Not one old philosopher is on record condemning slavery, until

>>829734
>What does that say about philosophy?

Older philosophers were smarter.

>>829734

That philosophy is based on rigorous argument and not the sentiments of the masses.

>>829734


It says that they were sensible and the effete moderns can only hold such silly superstitions because they are living off the surplus capital that was built up by their forebearers through little virtue of their own.

>>829746
>>829750
>>829753
First three posts, best posts

>>829753
So philosophical 'truth' is simply a product of economics?

>>829734
>Who is Seneca

Mohammed?

>>829734

>who is Epictetus

He down right calls is immoral in the discourses he says you shouldn't expect loyalty from a slave because loyalty is a virtue and slavery is a vice and you cannot get the former from the latter

>>829734
About philosophy? Not much

About you? That you're baiting

>The only philosophers I know were the ones covered in high school history

Nigga you straight-up retarded.

Epictetus shots all over you OP

Diogenes, while not condemning slavery, didn't really endorse it. In the subject of escaped slaves he said, If the slave can make do without his master, the master should be able to make do without his slave. Euphron of Thebes outlawed slavery and gave the slave citizenship. Alcidamas, a Greek philosopher, was vocally opposed to slavery, and argued that men are by nature free, and slavery was an injustice.

>>829734
>have abolitionists philosophers even in Ancient Greece.
>no one on record;

>>829734

Jesus told man not to own slaves as it was a sin to own another man

>>829918
> things that never happened for 500

>>829817
/thread

>>829817
t. slave

Nietzsche said that the philosopher is a type of priest, namely a whore for power. Unpopular opinions won't get those greedy professors closer to that sweet tenure, let alone power.

That being said slavery is perfeclt justificable according to reason and natural law. The masses and Christianity, liberalism and marxism, the religions of the masses, are wrong and contrary to reason and nature.

>>830239
Christianity didn't really condemn slavery until the New World. It got outlawed in Europe in the late middle ages, but it got completely outlawed by the Church because it was done in such a reprehensible, vile and sadistic manner.

>>829750
>>830276
>>>830239
>Christianity didn't really condemn slavery until the New World. It got outlawed in Europe in the late middle ages, but it got completely outlawed by the Church because it was done in such a reprehensible, vile and sadistic manner.

The first to REALLY condemn it was Bartolóme de Las Casas

>>830406
Yes, and that was because of how it was conducted. If the Spanish were humane, he probably wouldn't have railed so much against it.

>>829734
>What is Stoicism

>>829734
Greece used to have slaves so that Philosophers could live their lavish life styles of studying math. Or at least that is what I get out of the book called "Mathematics for the Nonmathematician."

>>829753
It doesnt mean that, nor are you even remotly close.

>>829734
> Not one old philosopher is on record condemning slavery
A quick search on google gave me a link to rebbit and someone named Seneca.

>>829734
Aristotle makes a pretty good case against it if you actually read his Politics. The whole natural slavery thing is such a unattainable standard that it seems like he's mainly talking about mentally disabled cripples. And it really isn't slavery in the same sense that we understand it. That's a few centuries before Epictetus.

>>830239
>natural law
Ahah, wow.

>>830239
Refer to >>831054

>>829772
nope, culture, worldview and paradigms are products of economics.
Philosophy tries to break away from these in search of absolute truths

>>829734
It reflects the cultures the philosophers were brought up in?