I’ve been following along with Ed Hurst’s review of Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek by Thorleif Boman (HTCG). It has been very interesting. Given my background, I wouldn’t say that the issues Boman or Hurst are raising are novel or surprising—the issues they raise are not new—but it is very intriguing.
Regarding Chapter 1, “Section C: Non-Being,” Ed Hurst says this:
Part 1: In Greek Thought
In order to logically corner the Sophists, Plato sought to define being further by defining non-being. It’s not simply the negation of being; it includes things merely imagined but not real. Thus, a broader definition is that non-being is defined as anything except being. Just as darkness is simply the absence of light, non-being is defined by what it is not. It is not being.
Part 2: In Hebrew Thought
We’ve already seen that finding matching terms and thoughts in the Hebrew is tricky.
Boman finds parallels to being versus non-being in the Hebrew concept of “word” — dabhar. Typical of Hebrew fuzzy logic, that includes deeds and concrete objects that result from the word. There is a Hebrew concept of “not-being” — lo-dabhar. Rather than being a null set, it is rather something opposing life, and sinister. Vain words (i.e., lip-service) are a threat.
That’s because they are inherently deceptive. A false word may well be deceptive or even seductive, but is not simply absent; it is vanity. It provides none of the blessings it promises. It is futility, identified by the pain it causes when you trust in it. Boman offers several Hebrew words that carry similar connotations with different flavors: hebhel (puff of wind), sometimes combined with tohu to signify futility. You’ll also see combinations with shaw or bohu. There is the broad image of ineffectiveness of these vanities.
Throughout his review, Ed Hurst has been trying to claim that Greek and Hebrew thought are very different from each other, probably irreconcilably different. For example, whenever Boman tries to reconcile the two languages, Hurst just, proverbially, shakes his head at the attempt. With that in mind, pay close attention to the last two paragraphs. Got it?
There is a Greek word. It is called kenos, and it is used 18 times in the New Testament (along with 9 other uses in closely related words, such as here). This is what it means:
(a) empty
(b) met: empty (in moral content), vain, ineffective, foolish, worthless,
(c) false, unreal, pretentious, hollow.
Do you see it? Here is what he wrote about Hebrew:
Hurst’s description of the Hebrew finds a very close, almost identical, analog in the Greek. Hurst could have probably saved time and effort by just saying that the Hebrew concept is shared with a related Greek concept. The words are describing the same thing in the same way.
Kenos is not empty in terms of non-being or a null-set, it is empty in terms of lack of moral content. Does that sound familiar? It should:
One of the first things you learn is that, among Hebrew intelligentsia familiar with Greece and Hellenism, they regarded themselves as anti-Hellenists by predisposition. A footnote explains that, in their rejection of Hellenism, the Hebrews didn’t feel the need to worry about the form of things, nor to harmonize with the natural world, but to remain focused on the moral reality of everything. Thus, they produced no visual art simply because the Second Commandment to avoid idolatrous images.
The Greek word is focused not on form, but on moral reality. This directly contradicts the simplistic, binary abstraction that Greek and Hebrew are not only diametrically opposed, but that the Greek language could not focus on the moral reality of everything. It very clearly does!
[Aside…]
Hurst seems to assume that one’s language is deterministic with how one thinks about the world. The idea is that a person’s worldview is framed by their language. For example, a Hebrew would not or could not express non-being because he had no word (or philosophy) for non-being within his language.
He also seems to assume that the common tongue of the common man is largely derived from the works of philosophers. The implication is that if the philosophers debate something, then the whole of the language must fall in line with their conclusions according to their relative influence.
One who is steeped in Hebrew-thought and completely unaware of Greek-thought is not unable to consider the non-existence of, say, Santa Claus. Nor does the non-existence of Santa Claus require any understanding of Greek philosophy. The very purpose of idioms in language—and Hebrew is chock full of idiomatic uses—is to speak of things without requiring explicit language, syntax, and grammar.
These kinds of metaphysical assumptions and biases are hardly established as fact, let alone rise to the level of theology. This article will more-or-less demonstrate that the assumptions are faulty.
[…End Aside]
The Greek word for ’empty’ means vain and ineffective. So do the Hebrew concepts of not word or not being (lo-dabhar), hebhel as a puff of wind, and tohu as futile.
The Greek word is used 60 times in the Septuagint. In Deuteronomy 32:47, the Hebrew “req dabar” means vain or empty words (i.e. lies; words without a moral reality; without life). Jeremiah makes this even more explicit:
Yet my people have forgotten me. They have burned incense to worthless gods [Hebrew: shav; Greek: kenos; empty, vain], and they have been made to stumble in their ways, in the ancient paths, to walk in byways, in a way not built up
Here the Hebrew word also means falsehood and lies. And we see it again:
I hate those who are devoted to worthless idols, but I trust in Yahweh.
The words used here (“worthless idols”) literally mean “worthless vanities.” Almost every translation translates it as idol, though, because in the Hebrew idiom the idols and gods were worthless vanities, falsehoods and lies. That, and not their existence, was their reality.
We see this explicitly in Habakkuk 2. There the true visions of God (v3) are contrasted with the false and worthless teachings of the idols (v18-19). The idols are both “the mute stone” and “a teacher of lie.” They have no breath. Yet, somehow, a thing that is mute and has no breath (i.e. is dead) is a teacher. See how in the Hebrew the explicitly dead idols are treated as if they have a living reality, a reality in their unreality if you will?
Without meaning to, Boman comes out in support of our teaching that the Hebrew people seemed to act as if all of reality was living, sentient and willful.
To borrow the words of Ed Hurst, they are “something opposing life, and sinister….a threat.” To that we enthusiastically agree!
And, perhaps, without meaning to, Hurst demonstrates that the gods are not real because the Hebrew scripture attests that they are not living, sentient, nor willful. The Hebrews, in their own unique way of expressing it, declared that the gods (e.g. of the pagan divine council of gods) had no reality. The Torah acts as if the gods are not living, not sentient, and have no will of their own.
In the Hebrew there is no distinction between the vanity (or falsehood) of idols and of the gods. Both are equally false. When an idol is worshiped, the worshiper is not actually worshiping the gods (elohim).[1] To wit:
It is true, O Yahweh, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the countries and their lands, putting their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, so they have destroyed them.
Notice how Isaiah communicates the non-existence of gods, not with words of non-existence, but with the words of reality? In saying “their gods…were not gods” he is not contradicting himself. Rather, he idiomatically uses the language of living, sentient, willful reality to say what we would say simply in Greek or English. The Hebrew phrase “their gods were not gods” communicates the same, simple reality as “there are no gods” would in Greek or English. Even Paul, writing in Greek, was able to successfully communicate this Hebrew concept.[1]
Notice also how Isaiah describes the elohim as idols fashioned by men’s hands and destroyed by fire? This is just one example where the Bible describes the one true God as being inherently superior to the actually non-existent gods of the Hebrew’s neighbors, gods which are made things. To wit:
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image…
This is codified in the very law of the Hebrews. The other gods are man-made idols.
Follow this to its logical conclusion: to make visual art would be to make gods. Why? Because the moral reality of idols is that the gods had no reality beyond their material reality as wood, stone, or metal. Assumed in the first and second commandments are that the gods are not real, they must be created in order to worship them.[2]
Let all the nations be gathered together and let the peoples be assembled. Who among them can declare this and show us former things? Let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified; or let them hear, and say, “That is true.”
“You are my witnesses,” says Yahweh, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, nor will there be after me. I, even I, am Yahweh, and besides me there is no savior. I have declared, I have saved, and I have shown, and there was no strange god among you. Therefore you are my witnesses,” says Yahweh, “and I am God.
Here God himself—using Hebrew idiom—asserts that no other god has ever been, or ever will be, formed by God.[3] For Isaiah, the foreign gods are lifeless and cannot call witnesses. Because they cannot testify, they cannot justify or save. They are—in the words of Jeremiah, Habakkuk, the Psalmist, and the author of 1 Chronicles—worthless.
This is, incidentally, the point that Elijah made of Baal:
Then at noon Elijah mocked them, and said, “Shout louder, for he is a god. Either he is thinking, or he stepped out for a moment, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
Many commentators think that the “stepping out” is a Hebrew idiom referring to going to the bathroom.
For Yahweh is great, and greatly to be praised! And he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols [literally: worthless ones], but Yahweh made the heavens.
This is the same thing we saw when we examined Habakkuk above:
Of what value is a carved idol when its maker has carved it? Or a cast image—a teacher of lies—that the one who fashions its form trusts in it and goes on making those mute, Worthless Ones.
In Hebrew the idols and gods are the worthless ones. The idols and gods are futility. All the elohim are idols: worthless, futile, empty, lifeless.
In Deuteronomy, God promised that if they would worship other gods (elohim), they would be rejected and perish. How then could the worship of empty, worthless idols—made by human hands—result in removal from the Promised Land and a scattering among the nation? Because the worship of idols and the worship of other gods are the same thing.
There is no divine council of lesser created gods, because there are no other gods. Baal is not the name of one of the 70 ruling members of the Divine Council in the Unseen Realm. When the nations assembled, not Baal, nor Asherah, nor El could be called as a witness to testify against God. This was not because they were on vacation or in the bathroom, but because they do not exist. Idols cannot rule.
Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.
Jeremiah takes the uniqueness of God…
Who should not fear you, O King of the nations? For that respect is what you deserve! For among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is none like you.
But Yahweh is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting King: at his wrath the earth trembles, and the nations are not able to stand up to his indignation.
It is he who has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and he has stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
…and contrasts it with the gods…
They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber patch; they do not speak. They must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, nor is it in them to do good.”
But one and all they are stupid and foolish; the instruction of Delusions…is wood! Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz that are the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the goldsmith; blue and purple is their clothing, they are all the work of skillful men.
You are to say this to them: “The gods [elohim] that have not made the heavens and the earth, these will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.”
…which are nothing more than that made by the hands of skilled man. They can not walk, talk, nor do good or evil, let alone create. They will perish (like men).
The Hebrew scriptures make clear that the gods do not have being (i.e. “the gods are not gods”). They just don’t use the Greek words for non-being. Instead, they use active and dynamic Hebrew language, symbols, and context to accomplish the same thing.
The gods do not walk, they do not speak, they will perish, they do no good nor evil (for they don’t do anything), they are worthless, they have no life or breath, they are like stone, they teach (but teach nothing), they are asleep or on a journey, they cannot act as witnesses, they are man-made, they can be destroyed by fire, they are vain, they are falsehoods and lies, and they are a threat to truth.
The Hebrews did not say that the gods did not exist. They demonstrated it.
We don’t have to try to reconcile the differences between Hebrew and Greek, because both languages speak for themselves. Both express the same thing, but in very different ways. They are complementary without needing to be harmonized.
Even if Greek never existed as a language and the specific concepts of non-being were never subject to the philosophy of Plato, the gods would still not be any more or less real. We’d just use different language to communicate that reality.
Footnotes
[1] The Bible states that those who worship idols are worshiping demons. In the Old Testament, see Deuteronomy 32:16-17, Leviticus 17:7, and Psalm 96:5 (“demons” in the Septuagint). In the New Testament, see how Paul ties the Shema into the non-existence of the gods and the worship of demons:
[2] How you read the second commandment is a matter of philosophy.
To say that the gods passively imaged (or represented) the gods is an abstraction, a conceptual explanation. To say that the idols were the gods is not. Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, gods and idols are interchangeable and not distinguished: idols are active imagers of the gods they represent. English has captured the Hebrew sense in the way the worship of other gods is called idolatry.
By contrast, the abstracted view of the existence of gods being separate from the (creation of) idols is a Greek-style (or “Western”) philosophical approach. The Hebrew isn’t even trying to convey that kind of content.
First, a brief reminder here. I learned from linguistic experts that Greek, as with other western languages, tends to see language as a conveyance of content. Words have pools of meaning. Hebrew sees their language as signposts to a land or persons worthy of acquaintance. There’s a whole lot more than can be put into words.
…
The one thing he fails to address head-on so far is that Greek aims to make ideas and language impersonal and objective. The Ideal, the Good, is static and unchanging, while the Hebrew God was most emphatically a living person.
When the Hebrew speaks of gods and idols it is like a signpost that reads “Here be dragons!”
[3] God speaks of the gods as idols, things formed.
We don’t have to try to reconcile the differences between Hebrew and Greek, because both languages speak for themselves. Both express the same thing, but in very different ways. They are complementary without needing to be harmonized.
Even if Greek never existed as a language and the specific concepts of non-being were never subject to the philosophy of Plato, the gods would still not be any more or less real. We’d just use different language to communicate that reality.
YEAH which is why Vox(who like a few others had to turn ”being Beta” AKA /into ”Bravo”(as in applause AKA in British-speak ”very very good smashingly weak show lad”) into a ”good” thing since he saw the days of game AKA heavily watered down(for the Average ”redpill” chump” to understand better) game AKA ”red pill” were over years ago yet nonetheless he still pushes the failurous tradcon ideology as does all his ilk)like DAL are more intelligent tradcons yet they still fail:
Info says:
2024-09-14 at 8:16 am
Voxday also notes that men lower on the SMV behavioral pattern like Delta and Gamma are relatively more Solipsistic compared to men with higher behavioral patterns like Bravo’s and Alphas.
Solipsism which is a feature of a narrowed focus and is more suited to servants than men who are more Empathetic and more Cognisant of the Big picture by comparison and able to have a strong Frame.
Solipsism disqualifies all women by default from any Leadership roles over group.
BEING ”BETA”/”BRAVO” WAS NEVER SEEN A GOOD thing unless lots of ”alpha” was included to set aside the weakness of the loser effeminate minded ”beta” part.
Evidence for the near braindead as Derek & sparkly both said recently t@rded tradcons out there?
How about from ”red pill” saint Rollo?
September 2, 2011by Rollo Tomassi
Beta Game
Before I launch into this proper, let me define a few terms in the fashion that I interpret them. With the popularity of Roissy’s blog and a few notable others, there’s been a new push with regards to using the terms Alpha and Beta (and sometimes Omega) when describing certain classifications of males in modern culture. Allow me to go on record as viewing these ideas as mindsets whereas terms such as AFC or DJ are really states of being. For instance, an Alpha can still be an AFC (called a ‘paper alpha’) with regards to women. A Beta male can still be as wealthy and astute in status as his conditions and fortune have placed him in (often by circumstance). Some states necessitate certain mindsets – a positive masculine state requires an Alpha mindset as a requirement – others do not. Also, don’t make the mistake of associating success (personal and career) with an Alpha mindset. There are plenty of Alphas on hotchickswithdouchebags.com, however that doesn’t necessarily make them well rounded individuals. I tend to think of the ideas Alpha and Beta as subconscious energies or attitudes that manifest themselves in our thoughts, beliefs and actions.
Beta Game
Alright now, with this in mind I’d like to propose the idea of Beta Game. Since we’re using the Alpha and Beta terminology here, it’s important to grasp where it comes from. Anyone with even a cursory understanding about animal social hierarchies knows the principal of Alpha and Beta individuals within a social collective. Alphas tend to be the males who exhibit the best genetic characteristics and behavioral skills that put them at the top of the potential breeding pool. In fact Betas are rarely mentioned as such in scientific studies; the Beta term, in PUA lingo is really something of a novelty. Relating these terms to human social interactions, while at times a subjective stretch, isn’t to hard to find parallels in. We can see the similarity, and the applications in long term and short term breeding methodologies that mirror our own.
Like any other Beta animal, alternate methodologies had to be developed in order to facilitate human breeding under the harsh conditions of Alpha competition. In essence, and as found in the wild, Beta males have developed (evolved?) methods which attempt to ‘poach’ potential females from an Alpha’s harem, or at least in this case his perceived, potential harem.
Identification
Beta male game focuses primarily on identifying and assimilating themselves to be more like the women they hope to connect with, but it goes further than this. The methodology dictates that the Beta be perceived as being unique (or at least set apart) from the more “common” Alpha males whom his desired women naturally prefer. This is the beginning of the “not-like-other-guys” mental schema he hopes to evoke in his idealized woman.
Due to his inability to compete with an Alpha competitor in the physical, he must fight a psychological battle on his own terms. This involves convincing his target that her best parental investment should be with him (as per her stated requirements) as he more closely embodies her long term prerequisites. The Beta likens himself to her (and women in general) in an effort to maximize his compatibility and familiarity with her and the feminine.
This identification process is then further reinforced through the feminine social conventions he subscribes to. Feminine society (both beta men and women) rewards him for more closely assimilating its ideal – be more like an archetypal woman; sensitive, empathic, emotional, security-seeking, etc.. And not only this, but take de facto feminine offense when presented with anything to the contrary of a female-positive perspective. Lift women up, become less so they become more, and in reciprocation she’s more apt to breed with the Beta.
That’s the principle, not necessarily the reality. In some ways it’s a Cap’n Save a Ho mentality written on a grand scale. The fallacy in this of course is that like should attract like. They fail to understand that opposites attract, and most women don’t want to marry other women, least of all a carbon copy of herself.
Disqualification
When presented with a competitor of superior status, both sex’s innate, subconscious reaction is to disqualify that competitor from breeding in as expedient a method as possible. For animals this usually involves some kind of courtship performance or outright competitive hostility. And while the same could be said for human beings, our natural social impulse requires we take a bit more tact. “Look at that girl, she must be a slut to wear / act like that”, or “Yeah, he’s pretty good looking, but guys like that are usually fags” are an example of the standard social weapons people use to disqualify their respective sex. Disqualify the competitor on the most base level – question their sexuality. Literally cast doubt on competitor’s sexual fitness to breed with potential mates.
While most men (Alpha or Beta) will make similar attempts to disqualify, the Beta’s methodology ties back into his need for feminine identification in his disqualifying a competitor. Essentially he relies on feminine ways of disqualification by drawing upon his likeness to the women he hopes to emulate (thus furthering potential attraction as he thinks). The competitor may not be gay, but he must be cast as inferior to himself due to his competitor’s inability (or lessened ability) to identify and empathize with his desired female.
With Alpha competitors, the field has already been plowed for him by feminine social conventions, all he need do is plant the seeds. The fact that the Alpha tends to embody the masculine opposite of what he’s embraced also feeds this drive. Women aren’t attracted to the macho tough guy, they want a man who’s kind and thoughtful; a good listener. So the natural recourse is to amplify this disparity – he’s a 1950’s neanderthal throwback, he’s “bitter”, he’s a misogynist, he’s a child in a man’s body with a fragile ego only interested in fucking women and moving on. He’s unlike anything on women’s collective stated list of prerequisites for an acceptable male. He must be ridiculed – as all women ridicule – for his selfish hyper-masculinity.
Furthermore, the Beta needs to make the Alpha seem common, while making himself seem unique. In order to effectively AMOG an Alpha, the Beta who is most definitely a loser like most ”men” -especially tradconnic ”men” has to show his empathy for the feminine, and she must appreciate it or it’s been all for nothing (which it usually is). Not only is this an ego preservation mechanism, but it’s also perceived as a tool for achieving the desired sexual reciprocation / appreciation he desires.
NOW SEE WHY BRIAN FORBES AKA JACK WAYNE, SPARKLY,BGR=LARRY SOLOMON=MATT PERKINS & OTHER ”REDPILLERS” ARE SO EFFIMINATE-MINDED NOW?
Pingback: HTCG, Chapter 2, Section C: The Impression of Things