Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

The purpose of this collegium is to establish a group for those interested in ancient philosophy and a place where philosophical discussion and study may take place. Join at: http://romanrepublic.org/civitas/joint_ ... sophiae/42

Moderators: Marca Marcia, Gaius Flavius Aetius, Paullus Aemilius Gallus, Aula Flavia Philippa

Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:36 am

Salvete philosophi!

It is about time that we return to philosophical questions.
During the discussion of our bylaws it was mentioned that modern philosophers should be equally considered as classical philosophies which are emphasized by the current draft of our bylaws.
It was me who put this emphasis on classical philosophy into the text, although it is understood that everybody is free to quote and argue with modern philosophers. Classical philosophy was explicitly mentioned for two reasons.
1. This Collegium is part of the Roman Republic. Therefore it is apparently the expectation of the readers of this forum that the philosophical issues discussed reflect the views of ancient Romans, i.e. classical Greco-Roman philosophy.
2. There is a principal difference between classical and modern moral philosophy. Post-classical philosophy has simply not been able to maintain the high level of logical accuracy of Greco-Roman philosophy and is therefore inferior. This can easily be seen is the little interest that philosophy enjoys in the modern world compared with classical antiquity. Philosophy simply has not that importance for modern people anymore as it had for the ancient Romans.

There are historical reasons for the decline of philosophy during the end of antiquity.
In the classical world religion provided traditions and a certain order to to society. It did not include guidance in life or sophisticated explanations of the world. Greek mythology gave simplified explanations for the world, but several contradicting myths existed about the same subject, and the priests did not claim authority to know the truth.
For guidance in life and scientific explanations the ancient Greeks and Romans relied on philosophy, not on religion. This is why philosophy has a central place in the Roman society. And this is why our Collegium is of central importance for the Republic.

The separation of the realms of religion and philosophy all changed with the rise of Christianity (and probably other mystery cults). Christianity was not just a religion, it was a complete system that included every aspect of human life. It was (and is) both, religion and philosophy (including science). It did therefore not tolerate any competing philosophical system next to it. Aristotelian and to a certain degree Stoic teachings were only accepted as subordinate to Christian teachings and adjusted, if necessary. Other philosophies were not tolerated at all.

This caused a total change in the thinking of people for at least 1000 years. And even when Christianity was increasingly doubted and lost influence in the Western world its way of thinking continues to the present day. Therefore the approach to ethics of classical philosophy and modern philosophers is totally different.

I will try to summarize the different concepts here:

Classical Approach to Moral Philosophy

For classical Western philosophers the goal of ethics was the Good Life. The keyword here is eudeimonia (ευδαιμονια = "happiness"). Different philosophical schools had different concepts of the Good Life. For Epicureans for example it meant ataraxia (αταραξια = "freedom from distress and worry"). For the Stoics is meant apatheia (απαθεια = "equanimity").
For most classical schools a Good Life was impossible without virtue, which the Greeks called arete (αρετη = "excellence").
This is how moral behavior entered their teachings, although the principal goal remained focused what was the Good Life and happiness (eudaimonia) for the individual. This was the logical premise for whatever system of ethics they built.
Moral philosophy was completely based of logical reasoning. It did not make arbitrary assumptions.

Post Classical and Modern Approach to Moral Philosophy

All post-classical philosophy is based on or at least derived from Christianity. This includes atheistic philosophers like Nietzsche. I would even go as far as saying Christianity is a prerequisite for atheism. What atheism denies is the Christian concept of a god. Atheism cannot deny the Roman concept of gods, which included natural phenomena (the sun, the Tiber, the Earth) as well as abstract principles (Libertas, Iustitia, Concordia), which are undeniable.
Christian moral philosophy is based on the distinction of good and evil. They are nor logically deducted but defined by the Christian god. What he praises is good, what he denies is evil. It cannot be argued with, and it does not need to.
This is how Christian virtues are defined: faith, compassion, love. They do not require rational explanation

The conviction that there is an absolute distinction between morally right and morally wrong is deeply rooted in every modern human. Modern ethics is based only on this question: What is morally right and what is wrong?
This approach also included atheistic Humanism. The value of human life is beyond any doubt, torture and slavery are perceived as evil without the need of logical justification. In the same way compassion, love and sacrifice are perceived as unquestionable good without the need of justification.
This general concept is also used by Nietzsche, who described himself as "Anti-Christ". The advancement of humanity in order to become the "Übermensch" (super-human) is his concept of morally right. What does not serve the advance of the human species is ultimately wrong.

Atheistic modern philosophies still follow a transcendent Christian concept of morally right and wrong, they only got rid of the lawmaker (the Christian god). It is hard to tell, whether these atheistic humanists have the subconscious belief of a reward or punishment in afterlife, without admitting it to themselves or if they simply cannot escape the Christian pattern of thinking that dominated the Western world for so many centuries. Fact is that no modern moral philosopher would start his ethics with the question of the Good Life (eudaimonia), but with a transcendental concept of right and wrong.

For a classical Roman a transcendent concept of right and wrong would not work (supposed he is not a member of a foreign mystery cult). He wants to know, how ethics helps him to gain eudaimonia, and how it maintains the order of things. Modern philosophies would therefore be pointless for an ancient Roman or Greek.
If we want to understand how the ancient Romans thought, we have to get rid of Christian and Post-Christian concepts of ethics. Classical philosophy was fully rational.
This does not mean that classical philosophy did not get to the same result as modern Humanism and Christianity, but it started from a different point with different premises.
We all know that Romans had virtues. And we know that they are quite similar to our modern Western values, bur they arrived at them in a totally different way.

This is a summary of why I think that modern philosophy is inferior to the classical schools. Modern moral philosophy is simply not able to overcome its Christian heritage and thought patterns. Its premises are often arbitrary and lack a logical foundation or they are based on circular logic (circulus in probando). And there is no place for arbitrarity in proper philosophy.
It cannot be claimed that classical philosophers did not commit any systematic errors in their teachings, but at least they did not follow all the same pattern.

It would now be interesting to see how people who see themselves as "modern Romans" approach the question of moral philosophy. Is ethics for you a question of the Good Life or are there ethical principles of right and wrong that you consider to be unquestionable and which you would not allow to be subject to debate (e.g. value of human life, freedom from slavery, compassion et cetera.)?

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:46 pm

Salve Lupe,

As always amice you come as Prometheus with the light of wisdom to us! I agree with you 100%.

Personally I call myself a Libertarian. In that sense I believe in Freedom as an ultimate virtue. In that sense I might seem to carry the germ of transcendentalism, but I came to it through a very (I believe at least) pragmatic lense and seeking eudeimonia.

I looked at first into my own life and saw what was the main causes of my sorrows. I concluded that it came mostly from government intervention in the lives of honest people (overtaxation, overregulations, etc) and the lack of government action in cases of justice (criminality and slow process time). So it seemed the common chord of my sorrows were related to the use of governmental coersion in my day to day life.

I then looked up how the intervention of the government effected the economy of my country and saw a great disturbance in it. How they basically facilitate through overtaxation and regulation the strengthening of big corporations and destruction of small businesses.

I also looked at the rights of people, for example gay couples that wanted to have a civil marriage. All the complications arising from that seemed to me retarded and unnecessary. If this marriage had pragmatic benefits to their lives why deny it? It seemed moronic to me.

Then I saw the whole SJW and PC movement, the attack on freedom of speech, the persecutions without evidence, the attack on regular people for no real reason...

Terrorist attacks also unfold everywhere and communities in Europe are being destroyed and replaced with an alien culture that has no respect to their ideals and activly tries to oppresse Europeans into submission...

I saw then what seemed to me to be the strongest pervasive source of suffering in the present, and that seemed to be a lack of Freedom.

First I need to define the term, of course, or else I might as well be speaking greek. Freedom for me is the right of persons to do whatever they please as long as they do not invade the other person's freedom of action as well. I consider a Person to be an individual + their private property. I do not consider private property to be alienable to the notion of the self. Why? Because the right of property is a key safeguard of Freedom. If your property is controlled by another (as it was in the USSR) you necessarily lose Personhood and become a Slave. To have your property controlled by a third party is to effectively be under the third party's control. Thus you cannot have freedom without property rights. You cannot be a Person without that personhood being directly tied with property rights.

With that definition in place I notice that most of the problems I see in the world seem to be either resolved or transformed into a question of commo Justice. A gay couple can marry if they want because it is no one elses business. A man can open a small company with little to no expenses and sell food on the street so that he might grow an income and put his life back up. A lack of minimum wage permits people to contract people willing to work for less when they would otherwise have to be unemployed. A lack of overregulation permits people to start up businesses alot easier and thus proliferate abundance and stability. Criminality would still be fought because Freedom does not intale the power to physically harm others or undo contracts (which is harm on a person's Property and thus similar physical harm). There would be poverty and hardship, aye. But this freedom would make it so actual merit could remove people from those conditions, and not an artificial action like the seizing of other people's property (through taxes) to boost their chances of ascension. Every lineage at one stage of their existence was given wealth because someone of that line took risks and put in effort to make that wealth. If a family has more ease in gaining wealth it is because their ancestor at one moment fought and earned that. So it is to me stupid to think that the fact that some people have more ease than others to rise up is a bad thing. It is a natural necessity if Property is truly a part of a Person. That they can use this property to forward their descendants is just a natural next logical step. Thus a person that is poor now is poor by their own lack of merit or that of their ancestors and should not expect that others grant them what neither they nor their ancestors fought to achieve... Thus for me Equality is an injustice as a policy goal, Freedom being both more just and more capable of conceding happiness (because it respects Personhood and gives you the tools necessary to find your own way instead of being forced into a program designed by others.)

I do not think I see Freedom as some transcendent absolute personally. It just seems like a logical thing to focus on when searching for a better life. I would like to see your thoughts amice and if you see any logical flaw in my assessment so I can better hone my thought process and define a more logical principle.
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:28 pm

Lupe? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:31 pm

Salve Philo!

If I understand you correctly, your views represent essentially those of the thinkers of Enlightenment.
Do you also think that freedom as an unalienable and absolute right of every human being is a transcendental value, as it is currently established in our modern society?
Because here, I think, is the flaw of humanist thinking. During the Middle Ages the love of the Christian god for humanity was the justification for the rights that every human enjoyed. The Age of Enlightenment eliminated the Christian god, but maintained his laws and therefore established the concept of human rights as a transcendental value.

You made another very important statement.
I do not think I see Freedom as some transcendent absolute personally. It just seems like a logical thing to focus on when searching for a better life.

And this is much closer to the approach of classical philosophy. I am convinced that this is the key for solving conflicts in the world.

Transcendental absolute values will not provide us with a universal system according to which all of humanity can live. Because not all peoples in the world have the same history. Not all have passed through this era of Christianity. Therefore it will never be possible to agree on universal values.
The West tried to impose its values by military and economic force on the whole world since the end of WWII. But it did not work. There are cultures that reject all Western values and interpret the attempt to impose them on their culture as aggression. As a result we see humanist values deteriorate all over the world.

The problem is that any system that is not based on objective logic is not universally agreeable. Only logic is universal, because the laws of nature are based on it.
An ethical system must be agreeable without arbitrary assumptions and values, which are based on a particular culture.
As you have observed correctly, a system that protects freedom, economically and socially is the logical way, because it is agreeable for everybody. It protects the interests of everybody. It needs to be based on reciprocity, otherwise it is unjust and not agreeable.

Immanuel Kant (18th century) established the principle of the Categorical Imperative: This summarizes the idea that any ethical system needs to be agreeable.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

For his time it was a revolutionary concept. For the classical philosophers it was always self-evident. This was how Plato's Dialogues of Socrates worked. Socrates investigated without any prejudice, if a proposed concept of his partner in the dialogue could consistently work. He found out its flaws and then made necessary corrections. As a result he established the virtues as self-evident.

I am deeply convinced that it is possible to establish ethical guidelines, which are universally agreeable, independent from cultural or historical background. They must not use transcendental premises.

This is what I want to try in this Collegium Philosophicum during the next months. I have a rough idea and it is based mainly on Epicurus without following through to the life in apathy and total withdrawal from the public that he was ultimately promoting. What I need is a peer review of my ideas. If one does not share one's ideas with others, one is doomed to make mistakes and to overlook important aspects. And this is why this collegium is needed.

Vale, amice!
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:58 pm

Salve Lupe!

It is very important to discuss ideas with one another. I have a strong dislike of echo chambers and feel I am at my best when I have to defend my argument. For even when we try our best to remove inconsistencies it is always helpful to have more keen eyes on it, like a town that has many vigilant officers is better off than that which has only one. I do not see it as a competition, but as a honing of my own Self. If the person is convinced or not is secondary to my own better understanding of the world and of my own views.

I think I have a strong debt to the Enlightenment for my line of thought, yes. Classical Liberalism was the main inspiration in my ponderings on political and economic bliss. I do not, however, believe in Universal Rights. I only believe in Universal Laws. Rights are abstract social indicators of Power, they have no place in Nature in and of themselves. They are social constructs. I believe in the Universal that a man that is stabbed repeatedly will eventually die if left untreated and the wounds be severe enough. But I do not believe that somehow creates a Right to Not be killed...

As I see it Power is the creator of Rights. This is what ties Rights to reality and make them tangeable. Any Right that is not based on Power is a sophist lie... In the USA you have the right to vote for State governor. What maintains that Right? The Armed Forces of course! The Army, the Police and the Militias of citizens. That is the REAL reason voting for Governor is possible in America. Not because of some piece of paper. So if someone tells me that there is a Universal Right of Freedom I'd ask "with what force of arms do you enforce that claim?" It becomes then little different from fable and myth. Stories told because they are pretty...

I do not believe that we should base our lives on fantasy. We must base them in what Realistically Is and what Pragmatically can be done.

With that we must take into account a couple of Universal constants:
I. Scarcety is real and no nation exists that is not under its shadow.
II. Humans act on two primary impulses: the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of suffering. Every human action, no matter how ethical, is bounded either by this or by muscle reflex.

If these two things are true, and can be accepted as axioms, then we must from there define what actions humans will most likely take and how one can steer life into the direction that will most likely result in eudeimonia.
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:43 am

As Mao once said: "All power comes from the barrel of a gun."

It is amazing what you just said about the principle drives of human action. Because I came up with exactly the same and totally independent from you. This proves that they are universal and logically necessary.
In fact I came up with three "Priorities of Logical Pragmatism" as I called them, but the second could be considered as implied in the first.
They are:
Benefit
This is what you called "seeking of pleasure" and "avoidance of suffering". Epicurus identified only one, the avoidance of suffering and denied the existence of positive pleasure, hence the passivity in his teachongs. But here he was wrong. Positive happiness is real.

Self-Preservation
This is my second principle priority, which you do not have, but of course you could say, it is implied in the avoidance of suffering.

Efficiency
This is what result from scarcity. We cannot afford to waste any resources, because they are limited. This includes money, time, effort etc.

These three priorities exist for every entity, individual beings as well as communities, just on different levels. And this is why a reference point must be defined, for which these priorities apply. This means, is the proposed action for the benefit of the individual, a small group of individuals or the nation.

I wanted to get to this later, but it is great that we have already agreed on it. It is a good starting point to develop a logical system of ethics, which is universally agreeable at least in principle.

Optime vale!
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:10 pm

Salve Lupe!

It tends to surprise me as well when I see I can agree with someone on even the most basic axioms of reality now a days. As people are getting more and more politically radicalized, i have found myself more and more realizing that many people with whom I speak seem to be seeing things not only from a different perspective, but from a different reality all together. People are ever more impossible to discuss with through any logical approach if that logical approach does not coincide in one way or another with their political agendas. It is sad, really... but so is life.

I believe that Aristotle had the right idea when he devised that to understand the whole one must first understand and properly define the terms, or individual constituincies, of which it is made of. The best way to have a complete accessment of eudeimonia for the Nation (which is the ultimate goal of political philosophy) is to first see how it can be reached by individuals and small groups first. The happiness of the Nation is intimately tied to the happiness of the individual, the family and the City. I must stress this last one a bit because it is a perspective to which most people seem to have forgotten completely over time. The well administration and good coordination of the City is paramount to the happiness of the individual because as of now most of all humans live in cities or at least towns and villages. Before the Nation comes the City. Before the Macro comes the Micro. I would definitly like to hear your take on these perspectives amice.

Vale
Philo
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:15 pm

You are absolutely right. Eudaimonia of the individual depends on eudaimonia of the nation or group. Nevertheless there are often occasions where the one is in conflict with the other. An individual might benefit from taking bribes, the nation will suffer. How do we solve this logically?
This is where laws, punishment and reward come in. The fear of punishment and the expectation of reward bring the benefit of the individual in line with the benefit for the nation. It becomes beneficial for the corrupt quaestor not to take a bribe, if he has to fear severe punishment for it afterwards. Another aspect is that it will harm his reputation, what cannot be in his interest. A reputation of honesty a d virtue on thd other hand will be of advantage for him.
But what if he simply advocates for the legalization of taking bribes in the senate? It would then allow him to take bribes without the risk of punishment.
But this again would go against his interests, because then everybody would take bribes and such a dysfunctional state would soon turn againsf him, when his enemies start bribing higher magistrates. Therefore even a corrupt person cannot want bribes to be legal. Even a thief wants theft to be illegal, so his stolen goods do not get stolen again.

No individual can want a dysfunctional nation, because his own happiness depends on the effectiveness of the state. He therefore will agree to rules and laws that ensure a functional society.
Now when the necessary laws are discussed in the community, the point of reference for the three above mentioned Priorities of Logical Pragmatism shifts from the indicidual to the communitg, in which the discussion takes place. The benefit of an individual is no valid argument anymore, but only the benefit of the communith, because the point of reference has changed.

We see the conflict between the interests of the individual and the community has been logically solved. There is only one logically correct course of action possible in any given situation.
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:23 pm

Yes. Basically, Punishment and Incentives are the best forms of Order and Control, when done prudently. And we can agree that even dishonest individuals would not want their dishonesty to be endemic and would prefer to be the sole witty knave that found a crack in an otherwise good stable system. But there is a problem also in an excess of Order, in the sense that we cannot leave out the notion of Agency in all forms of Order. There is always one or more Agents. One could divide it actually into three groups, that most of the time interwine. The Subject, the Executor and the Object. The Subject and the Executors together are the Agents, the Object are those that suffer or benefit from the effects of the Agents coersion. The Subject is he who Orders, who Commands, who defines parameters. The Executor is who converts that into action, into reality. In a State one can use many examples of Subjects and Executors. The Subject could be Congress and the Executor the Police for example, regarding a crime. When executing the orders of Congress, the Police does not act as mere automatons, but instead exercise their own degree of Agency in defining who it is worth to invest time in persecuting and who isnt, or how severly should they be treated (even if limited by parameters). That is why I divide Agency in such a manner, because both parties effect the outcome.

Now, in a proper Rule of Law Country, the Agents are subjected to similar (if not at times identical) laws and writen regulations. Laws and writen regulations are the primary form in which Subjects in these States effectively communicate their will to the Executors (and by effectively I mean causing the desired Effect). Thus the Agents in these States can only effect Objects through means of writen regulations.

If that is so the Subjects must balance their orders in a way that they too do not suffer for it and if the Subjects are corrupt they must define the orders in ways that they provide loopholes that can be exploited, but not too much that the laws become meaningless. This balancing out of loopholes is what generally cause much of the unrest and political tormoil in corrupt Rule of Law Countries, as can be seen in my own country, Brazil.

Regarding the good of a community, one must remember that this community will seldom be Democratic (in the Athenian sense), but usually follow a Republican model in which Subjectivity is confered to others via some form of electoral system, while Executivity is given to others by those Subjects or their predecessors. This means that the Agents' happiness must necessarily coincide with the happiness of the Objects (the rest of the community) for there to be a happy community. That is a more difficult balancing act than it might seem at first, because Agents have a variety of needs and wants but are purposefully divided in two groups to prevent the tyrannizing of the populus. The Subjects must control entirely the Executors (the real wielders of power) for them to be able to effectively exploit the objects. But if the Executors rebel against the Subjects and refuse to follow their orders we may similarly be under the tyranny of the Executors. Thus Freedom lies on the delicate balance in which the Agents are not fully united, yet are enough that they may function correctly for the good of the Community (which can be defined as the collective for the Agents and the Objects.)

How can the Subjects be coerced to do good for the Objects? They must feel that it is in their best interest to do so. That is achieved by fear of death or harm. It is the reason why governments that fear their people are less corrupt than governments that do not fear their people. Since the Subjects hold sway to most of the Power, the logical conclusion would be that, given the three principles outlined, they would necessarily try to game the system to their advantage and try by every means necessary to amass as much resources as possible at the least possible cost in suffering. If the Executors are vigilent they can do much to punish the Subjects using the very laws the Subjects enact. Yet the only reason why the Subjects would enact such laws that permit them themselves to be attacked is if they feared the backlash of the Objects. Fear of the Object is necessary for the proper working of the Agent.

What are your thoughts?
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Principal difference between classical and modern ethics

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:36 pm

What we have here are different points of reference.

The Subjects themselves are their own point of reference, when they discuss new laws. So they benefit their own community instead of the Republic. So they are acting reasonable.

The solution is that the Objects should have imposed mechanisms that make it impossible for the subjects to enact laws for their own benefit. This is supposed to be the constitution of the Republic.
And as Rouseau (Warning, modern philosopher!) has explained it, the state is a social contract. This contract is made among the Objects, not by the Subjects. Otherwise it is not a valid constirution.
This constirution must be established in a way that the Subjects and Executors cannot abuse their power.
Since the constitution is established by the Objects, the people of the Republic, they are the point of reference. Everything has to serve the benefit of this community.
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Africa Magna

Next

Return to Collegium Philosophicum

cron