Philosophy

I havent read that much philosophy except what I had to read in a introductionary course at university.
I did find alot of it as abstract mastrubation, but found some of it interresting and some of it resonated with me.

I like Kants categorical imperativ altough when pushed to its limits it has it flaws as all moral/ethical philosophys( be it utilitarianism, Virtue etichs etc ). What I find usefull with Kants moral philosophy is that it atleast can tell if a action is good or bad in it self.

I have also touched on Sartre, but not much. I have only read “existensialism is humanism” and I guess
that not enough to get a grasp on what that french guy was all about + I can hardly remember what the text was about.

In the end Marx is the “Philosopher”( perhaps ideolog would fit him better, even though I see the irony in that ) I have read the most and probably knows best altough I must admit there is plenty of he`s stuff I dont understand fully, especially hes economical theorys. I especially likes hes dialectic-materialist wiew on history even though I dont agree that history is bound to end with communism. The guy was for shure bright, but doubt he knew what the future could bring, in other words he was not a prophet.

Well thats my take on the matter of philosophy.

[quote]florelius wrote:
I havent read that much philosophy except what I had to read in a introductionary course at university.
I did find alot of it as abstract mastrubation, but found some of it interresting and some of it resonated with me.

I like Kants categorical imperativ altough when pushed to its limits it has it flaws as all moral/ethical philosophys( be it utilitarianism, Virtue etichs etc ). What I find usefull with Kants moral philosophy is that it atleast can tell if a action is good or bad in it self.

I have also touched on Sartre, but not much. I have only read “existensialism is humanism” and I guess
that not enough to get a grasp on what that french guy was all about + I can hardly remember what the text was about.

In the end Marx is the “Philosopher”( perhaps ideolog would fit him better, even though I see the irony in that ) I have read the most and probably knows best altough I must admit there is plenty of he`s stuff I dont understand fully, especially hes economical theorys. I especially likes hes dialectic-materialist wiew on history even though I dont agree that history is bound to end with communism. The guy was for shure bright, but doubt he knew what the future could bring, in other words he was not a prophet.

Well thats my take on the matter of philosophy.

[/quote]

Any expansion on Kant would be much appreciated, I myself cannot give a reasonable interpretation of his theories as I haven’t gotten around to studying them yet, so anything to start me on my way for the future would be very welcome.

Also I’d personally love to hear your thoughts on Marx and his beliefs on a better societal system, I also have issues in understanding the extent of his work and I need all the help I can get.

Actually I’m glad this thread came up. Maybe you guys can discuss the topic of my paper. My main argument is that the Minarchist society that Robert Nozick present is more just than the welfare state present by John Rawls.

My reasoning is along the lines that, when given enough time, the actions of the most advantaged serve to benefit the least advantaged. Also the redistribution of wealth to reach the Welfare state (taxes, etc.) is akin to forced labor and is unjust to those who receive more through the lottery of birth.

Your thoughts. Feel free to strengthen or tear holes in the argument.

As for people. I like Alan Watts on the Universe, Bertrand Russell on the God debate, J.L Mackie on the objectivity of morals, and Nagel on Absurdity.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I’m a Philosophy major, so this thread is of interest to me.

I’m really boring and am basically Aristotelian in a lot of my thoughts.

My other favorite philosophers though are Abelard, Aquinas, Hume, Husserl, Plato…

[/quote]

That’s brilliant! If you have any subject you’re studying and you’d like to gather the perspectives of others please feel free to leave it here, at the very least it might save you some book reading.

What are your opinions as to the works of Locke, Hobbes, and Kant? And maybe even also William Of Ockham.

And your thoughts on the differences between Plato and Aristotle? I’ve always been intrigued by the way Aristotle branched away from Plato’s core philosophies.[/quote]

Right now I’m writing a paper comparing Descartes and Husserl, and basically using a phenomenological position to make Descartes proof of ‘God’ better. It’s kind of tough, but it’s definitely interesting.

Locke I’ve always really liked. I’m kind of hesitant to say I agree with everything he says, because I do believe in some sense of ‘innate’ ideas, but overall I feel his understanding of human nature is good, though the political implications he makes from those I think kind of fail when used on societies that as large as modern day nations (but I think are pretty perfect on say the state level).

Hobbes. LOL. I’m honestly kind of a person who thinks Hobbes may have been clinically depressed. His beliefs on human nature just have never seemed accurate to me, and in cases where people say “but look what this group has done to this group” or “this person to that person”, it seems to be the exception, not the rule, and I feel that’s giving government WAY to much credit to say it’s the only thing stopping us from living lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”

My favorite professor here at my university adores Kant, so I’ve read extensively on him, and honestly think he is brilliant, but don’t agree with his ethical principles. They make sense to a degree, but the way things are defined as being ‘right’ though they are genuinely wrong (The classic case of the Nazi’s knocking on your door while you are hiding Jews in your attic. They ask if you have any Jews hiding, and by Kant’s rules lying, no matter the reason, would be the wrong moral decision). I think life is MUCH to complicated to have such explicit rules, so I’m more partial to Aristotle who says the right action is what the virtuous man would do; yeah that’s as clear cut as Kant’s, but makes sense to me.

William of Ockham I’ve only recently really read on. Like Abelard, I think his work is even more impressive considering he had to do it within the restrains of the Church, but his beliefs are quite Aristotelian so I agree mostly. His thoughts on universals are in line with mine.

I think Plato was simply brilliant, and Aristotle isn’t necessarily ‘better’ or ‘more intelligent’ then his teacher. I think Aristotle just kind of realized that Plato’s ideals were great but hardly applicable to the world that we live in, and the ‘Forms’ were something that, in the case of being a human, is something one must actively strive for, and not something all will inherently do, if that makes any sense. haha

I really like this thread so far!

Spidey22 I agree that the problem with Kants moral philosophy is exactly what you describe with scenario of the Nazis knocking at your door and that hes moral philosophy is to simplistic and rigid to be used as an
all-be end moral guidance in real life. When I wrote over that he`s moral philosophy had flaws when pushed to it limits it was exactly the nazi scenario I had in mind.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

I expect Nietzsche felt much the same way as you did about the Ubermensch in it not being so much an obtainable perfected (dare I say) evolution. And I assure myself in the same time with the same knowledge and wisdom I too would feel that way. However with the advancements of technology and the incredible…

.[/quote]

Now this is interesting. How do you feel about genetic modification for people in the health sector or even in the food industry? Does this influence your view on drugs, in sport, out of sport etc.?

So you’re quite well read in philosophy. Considerably better then some of our student populace. I like Machiavelli, I think it’s an odd snap shot of a world that’s very different from the rest of Europe, both then and now. His morally outlook is pragmatic yet accessible. Machiavelli, for me, is better understood in the context of a fractured Italy rather than as a stand alone political philosopher. You looked in any Rorty? How did you come to pair the two, Foucault and Machiavelli, together?

Is that unusual in America? We have a sort of skewed view of religiousosity inthe American populace. The image of the American Bible-bashing nationalist, fundermentalists is something that is quite heavily suggested in the American ‘stereotype’ we see on this side of the pond. I imagine it is just as off as the stereotypical view of an Englishman as mild-mannered, tea drinking, tweed wearers with bad teeth. And that’s only half fair. We’ll never give up tea and only some of us have bad teeth.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist, maybe even a deist if pushed hard enough. I want to believe, i can’t think of anything more pleasing then an ideal god. However, I feel the reality is very far and different from the dream. Nonetheless. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water. My study of Qu’ran is limited, but not none existent. It’s very rule and list heavy. Even more so than the Old Testament. It doesn’t do much for me. I like the Gospel of Thomas. That’s the way I would want my God to be. Buddhism is somethng i could never get on with. i thought it would be spiritually enlightening, but I couldn’t find anything I liked in it. As to the others you mentioned, I’ve touched on them but outside of having read them, I can’t say I’ve ‘studied’ them as such.

So your interest is purely self educated? That’s quite impressive.

Machiavelli

would any of you consider Voltaire a philosopher?

his role in the downfall of the Bourbons was impressive, but I would consider him more of a man of letters, than a philosopher.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

Any expansion on Kant would be much appreciated, I myself cannot give a reasonable interpretation of his theories as I haven’t gotten around to studying them yet, so anything to start me on my way for the future would be very welcome.[/quote]

Well since I have only read about Kant in a text book at Uni, I cant really bring much to the table of substance or book recommendations. I guess someone like Spidey22 will be a better person to ask.

[quote]
Also I’d personally love to hear your thoughts on Marx and his beliefs on a better societal system, I also have issues in understanding the extent of his work and I need all the help I can get.[/quote]

What I like about Marx is that he is able to show trough his writings that our modern industrial capitalist society is a highly collectiv one and that the idea of the self made man in such a context is BS since we all benefits from and are dependent on the labour and contributions of our fellow humans. If one is to agree with Marx on this it makes our society rather absurd since all the wealth are a product of our collectic effort, but only a few controls and owns it. Now Marx argues offcourse that it is logical that what is produced cellectively is also owned and controled in a collectiv manner, but he doesnt argue this from a moralist position. He rather argues for the revolt of the proletariat and the overtrowhing of the burgeoise state from a cynical and egoistic perspectiv. Wich means that he thinks the proletariat should and would make a revolution because it is there self interrest to do so. This is where Marx parts with the more moralist based socialist that rather argues for a socialist society because they find the capitalist one unfair and cruel. So basickly the strenght IMO with Marx`s perspectiv on Capitalism is that it gives on a set of arguments that are not based on emotions or/and moralism. Offcourse part of his Argument for a socialist society is based on his dialectic-materialist understanding of history and his analyses of the capitalist system, wich means he sees the downfall of capitalism as something that are going to happen if we want it to or not based on his idea of class antagonism as the driving force of history and also his hypothesis that within capitalism is its doom.

The problem with the two latter position of his can be illustrated by looking at the young Lenin. In the biography Lenin by Robert Service, Service tells that Lenin when he was young and he was a ortodox marxist, there was problems in the rural parts of Russia aka hunger, poverty and misery for the poor peasants. While many leftists where collecting money to help the rural population, Lenin on the other hand argued against helping them, because he saw the destruction of the rural society as a necessary part of the development of capitalism since that was what happened in western europa when industrialisation took place there. I myself see Lenins position as a problem and I find it as a problem with marxism that it can be used as an argument to NOT helping starving people.

I dont know if this made sense, but hope you got something out of it.

Forgive me, but what is meant by ‘majoring’ in philosophy? It’s not a term that’s used over here. Also, what sort of level of study is that? We go from school (ending at 16), college (usually 16-18 or so, about two years of education) then university (a BA/BSc/Beng etc. is around 3years or so’. Then it goes masters, masters of philosophy, PhD, prof. But some steps can be skipped).

It’s quite an interesting mix we’ve got in here. Also nice to see Hobbes brought out for a walk, he’s near enough by passed completely here.

Also seems like Greek philosophers are held in much higher regard.

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
Right now I’m writing a paper comparing Descartes and Husserl, and basically using a phenomenological position to make Descartes proof of ‘God’ better. It’s kind of tough, but it’s definitely interesting.
[/quote]

That does sound incredibly engaging, so you’re saying your allegiance lies with Husserl and using his idea of phenomenology and the conscious awareness to improve upon Descartes’ flaws as they relate to an idea of God?

I always liked to debate Descartes’ ‘proof’ of a God, so I may have some ideas concerning your paper, I’ll throw out what comes to me anyway, in the hope that it’s of use to you, either as a perspective to follow or to oppose.

In reference to ‘Cogito ergo sum’, I’m a fan of Husserl’s interpretation of intentionality and his point that the ‘cogito’ must always have a ‘cogitatum’. That the ‘thought’ always has ‘something to think about’, and that consciousness is always being conscious of something. Respectively ‘ego cogito cogitatum’. That it’s identity is transfixed by the object it is thinking about.

Descartes had managed to overlook the phenomenon that is the intentional character of consciousness, and that consciousness is such that it serves to manifest this intentional being. That objects of discussion are not there for a subject, but that they must be formulated first hand.

The conceptualization of an object in turn leads to a hierarchy of order. That “transcendental subjectivity” is not a bundled mess of intentional experience, but a synthesization of unity. It is a multi-level structure in which all new classes and individual things are formulated, but that each and every object expresses a rule within the subjectivity. It is only through constitution of the ‘ego’ that consciousness can carry the content of intentionality and make it a viable option for truthful evaluation and thereby infer a possibility for error. And it is only by this synthesis that objects can freely have the ability to display truth for our thoughts.

Descartes had become too much of a realist, he had disregarded the critical aspect of the intentional character relative to the conscious subjectivity he felt fit to claim and just missed the mark on the reality of transcendental idealism. That’s largely all I can think of without my brain turning into gooey mush, I’m sure there are plenty of situations and speeches given by both Husserl and Descartes that you could mould this into and come to a greater perspective of their situation, maybe if your deadline is long enough I could help you integrate Heidegger into the equation.

I hope this helps, good luck on your assignment!

[quote]KvonBabbage wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

I expect Nietzsche felt much the same way as you did about the Ubermensch in it not being so much an obtainable perfected (dare I say) evolution. And I assure myself in the same time with the same knowledge and wisdom I too would feel that way. However with the advancements of technology and the incredible…

.[/quote]

Now this is interesting. How do you feel about genetic modification for people in the health sector or even in the food industry? Does this influence your view on drugs, in sport, out of sport etc.?

So you’re quite well read in philosophy. Considerably better then some of our student populace. I like Machiavelli, I think it’s an odd snap shot of a world that’s very different from the rest of Europe, both then and now. His morally outlook is pragmatic yet accessible. Machiavelli, for me, is better understood in the context of a fractured Italy rather than as a stand alone political philosopher. You looked in any Rorty? How did you come to pair the two, Foucault and Machiavelli, together?

Is that unusual in America? We have a sort of skewed view of religiousosity inthe American populace. The image of the American Bible-bashing nationalist, fundermentalists is something that is quite heavily suggested in the American ‘stereotype’ we see on this side of the pond. I imagine it is just as off as the stereotypical view of an Englishman as mild-mannered, tea drinking, tweed wearers with bad teeth. And that’s only half fair. We’ll never give up tea and only some of us have bad teeth.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist, maybe even a deist if pushed hard enough. I want to believe, i can’t think of anything more pleasing then an ideal god. However, I feel the reality is very far and different from the dream. Nonetheless. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water. My study of Qu’ran is limited, but not none existent. It’s very rule and list heavy. Even more so than the Old Testament. It doesn’t do much for me. I like the Gospel of Thomas. That’s the way I would want my God to be. Buddhism is somethng i could never get on with. i thought it would be spiritually enlightening, but I couldn’t find anything I liked in it. As to the others you mentioned, I’ve touched on them but outside of having read them, I can’t say I’ve ‘studied’ them as such.

So your interest is purely self educated? That’s quite impressive. [/quote]

Regarding genetic modification, my input is likely large enough to concern a new thread in and of itself, however to summarise, I expect it will follow in pursuit of a system not unlike food modification is doing now. That the hierarchy of wealth and power will serve to monopolize biological modification through artificial means firstly through the corporate mesh and filtering downwards ending with the consumer. Of course there would be changes and the system would not be identical, at least not in the birthing stages of such a revolutionary event, but we can expect some similarity in it’s planning. So to not go into detail, and to be blunt, I would look at it and interpret it somewhat comparatively with crop modification.

Regarding Machiavelli, I agree that Machiavelli’s “advice” holds truer in regard to Renaissance Italy than it may do in a modern societal setting, however I still feel it has something to offer, even if it is largely misinterpreted. I liken it to Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War and how it relates to modern militant strategy, tweaks need to be made to accommodate, but the fundamentals are left largely intact. So far I have not researched the musings of Rorty, but I shall when I find it fits the puzzle when I’m articulating a theory related to his ideas. Really the only real reason I had for comparing Foucault and Machiavelli was that I was in the middle of reading The Prince and had been told about who Foucault was. I realised they both had their basis in the science of political power, and so I saw two ingredients of the same colour and decided to throw them both into a beaker, to see what came of it.

I believe you mistake my Nationality, though I do not fault you. I am in fact English (I just reside in Spain), from Oxford to be precise, so I cannot comment on the overzealous view of the US’ cling to Christianity we predominantly have. Though I will say, I try my best to be polite and learned, I love green tea, and I have very bad teeth. So c’est la vie, my stereotypes do not yet elude me.

I like some of the ideology of Buddhism, and I in particular like that The Buddha does not force you to commit yourself to anything that does not jive with your personal judgement, I found that very generous of him as a religious icon.

Almost entirely self-educated. I once saw a child astrophysics prodigy make a speech about how every brilliant person with every great thought only came to their eureka moment through years and years of constant thought and examination, that they already held the flesh and bones to their ideas in their head, but needed the time and space to formulate a connection. (For example Darwin, Einstein, Tesla etc.) Since then I’ve taken it upon myself to learn how to think, in the hope that in my future I’ll have a similar faux revelation. If the odds are against me, I should not like to know.

Kvon, just to address your question about us Americans on the board, I think the stereotypes are actually similar. Many of us are very well read and religious, but also one of either (myself not included).

I took one ethics course in college and found the convoluted babblings of mainstream philosophers unreadable.

About five years ago, my interest in classical liberal (“libertarian”) political philosophy led me to Ayn Rand. Hers is the only philosophy that moves me, and she is correct.

[quote]Edgy wrote:
would any of you consider Voltaire a philosopher?

his role in the downfall of the Bourbons was impressive, but I would consider him more of a man of letters, than a philosopher.[/quote]

Of course, Voltaire was perhaps one of the greatest philosophers of his time, (largely arguable of course due to him being greatly known during the era of Enlightenment.)

I would label him a philosopher if just for the merit that he was a deist, and his formulation and thought surrounding that religious affiliation led him to question the things that philosophers question.

I love his notion of the separation of Church and State, something we’re all losing sight of rapidly. I hate that religious doctrine is so prevalent in legality, and hinging solely on tradition no less.

I found Candide intriguing, I’m sure we have a user on these forums named after a character from the novella, I should like to discuss with them their interpretation of it, and of Voltaire’s theories in general.

[quote]florelius wrote:

What I like about Marx is that he is able to show trough his writings that our modern industrial capitalist society is a highly collectiv one and that the idea of the self made man in such a context is BS since we all benefits from and are dependent on the labour and contributions of our fellow humans. If one is to agree with Marx on this it makes our society rather absurd since all the wealth are a product of our collectic effort, but only a few controls and owns it. Now Marx argues offcourse that it is logical that what is produced cellectively is also owned and controled in a collectiv manner, but he doesnt argue this from a moralist position. He rather argues for the revolt of the proletariat and the overtrowhing of the burgeoise state from a cynical and egoistic perspectiv. Wich means that he thinks the proletariat should and would make a revolution because it is there self interrest to do so. This is where Marx parts with the more moralist based socialist that rather argues for a socialist society because they find the capitalist one unfair and cruel. So basickly the strenght IMO with Marx`s perspectiv on Capitalism is that it gives on a set of arguments that are not based on emotions or/and moralism. Offcourse part of his Argument for a socialist society is based on his dialectic-materialist understanding of history and his analyses of the capitalist system, wich means he sees the downfall of capitalism as something that are going to happen if we want it to or not based on his idea of class antagonism as the driving force of history and also his hypothesis that within capitalism is its doom.

The problem with the two latter position of his can be illustrated by looking at the young Lenin. In the biography Lenin by Robert Service, Service tells that Lenin when he was young and he was a ortodox marxist, there was problems in the rural parts of Russia aka hunger, poverty and misery for the poor peasants. While many leftists where collecting money to help the rural population, Lenin on the other hand argued against helping them, because he saw the destruction of the rural society as a necessary part of the development of capitalism since that was what happened in western europa when industrialisation took place there. I myself see Lenins position as a problem and I find it as a problem with marxism that it can be used as an argument to NOT helping starving people.

I dont know if this made sense, but hope you got something out of it.
[/quote]

It was indeed helpful, I’m sure with enough questioning and consideration I can come to a complete understanding of what Marx and Engels proposed and cross-reference my own thoughts with that.

I expect it to be a long time before that happens, but every opinion I come across will surely make the journey easier.

I really have to use my eyes more.

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Kvon, just to address your question about us Americans on the board, I think the stereotypes are actually similar. Many of us are very well read and religious, but also one of either (myself not included).[/quote]

Perhaps my stereotype was a tad unfair. I’ve never been, all my knowledge of America is second hand. It’s good to know its not accurate. ‘We’ sort of get fed the idea America is full of the West-Borough Baptists and the KKK. With England being such a small country we don’t really get that sort of thing. It’s quite the contrast. We have the BNP, which is a white-nationalist party and that’s about it. Anti-Islam is sort of projected, but even that’s more a watery ignorance.

Our extremism, on any side, is quite mild. Unless you’re ginger. Then you’re asking for it.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
Right now I’m writing a paper comparing Descartes and Husserl, and basically using a phenomenological position to make Descartes proof of ‘God’ better. It’s kind of tough, but it’s definitely interesting.
[/quote]

That does sound incredibly engaging, so you’re saying your allegiance lies with Husserl and using his idea of phenomenology and the conscious awareness to improve upon Descartes’ flaws as they relate to an idea of God?

I always liked to debate Descartes’ ‘proof’ of a God, so I may have some ideas concerning your paper, I’ll throw out what comes to me anyway, in the hope that it’s of use to you, either as a perspective to follow or to oppose.

In reference to ‘Cogito ergo sum’, I’m a fan of Husserl’s interpretation of intentionality and his point that the ‘cogito’ must always have a ‘cogitatum’. That the ‘thought’ always has ‘something to think about’, and that consciousness is always being conscious of something. Respectively ‘ego cogito cogitatum’. That it’s identity is transfixed by the object it is thinking about.

Descartes had managed to overlook the phenomenon that is the intentional character of consciousness, and that consciousness is such that it serves to manifest this intentional being. That objects of discussion are not there for a subject, but that they must be formulated first hand.

The conceptualization of an object in turn leads to a hierarchy of order. That “transcendental subjectivity” is not a bundled mess of intentional experience, but a synthesization of unity. It is a multi-level structure in which all new classes and individual things are formulated, but that each and every object expresses a rule within the subjectivity. It is only through constitution of the ‘ego’ that consciousness can carry the content of intentionality and make it a viable option for truthful evaluation and thereby infer a possibility for error. And it is only by this synthesis that objects can freely have the ability to display truth for our thoughts.

Descartes had become too much of a realist, he had disregarded the critical aspect of the intentional character relative to the conscious subjectivity he felt fit to claim and just missed the mark on the reality of transcendental idealism. That’s largely all I can think of without my brain turning into gooey mush, I’m sure there are plenty of situations and speeches given by both Husserl and Descartes that you could mould this into and come to a greater perspective of their situation, maybe if your deadline is long enough I could help you integrate Heidegger into the equation.

I hope this helps, good luck on your assignment!

[/quote]

Yeah this is strangely similar to what I’ve already written, so you seem to think like I do to a degree haha. I appreciate you writing all that up though, because it’s always good to hear your own ideas presented through someone else’s mouth (or writings in that case).

I am especially focusing on your last paragraph, the fact Descartes kind of ‘misses the mark’ as you wrote. He kind of stumbles upon what Husserl refers to as the ‘epoche’ when Descartes is discussing the cogito, but then just moves on. To me, THAT’S where he could have REALLY done some to establish something even close to what he would call a God, or at least one that is in any way involved with this world.

Heidegger was probably one of the hardest philosophers I’ve ever read. He’s so intelligent, and so detailed, that language kind of fails him and makes his subject matter kind of hard to get, at least for me. Lines like the “being of being is simply being” really make you say WTF? lol

[quote]KvonBabbage wrote:
Forgive me, but what is meant by ‘majoring’ in philosophy? It’s not a term that’s used over here. Also, what sort of level of study is that? We go from school (ending at 16), college (usually 16-18 or so, about two years of education) then university (a BA/BSc/Beng etc. is around 3years or so’. Then it goes masters, masters of philosophy, PhD, prof. But some steps can be skipped).

It’s quite an interesting mix we’ve got in here. Also nice to see Hobbes brought out for a walk, he’s near enough by passed completely here.

Also seems like Greek philosophers are held in much higher regard.[/quote]

Majoring means that I’m working on my Bachelor’s. I’m in my 3rd year, will graduate next year, and hopefully attend law school.

I personally hold the Greeks in high regard, but I also know I personally love that time periods and grew up obsessed with Greek mythology and stuff, so I’m probably biased. Haha