What Makes A Classic?


Qualities of Classics

Classic describes moments when the human mind peaks in its grasp of the true, the good, and the beautiful. There is no canonical agreement of what makes a classic a classic. However, there do seem to be certain qualities without which the term classic would seem a compliment misapplied:

  • Excellence
    The excellence of a classic is such that it seems to enjoy an inexhaustibility of meaning. The opposite of a classic is a period piece, fad, momentary, or provincial thing with glitzy celebrity.
  • Universality
    Classics melt borders geographically and temporally. Classics are as at home today as they were yesterday – and maybe even more so today as new developments make their insights even more relevant and more obviously true.
  • Shock
    Classics jostle how we see the world. Classics are subverse of petty and sectarian orthodoxies and ideologies. In a classic, the might be triumphs over the grip of the status quo.
  • Hope
    Hope follows like a corollary to excellence, universality, and shock. Hope has universal appeal and opens previously unexpected horizons. Hope enlarges our sense of possibility and invites participation.
  • Fruitfulness
    Classics are fruitful in two ways: they spawn other classics, and over time, more is found in them than was even suspected by the original authors. Classics are perennials that rise to new life with each new opportunity. Millennia later their insights may be vindicated as they could not have been when first created. In the presence of a classic, standards rise and thus critical thought is encouraged.

Christianity Without God
Christianity Without God: Moving beyond the Dogmas and Retrieving the Epic Moral Narrative

Daniel C. Maguire

Can Science Solve The Mystery Of Nature?

Mystery of Nature

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.

…..Max Planck

The Seeker's Guide
The Seeker’s Guide

Elizabeth Lesser

How Does Being Still Benefit Us?


Thoughts and Images

The mind loves to travel in familiar territory, endlessly recycling thoughts and images we have thought a thousand times before. We move through the world making it familiar through our concepts and labels.The world doesn’t invite or command us to impose our thoughts of “good,” “bad,” “beautiful,” or “ugly” – yet we find ourselves freezing the universe into something known through concept, memory, and association.

Knowing Fully

Within all the activity there is little room for surprise. Intuitively, we may understand that our capacity to deepen and learn is linked to be surprised by life, by other people, and by ourselves. Our concepts, ideas, and knowledge can only tell us what we think about the world, drawing on memory and association. To know anything fully, we must learn to be still, to listen, and allow it to reveal itself to us.

Buddhist Path to Simplicity
The Buddhist Path to Simplicity

Christina Feldman

Ancient Rome’s Global Economy

Ancient Rome's Global Economy

1st Century CE

In the 1st century CE, the Roman Empire spanned an area from the Persian Gulf westward to Spain and Britain and from the Rhine frontier in Germany southward to the Sahara Desert. The Empire encompassed the entire perimeter of the Mediterranean basin, while its trade networks extended to Bactria (central Asia), India, Arabia, and Nubia (area along the Nile).

Rome 100CE
Roman Empire

Global Economy

Roman expansion began in the 3rd century BCE, but the high-water mark for imperialism was the reign of Augustus (29 BCE-14 CE). Nonetheless, the empire continued to expand throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. The result was a “global economy,” or at least the closest to one that can be imagined for the ancient Western world.

The Greek term often used to refer to the empire was oikoumene, often translated as “world”. From it we get the English word “economy,” but it originally carried the sense of “the managed realm.” From a Roman perspective, fit meant “the world we inhabit and control” – in other words, the Roman empire.

From Jesus to Christianity
From Jesus to Christianity

L. Michael White

Writing History – Ancient vs Modern Methods

Ancient and Modern History

Canons of History

The canons of modern history differ significantly from those of ancient history. Both modern historians and ancient historians utilized various sources in order to construct a narrative account that was faithful to the event or series of events under consideration. However, unlike modern historians, ancient historians often favored oral sources over written ones. Written sources were utilized and incorporated into histories, but information obtained directly through person-to-person communication was considered more trustworthy that that obtained from a written source.

Standards of Documentation

Even though ancient historians, like modern historians, aspired to produce truthful accounts of past events, they did not operate with the concept of “facts” the way modern historians traditionally have – what constitutes being a faithful account of past events was measured by a different standard in antiquity that it is in modernity.The reasons for the difference between that way the ancient world and modern societies report and preserve their pasts are complex and difficult to explain, but at one reason was people in antiquity had few ways to record any given moment at the point it occurred.

There were no telephones, tape recorders, cameras, or video cameras. Neither were there photocopy machines, computers, or fax machines. And, since no such thing as journalism existed yet, people in antiquity did not typically take notes at important events. Thus, the gathering, retrieval, and cross-checking of data was an entirely different matter for ancient historians than it is for modern ones. For example, reporting who said what, when, and to whom would be a difficult thing to do accurately without the benefits of modern technology.

Greco-Roman Period

Historical writings of the Greco-Roman period often contain the text of lengthy speeches given by key figures at key moments. How did ancient historians know exactly what was said if they weren’t present (or even if they were)?

From Thucydides, the 5th century BCE Greek historian who wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War, we know that historians composed speeches themselves. There was no expectation to record the words spoken on a given occasion verbatim. Rather, the author needed to convey what the figure would have plausibly said under the circumstances. From oral traditions about what sort of person he or she was, as well as oral reports about the circumstances in which they found themselves, the ancient historian composed a speech for that person on that occasion.

Paul Was Not A Christian
Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

Pamela Eisenbaum