for having betrayed her original family in the first place.
Also, Orestes had already been ritually purified by Apollo, which meant he was really in the clear. What Orestes wanted was for the furies to stop tormenting him. The fact that he had already been purified along with the fact that only he could see those goddesses of vengeance is indicative of a desire to stop being tormented by guilt.
No, it was because Jason was dumping her and marrying another girl.
Blood curse doesn't technically have anything to do with remorse, soldiers had to be purified whenever they came back from war as well. Same reason menstruating women were considered impure. His torment stops because a jury exonerates him, that is, they judge his act righteous, not because he is forgiven. Being exonerated and forgiven are hugely different concepts, one is a product of an excuse, the other is a product of saying "mea culpa".
It's a bit strange that an emotion as powerful as remorse, such as vital part of the human condition, is excluded from literature for a thousand years, and then suddenly comes crashing in with such a blatant example in Judas. By the time Christianity became a state religion, remorse was not even just one emotion among many, but an emotion that was seen as something which should be cultivated, and even celebrated in a special religious Sacrament that everyone was to regularly do (Confession).
Remorse is expressed in the Iliad, when Achilles finally decides to give Hektor's body back to Priam. Your inane assertion is based in your lack of understanding of Pre-Christian literature.
I've read the Pali Canon, theBhagavad Gita, the Iliad, the Odyssey, Hesiod, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle's Organon, Heraclitus, Parmenides, all the Greek tragedies, most of Aristophanes, all of Xenophon, all of Pindar, all the Greek lyric poets, Livy, Caesar, The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Story of Sinuhe, the Tale Shipwrecked Sailor, and probably other pertinent stuff I can't think of right now. I do not recall a single portrayal of remorse.
It's not about emapthy with Priam. In fact, Priam says just about the worst thing possible to Achilles,
>Think of what your father would be feeling if you died in a foreign land and he doesn't have a body to bury.
Which Achilles and Peleus know will happen due to the various prophecies around Achilles. They've already accepted that, made their peace with it as soon as Achilles embarked on the expedition. The Achilles of the beginning of the epic would have laughed in Priam's face, killed or captured him there, and paraded his triumph in front of his real enemy, Agammemnon.
His realizing the stupidity of his feud with his commander, and yes, showing remorse for his actions that led to Achaean failure, as well as the death of Patrokles, is what leads to the pacific outcome.
If you read, you do not understand. Take the blinders off.
Gladiator fights were not a big thing, they were easily expendable in order to create an image of Christian-style righteousness. Gladiator fights were implemented to please the plebs so they wouldn't revolt, they were abolished for the same reason. And it's just not true that people became generally nicer and more compassionate as a result of Christianity, at least surely not in the long run. It was just something to point at and say 'we holy now'. The way the Empire worked afterwards was pretty much exactly the same as before in every non-superficial way.
By the way, I'm backing up that it wasn't remorse by pointing out two things that make it clear there i no remorse
A: Achilles has to be told to give the body back by the gods.
B: Achilles takes a ransom for the body from Priam. If you were truly remorseful, you wouldn't take a ransom, even as a formality. You would be like Judas.
C: Achilles tells Priam to gtfo out afterward before he changes his mind and kills him.
Achilles shows compassion, and realizes Priam has suffered a loss as terrible as Achilles' father will. They share a mutual feeling of loss. But that doesn't mean Achilles feels remorse for his actions.
The cultivation of guilt and remorse and the institution of confession was a clever political gambit to make plebs feel guilty as a reflex whenever they did something that went against something dictated from above.
His remorse is over his actions against AGAMMEMNON, not against Priam, for failing to live up to the ideal of a Greek subordinate-king. Priam is only an incidental figure to the little drama, another loose end damaged by his childish tantruming. He makes his amends by acting in the normal Greek fashion, which yes, included ransoming of bodies, and hardly being friendly to your enemies.
But he's decided to accept the proper, responsible behavior, instead of acting like a law unto himself, even when he was strong enough and important enough to get away with it.
It is becoming increasingly clear that you have 0 understanding of Greek social norms, and thus can't spot remorse even when it's clear in your face. Please educate yourself further before making inane assertions.
I can just as easily say that Christianity didn't invent remorse, and believing Christians can never feel true remorse, because all of their emotions are clouded by their feeling responsible and beholden to a higher power, therefore all their acts as such are fundamentally self-serving, and real remorse didn't exist until the development of atheism and humanistic morals.
And I would be just as retarded as you're being for saying such nonsense.
>And it's just not true that people became generally nicer and more compassionate as a result of Christianity
I also said that. They might have harboured some momentary anti-gladiatoral or even anti-violence sentiment to feel more Christian, that's for sure. But saying that Christianity made the people of Europe 'kinder' and more compassionate in the long run is delusional. Also, the original argument was that hardly anything new came from Christianity. The notion of anti-violence, or at least anti-wasting-human-life-for-no-reason was present pretty much everywhere before Christianity came about.
non-plebs went too, but non-plebs (or at least the ones really high-up) did what they needed to get done without actually feeling much guilt anyway throughout history. The ones who actually gave the least shits about Jesus have always been the ones at the top of the clerical/political foodchain.
>His remorse is over his actions against AGAMMEMNON, not against Priam, for failing to live up to the ideal of a Greek subordinate-king.
Ah, what. No. Hell no. Achilles never feels any remorse in regard to that. This is just a ridiculous reading. Achilles is half-god, and the only reason he's along is because he's allies with Agamemnon, and Agamemnon is the overall commander. But Achilles is not Agamemnon's vassal, he's an independent king with his own province. At the most, Agamemnon has some sort of political hegemony, but Achilles does own him any sort of subordination except the wedding pact. Achilles certainly doesn't own Agamemnon being treated like some vassal, whose prize (which in this context isn't a trophy so much as a medal for valor) you can just take.
Go re-read the depiction of the funeral games for Patrokles. He is clearly acting in a vassal's role by not taking the field against Agammemnon in the Javelin throw despite everyone knowing he'd win easily.
The core conflict of the Iliad being the Achilles-Agammemnon one, and it being resolved with Achilles learning his place is what you'll see in any classics program when it discusses the Iliad.
Atheists of today are pretty heavily influenced by Christianity, as Nietzsche pointed out. Besides, God wrote natural law on the hearts of all humanity with the new covenant, which gave us the ability to feel remorse.
If being instructed by the gods to act a certain way precludes real remorse for Achilles, then the Abrahamic god doing the same for people in Christianity also precludes real remorse.
Ergo, Christians cannot ever feel remorse.
Achilles is not a vassal of Agamemnon's, full stop. Agamemnon is guilty of massive hubris, he did not have any right to the Greeks to take Achilles prize. Achilles overreacted (especially asking his mother what he did), but Agamemnon did not have any right here. Achilles' sorrow springs purely from the death of Patroclus, so he doesn't feel like getting into shit relations with Agamemnon anymore; all of his wrath and rage has been redirected from Agamemnon toward Hector, every drop of it, and there's no more to spare for Agamemnon.
The core theme of the Iliad is the first word, wrath (it is the tragic flaw in Achilles as hero), and its destructiveness. Achilles wrath is first toward Agamemnon, and it causes many of his countrymen to die (at his own behest), culminating in the death of Patroclus; then his wrath is redirected toward Hector, where it causes further massive destruction and countless deaths, culminating in the death of Hector.
Heracles (in Euripedes' Heracles) certainly felt remorse after slaughtering his family.
HERACLES: What shame, what misery! To become the murderer
Of my most dear sons! Why do I not take my life?
Leap from some bare cliff, aim a sword at my own heart[...]
I must conceal my head from daylight. I am ashamed of my deep guilt.
I have no wish to harm the innocent[...]
>Achilles is not a vassal of Agamemnon's, full stop.
You're an imbecile.
Aside from that whole publicly reversing himself after he swore never to do so, yeah, he never did any penance.
Actually, that is a really good example, Herakles in fact constantly driven by the desire to repent. Not sure why he escaped by memory, especially since that is my favorite play by Euripides next to the Trojan Women.
I concede the point. gg. Always nice to be humbled.
>You're an imbecile.
Achilles was under Agamemnon's command in the war, but his relationship to him wasn't even that of a baron's to a king's.
>Aside from that whole publicly reversing himself after he swore never to do so, yeah, he never did any penance.
That wasn't any kind of humbling act for him, he simply didn't care. Like when Agamemnon offered to make good for his offense, Achilles said it is right that he do so, but personally he didn't care one way or the other at this point, he only cared about pounding Trojans.
Not really. I don't think he tore his eyes out, for instance, as any expression of remorse either, I think shame was the major motivating factor for everything. Same thing with his mother/wife, who pretty explicitly committed suicide from shame rather than remorse.
>Achilles was under Agamemnon's command in the war, but his relationship to him wasn't even that of a baron's to a king's.
And what makes a baron's relationship to a king in what I presume to be medieval/renaissance Europe the only form of political suboridnation to a higher king? What's next? The various vassal kings/chieftains of Han China weren't subordinate to the Emperor? The 8th century and onwards High Kings of Ireland weren't in a position of authority over the lesser kings?
Achilles was in a subordinate position to Agammemnon. Full stop. He was at least supposed to be listening to the man's orders, and pretty much anyone else of the throng of guys like Diomedes, either Ajax, Nestor, Odysseus, etc. who tried to pull the shit Achilles did would be in for some serious, serious consequences.
>That wasn't any kind of humbling act for him, he simply didn't care.
His reaction to Odysseus's embassy argues otherwise.
>Did remorse (as opposed to mere regret) as a feeling, come from Christianity?
No. Most primates show an understanding of remorse.
I mean that Agamemnon's relationship to Achilles wasn't similar to any of those, it was more like Athens' relationship with the other states in the Delian League.
>His reaction to Odysseus's embassy argues otherwise.
He didn't really care then either. At that point his outrage had mostly cooled. His attitude was, "You know, this just isn't worth it. I don't want to die for this." He no longer cared about getting glory, he stopped wishing the Greeks ill, he just wasn't interested in being a part of the war anymore. When he returns to the war, though, it is not for honor, so being a little hussy over Agamemnon dishonoring him won't factor in; he returns to the war purely out of wrath, his honor no longer means a damn thing to him (a valuation he carried into Hades--in the Odyssey, he clearly regrets his choice of a short and glorious life over a long one without glory).
They do. Just because they don't have a name for it, doesn't mean that they don't know what it is
Yes, obviously. Primate have been around far longer than religion or homo sapiens have. Morality is arguably much older than we are.
Again, just because this isn't codified in some kind of doctrine doesn't mean it's absent altogether.
Frans de Waal has written numerous books on the behavior of the bonobo, and it shows much of the behaviors we have. Primates have politics, they have a primitive form of a society, they have hierarchies, etc. In fact, many animals mourn their dead. How could that be possible if animals don't posses any form of empathy?
I'm not saying they don't have empathy, but that isn't necessarily synonymous with remorse. To give you an example of what I mean, if you feel bad for someone's arm having been broken by you, but in no way different than you would in general for someone having their arm broken, by you or someone else, then that is empathy, but not remorse.
>I'm not saying they don't have empathy, but that isn't necessarily synonymous with remorse.
Remorse is completely impossible without empathy. Again, that animals have more primitive ways of expressing their empathy doesn't mean it's absent altogether.
>status: murdered on his return home
Ajax the Greater
Ajax the Lessor
>status: rekt to drowning by a storm
But at least
>status: living with a wife who likes to tell stories about living with other men
Odysseus is on of the few whose situation actually has a happy ending, and that is marred by the immense suffering he has to experience to get there
Is there some neurological explanation for the difference between these? Otherwise I think you are just using semantics to artificially elevate some fancy word because you think that only "Religion X" has some exclusive trait.
I'm not saying you don't need empathy for remorse, I'm saying having empathy doesn't necessarily mean you have remorse. If you accidentally kill someone, and you feel bad for them, but just as you do in general for anyone who dies, then that is empathy but not remorse.