The Letters of Gary. C. Moore - THE AXIAL AGE - Athenaeum Library of Philosophy

Richard Sansom:
Here is an interesting question: Karl Jaspers called the period of 300 to 600 BCE the 'axial age,' during which peoples of disparate cultures, languages and geography moved into spiritual and intellectual territories heretofore not explored. Zoraster, perhaps the first real monotheist, the prophets of Israel. the Greeks, Confucius and Lao-Tse in China, the Buddha in India all began their explorations and ideas during this period. These fairly disparate areas of culture and history gradually moved toward something new and profoundly significant in human history. Why do you suppose this happened when it did?

Gary. C. Moore:
Part of it in two parts, both interconnected and acting separately on their own, was the creation of nation states like the Hittite Empire inclusive of many different cultures and languages, the growth of Greek commercialism on the Phoenician model along with the extensive establishment of colonies by people with a sense of cultural superiority [Hellene versus barbarian] which seeped into the surrounding populations by various means, a factor I never heard mentioned in relation to the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, but that may be my pure ignorance. This of course ONLY applies in the West. And at that time the unity of the Greek speaking world that was expanding very rapidly from 900 BC on was extremely fortified by the bards reciting the 'national' epics, especially the establishment of a very distinct Greek character, in the ILIAD and the ODYSSEY that ever afterwards defined what being 'Greek' was. This, as a secondary influence within the expansion of Greek commercial activity and conquest, was influencing the barbarians around the Greeks to imitate their culture while trying also to establish nation states like the Hittite empire.

The Hittites are especially important because they belonged to the Indo-Aryan language group. So, throughout Asia Minor, though far from all inclusive, and the coasts of the Black Sea and all of the Mediterranean, though again not all inclusive, related dialectics and languages were spoken. The 'monotheism' of Zoroastrianism and Israel at the same time is almost entirely of hindsight, and, with the little we know factually of either, possibly more like the relation of Buddhism and Hinduism possibly also relating to the subjugation of the power to priests to the throne and skepticism as to the infinite multiplicity of the gods.

The Zoroastrians invented the angels just like Paul made all the pagan gods into demons – the gods still existed but were not the supreme power and not to be relied upon. But, especially with Judaism but even to some extent with Zoroastrianism, monotheism at a MUCH later date becomes identified with nationalism and the earthly throne is an exact likeness to the heavenly throne and ANY kind of polytheism treated harshly. Buddhism almost attained that point, but with the breakup of the Gupta empire around 300 AD and then the holocaustic clash with Islam starting around 750 AD, polytheism came back with a vengeance and became part of the national identity, opposite to the monotheism of Iran and Israel. In India the abuse of Bramanic political power alienated all non-Brahmans from king to farmer and caused an almost complete collapse of Brahmanism around 300 BC to 100 AD with the creation of the empires of Chandragupta and especially Asoka and the popularity of Buddhism which satisfied everyones' desires – it was essentially inclusive of Hinduism so you could worship any gods you wanted to – it destroyed the political power of the Brahmans and their sense of social superiority – and it supported many different kinds of skepticism that were a reaction to the manipulation of religion by the Brahmans and the nearly infinite number of gods in Hinduism which may be a reflection of, but not a cultural influence upon, the skepticism in China starting with Confucius.

Essentially the Far East tried to relegate 'the gods' into a harmless sphere of influence that did not impinge upon the power of kings and emperors. There are numerous exceptions to this, it is hardly any sort of rule, but I think, extremely loosely, it holds together. And of course the empire of Alexander the Great doubly reinforced all of this precisely around 300 BCE tremendously influencing both Iran and India, which the later was just beginning to co0mmercially and culturally communicate with China. Therefore, for similar reasons, the same impulses started separately in each area, but after 300 BCE was tremendously reinforced for hundreds of years afterward by a growth of mutual cultural influences, reinforced over again by the physical and especially commercial expansion of the Roman empire, and the expulsion of the Jews from Israel and the Diaspora after the numerous revolts which put new Jewish communities not only in Iraq, but in Mecca, Iran, and India and possibly even China. Maybe even the Jews discovered the New World first and we just do not even know about it . . . yet. NOR! are they the ONLY reasons!

Richard Sansom:

It gives rise to the theory that the evolution of our cognitive system moved along similar paths toward systems of belief that had a sense of permanency and truth that could serve our species in some way. IMO this signaled a concept of a purposeful and unifying source of knowledge as to the workings of life and the universe. But what evolutionary purpose might it serve? Perhaps it served to give a fixed and unalterable force on which all could rely as the basis for all truth. In particular, monotheism may have played a serious part in shaping Western philosophy. And we cannot forget that the pre-Socreatics had the idea of a single unifying and controlling force in the universe. What do you think?

Gary. C. Moore:

Every theogony starts with either one or two gods. I know of none that start from a multiplicity already at hand. This may just be my ignorance. So there is almost always a tendency to have all the gods subordinated to one figure, Also, the absorption of the gods of conquered communities reflected their submission to the chief of the conquering gods. It is interesting in the Greek 'system' is that, with the growth of the sophistication of Greek culture, the power of the supreme god becomes highly fragmented to the point he becomes a ludicrous figure, even a hen pecked husband. There are constant plots and rebellions of the other gods against Zeus and his throne grows less and less secure over time. So the appeal of the philosopher's supreme – but not necessarily monotheist god – grew extremely popular over time and Epicureanism, in its real form, became nearly the same as a liberal popular religion. But remember Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all supported the state gods to the point of supporting the execution of anyone who publicly denied them. But this may be in the same spirit as Plato, in the LAWS, saying homosexuals should be burned at the stake. These are 'words', trigger words, political words, possibly operating in a completely non-philosophical or even anti-philosophical context. BUT! All of the things I wrote MERELY support your statement, ' Perhaps it served to give a fixed and unalterable force on which all could rely as the basis for all truth.' This is clearly true. I just wanted to show it acted on several different levels THOUGH ALL OF THOSE LEVELS REFLECT COMMON HUMAN DESIRES NATURAL TO THE HUMAN SITUATION. Enough preaching.