Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Definition: "The expression "fig leaf" is widely used figuratively to convey the covering up of an act or an object that is embarrassing or distasteful with something of innocuous appearance, a metaphorical reference to the Biblical Book of Genesis in which Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover their nudity after eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

God banished Adam and Eve from heaven for stealing the apple. But how do we know the apple wasn't itself a fig leaf in the sense of being a euphemism? It's easy to see how an awful lot could go wrong in a nude society where temptation abounds. For all we know the story of Adam and Eve could've been God's way of banning nudism. The irony is that this is actually compatible with the scientific account of human evolution since our earliest ancestors didn't have the tools to make clothing.

87D4B06C-AA4B-4ED7-A6B9-17DC6DCC51F2.jpeg

"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature in need of regeneration and a proclivity to sinful conduct."

16CA65E5-4B62-463A-9BEB-06B8E04DC032_4_5005_c.jpeg
Homo habilis

Wearing insufficient clothing would make it harder to withstand the elements:
"The study also describes climate change as crucial for the process by which Neanderthals disappeared from the planet. In their case, their competition with Homo sapiens also played a role, but scientists believe that climate change would be enough on its own. Even a species that has been able to control its conditions, for example by using fire, dressing, has been at the mercy of climate change, Raia recalls."
- indnes.cez

"Since the woman sought wisdom, she ate the fruit of the tree, and gave some to Adam to eat too. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” When God came into the garden, they hid from him. He noticed that they had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and turned them out of Paradise."
https://www.alimentarium.org/en/knowled ... dden-fruit

Evolution was unknown to the characters that invented Judaism so this interpretation is null and void.
The actual origin of Fig leave is far more prosaic
Sadly this obsession with the fig-leaf was how the Victorians expressed their sexual repression by covering up all thos wonderful Classical statues, and often damaging them in the process.

[Michael McMahon]

Evolution was unknown to the characters that invented Judaism so this interpretation is null and void.

A hidden factor in the worldviews of historical people is world population size. Remember that America was only discovered a few hundred years ago. It's easy to see how you'd feel much more responsible for promoting your faith when there's only a few tens of millions of people in the world. Certainly they'd feel much more connected to spirituality when the known world was so small. There was a lot more at stake when the religions of future generations depended entirely on them. By contrast it's easy to feel very insignificant when we appreciate the many billions in world population today.

C1E4CA42-0643-4A91-BBD3-6F007C3ABD38.jpeg (107.35 KiB) Viewed 1946 times

[Belindi]

Evolution was unknown to the characters that invented Judaism so this interpretation is null and void.

A hidden factor in the worldviews of historical people is world population size. Remember that America was only discovered a few hundred years ago. It's easy to see how you'd feel much more responsible for promoting your faith when there's only a few tens of millions of people in the world. Certainly they'd feel much more connected to spirituality when the known world was so small. There was a lot more at stake when the religions of future generations depended entirely on them. By contrast it's easy to feel very insignificant when we appreciate the many billions in world population today.

C1E4CA42-0643-4A91-BBD3-6F007C3ABD38.jpeg

You claim the known world was smaller because there were fewer people in total. How does that work ?

[Sculptor1]

Evolution was unknown to the characters that invented Judaism so this interpretation is null and void.

A hidden factor in the worldviews of historical people is world population size. Remember that America was only discovered a few hundred years ago. It's easy to see how you'd feel much more responsible for promoting your faith when there's only a few tens of millions of people in the world. Certainly they'd feel much more connected to spirituality when the known world was so small. There was a lot more at stake when the religions of future generations depended entirely on them. By contrast it's easy to feel very insignificant when we appreciate the many billions in world population today.

C1E4CA42-0643-4A91-BBD3-6F007C3ABD38.jpeg

So what?
How does any of this relate to what I was saying?

[Michael McMahon]

So what?
How does any of this relate to what I was saying?

If you were the only person in existence then you'd probably feel much more special. Some people seek a hermetic existence in order to connect more with spiritual and mystical forces.

[Michael McMahon]

You claim the known world was smaller because there were fewer people in total. How does that work ?

There were no megacities back in the Roman era. Nor were there accurate maps of Asia and Africa while America was unknown to Europeans.

[Sculptor1]

So what?
How does any of this relate to what I was saying?

If you were the only person in existence then you'd probably feel much more special. Some people seek a hermetic existence in order to connect more with spiritual and mystical forces.

I doubt that.
I do not think you are qualified to say how another person might feel.

[Belindi]

You claim the known world was smaller because there were fewer people in total. How does that work ?

There were no megacities back in the Roman era. Nor were there accurate maps of Asia and Africa while America was unknown to Europeans.

I agree the known world was smaller in that sense, although the Vikings did sail to Vinland and Asia. But I don't see how the world seemed smaller because there were fewer people in it. I'd have thought the known world was smaller because the larger world was unknown.

The known world was smaller, true. There were fewer people in the known world at the same time, true.

However the one fact was not the cause of the other fact. We often find that two facts correlate without one fact's being the cause of the other fact.

[Belindi]

So what?
How does any of this relate to what I was saying?

If you were the only person in existence then you'd probably feel much more special. Some people seek a hermetic existence in order to connect more with spiritual and mystical forces.

If I were the only person in existence I'd soon cease to exist because I'd die, as would you if you were the only person in existence.Neither of us would feel "special" and each of us would be scared.

Those people who "seek a hermetic existence in order to connect more with spiritual and mystical forces" are supported by more ordinary people who value the hermits' behaviour enough to provide the hermit's food and shelter.

[Belindi]

Michael wrote:

It's easy to see how you'd feel much more responsible for promoting your faith when there's only a few tens of millions of people in the world.

Do you mean small communities are more religious than large communities? Or do you mean small communities are more mystical than large communities? Or do you mean small communities are more susceptible to ritualism than large communities?

Or do you mean scattered communities + ( the above predicates).

Whichever you mean these are claims that beg for evidence.

[Michael McMahon]

I remember running out of money and camping once in Portugal. It was only for a few days but I found the experience enlightening. I was resting on the border between forests and fields. The clear view of the stars was breathtaking. Yet I thought to myself that if you camped like that permanently you'd be pretty much in a different metaphysical existence. So ancient generations who lived in similar conditions through communal huts were likely much more in tune with the spirits of nature.

Screenshot_20220813-154416_Chrome.jpg (340.96 KiB) Viewed 1866 times

[Belindi]

I remember running out of money and camping once in Portugal. It was only for a few days but I found the experience enlightening. I was resting on the border between forests and fields. The clear view of the stars was breathtaking. Yet I thought to myself that if you camped like that permanently you'd be pretty much in a different metaphysical existence. So ancient generations who lived in similar conditions through communal huts were likely much more in tune with the spirits of nature.

Screenshot_20220813-154416_Chrome.jpg

Living frugally among wild nature's scenes is often very pleasant. I think it's true that urban life especially for poorer people, is unpleasant and unhealthy.

"Ancient generations" lived short and painful lives due to extreme heat, extreme cold, scarcity of food and shelter, perinatal death, and hostile others.

I was interested in "I was resting on the border between forests and fields." Liminal places are euphoric, a fact that is surprisingly little known.

[LuckyR]

Evolution was unknown to the characters that invented Judaism so this interpretation is null and void.

A hidden factor in the worldviews of historical people is world population size. Remember that America was only discovered a few hundred years ago. It's easy to see how you'd feel much more responsible for promoting your faith when there's only a few tens of millions of people in the world. Certainly they'd feel much more connected to spirituality when the known world was so small. There was a lot more at stake when the religions of future generations depended entirely on them. By contrast it's easy to feel very insignificant when we appreciate the many billions in world population today.

C1E4CA42-0643-4A91-BBD3-6F007C3ABD38.jpeg

Not really. Whether the Whole World is 10 million or 8 billion, it's the... Whole World!! Back when it was 10 million that's the highest it had ever been and they had no idea it would grow to the proportions it would. Or in other words, we all normalize in our minds to the present (not the future).

[Michael McMahon]

Not really. Whether the Whole World is 10 million or 8 billion, it's the... Whole World!!

If there was a time in the past where the world had the same population as modern-day Canada, then international affairs would almost have the same feel to it as domestic affairs. Thus there may have been a greater sense of responsibility to help fellow citizens of the world.

[LuckyR]

Not really. Whether the Whole World is 10 million or 8 billion, it's the... Whole World!!

If there was a time in the past where the world had the same population as modern-day Canada, then international affairs would almost have the same feel to it as domestic affairs. Thus there may have been a greater sense of responsibility to help fellow citizens of the world.

My point is that international affairs would almost have the same feel to it as CURRENT domestic affairs, it would be nothing like domestic affairs at that time.