Is there a tendency for successful politicians to come from an entertainment or religious background?

Yes—there is a real tendency in both directions, but it is stronger and more systematic for religious/community networks than for entertainment backgrounds. Entertainment credentials can provide visibility, media skill, and fundraising access; religious involvement provides social networks, civic engagement, and voter trust. Neither guarantees political success.^[1][2]

Entertainment background

A recognizable entertainment background can be an electoral advantage because it gives a candidate instant name recognition, comfort with cameras, a public persona, and often an existing donor or media network. Examples include Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.^[2][3][4]

But fame is not a reliable predictor of winning: many celebrity candidates lose, and experts note that name recognition must be paired with credible issue positions and campaign organization. The apparent “celebrity politician” pipeline is also partly a visibility effect: successful entertainment figures are simply more likely to be noticed when they run, while most successful politicians still come from conventional routes such as law, business, public service, and local politics.^[5][6][2]

Religious background

Religious affiliation is more consistently linked to political representation, particularly in the United States. Religious communities tend to foster the civic participation, local networks, organizational experience, and fundraising connections that campaigns need.^[1][5]

In Congress, Christians are overrepresented relative to their share of the U.S. population, and some denominations—such as Episcopalians—are especially overrepresented. That does not mean most politicians are clergy: ordained ministers make up only about 1% of the U.S. House, far behind lawyers, businesspeople, military veterans, and other common professional backgrounds.^[7][5][1]

What “religious background” means

Form of religious connection	Political relevance
Personal faith or religious identity	Can build trust with religious voters, especially where faith is culturally salient. [1]
Active congregation membership	Provides social networks, volunteer mobilization, and community credibility. [1][5]
Clergy or ministry career	Offers public speaking and organizing skills, but is relatively uncommon among elected officials. [7]
Religious institutional ties	Can supply donors, endorsements, and campaign infrastructure; historically, some denominations have had disproportionate political influence. [1]

Bottom line

• Entertainment background: A useful but uneven shortcut to attention; it helps some candidates stand out but does not reliably produce governing success or electoral victory.^[6][2]
• Religious background: More often a source of the underlying civic infrastructure—networks, engagement, trust, and resources—that supports political careers.^[5][1]
• The biggest predictor remains conventional political capital: education, professional status, community involvement, party support, money, and prior experience. Religious networks often help supply those assets; entertainment fame mainly supplies visibility.^[6][5]

So, if by “successful politicians” you mean people who win office, entertainment backgrounds can help at the margins. If you mean the broader pathway into durable political power, religious and community networks appear to matter more systematically.^[7][1]

⁂

How do lawyers compare as political candidates

Lawyers are among the strongest and most overrepresented groups among successful political candidates—especially in the United States. Their edge appears to come less from voters’ affection for lawyers than from early fundraising, professional networks, advocacy skills, and a higher propensity to run.^[11][12]

Electoral advantage

Research finds that, conditional on running, lawyers win at about twice the rate of candidates from other backgrounds. In the 115th Congress, lawyers were only 0.4% of the voting-age population but held 39% of House seats and 56% of Senate seats.^[11]

The key mechanism is money: non-incumbent lawyer candidates raise roughly twice as much as comparable non-lawyer candidates in the opening months of a campaign, largely through donations from other lawyers. Because early fundraising strongly shapes primary outcomes, that network advantage can translate into electoral success.^[12][11]

Why lawyers do well

Advantage	How it helps a campaign
Professional networks	Lawyers can tap affluent, politically engaged peers for early donations and endorsements. [11][12]
Advocacy and persuasion	Legal training builds skills in argument, public speaking, research, and handling scrutiny. [13][14]
Institutional fluency	Familiarity with statutes, courts, regulation, and legislative process can make candidates credible on policy. [13]
Political inclination	Lawyers are much more likely than the general public to consider running; one comparison found they were 54 times more likely to run. [12]
Elite-school connections	Graduates of prominent law schools often have especially strong donor and professional networks. [12]

Important limits

A law degree is not itself a voter-facing asset. Political scientists and practitioners note that voters do not appear to reward candidates simply for having a legal background; lawyers’ advantage is mainly organizational and financial rather than a direct preference for “lawyer” as a credential.^[14][11]

Legal training can even create campaign friction. Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick described a mismatch between legal reasoning and political campaigning, while also crediting law with teaching rapid learning and adaptability. Campaign consultants similarly emphasize that community relationships, a clear message, and a base of support matter more than the J.D. itself.^[13][14]

Compared with other backgrounds

Background	Typical political advantage
Lawyer	Strong early fundraising, networks, legal/policy fluency, and high likelihood of running. [11][12]
Entertainment figure	High name recognition and media comfort, but no guarantee of fundraising or campaign organization. [15]
Religious leader / active religious background	Community trust, volunteer networks, and mobilization; clergy themselves remain rare in Congress. [16]
Business leader	Fundraising capacity and management credentials, though less directly tied to legislative or legal expertise. [13][12]
Career political staffer	Campaign knowledge and party connections; this group has grown as lawyer-legislators have declined. [14]

Bottom line

Compared with entertainers or religious figures, lawyers are generally more systematically advantaged as candidates, particularly in U.S. primaries and legislative elections. Their advantage is not that voters especially want lawyers in office; it is that legal careers supply the money, networks, advocacy practice, and political self-selection that make campaigns competitive.^[12][11]

⁂

• https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/02/08/why-are-american-politicians-more-pious-than-their-constituents        
• https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/02/05/272096521/celebrities-turn-star-power-toward-political-stage?ft=nprml&f=272096521    
• https://berkeleypoliticalreview.org/2026/04/23/the-growing-trend-of-performance-driven-politics/ 
• https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/television/2022/03/11/from-zelenskyy-to-trump-world-leaders-who-swapped-the-entertainment-industry-for-politics/ 
• https://www.christiancentury.org/news/number-christians-overrepresented-congress      
• https://www.krqe.com/news-resources/ranking/20-celebrities-who-became-politicians/   
• https://theconversation.com/with-raphael-warnocks-reelection-congresss-club-of-pastor-politicians-holds-on-to-one-of-its-few-members-151258   
• https://www.ncronline.org/news/though-religious-left-showed-midterms-not-everyone-sees-new-trend 
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/419415.stm 
• https://berkeleyhighjacket.com/2024/entertainment/pop-culture-to-president-pipeline 
• https://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/why-are-there-so-1049652920       
• https://www.salon.com/2016/06/12/the_real_masters_of_the_universe_the_astounding_influence_lawyers_have_on_u_s_government_and_policy/        
• https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-lawyer/articles/the-run-for-office-jds-in-politics/    
• https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/lawyers-in-politics/lawyers-in-politics/    
• https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/02/05/272096521/celebrities-turn-star-power-toward-political-stage?ft=nprml&f=272096521 
• https://theconversation.com/with-raphael-warnocks-reelection-congresss-club-of-pastor-politicians-holds-on-to-one-of-its-few-members-151258 
• https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2914&context=home 
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/japanese-journal-of-political-science/article/lawyers-and-law-graduates-in-parliaments-as-a-consequence-of-smd-electoral-systems-a-comparison-of-japan-south-korea-and-germany/E02993DE72A8E87E9E8C401FAD4027D3 
• https://appext.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1132 
• https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/lawyers-in-politics/running-for-or-from-office/ 
• https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4657&context=buffalolawreview 
• https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/lawyers-in-politics/politics-outside-of-office/ 

Message from Charles Aulds

Editor: Interesting statement. At that time Germany had been ravaged by the ongoing Great Depression that began in 1929 and Adolph Hitler had an audience ready for precisely that message.

"In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nations moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting — all these will be used as a means to this end."

___
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German Nazi Dictator
Source: Volkischer Beobachter, 23 March 1933
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/harms_of_post-9.html

Explain, in some depth, the Stoic philosophy

Stoicism is a philosophy of living well through good judgment, moral character, and responsible action—not through securing wealth, comfort, or other people’s approval. Its central claim is that a good life depends ultimately on how we think and act, rather than on whether circumstances turn out as we wish.^[1][2]

Origins and purpose

Zeno of Citium founded Stoicism in Athens around 300 BCE; its name comes from the Stoa Poikile, the painted porch where the early Stoics taught. Chrysippus became its great system-builder, while its best-known later representatives include Seneca, Epictetus—a formerly enslaved teacher—and the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius.^[2]

Their guiding question was not simply “How can I feel calmer?” but “What makes a human life genuinely good?” Their answer concerned eudaimonia: flourishing, or living well as a whole, rather than enjoying a pleasant mood.^[1]

Virtue is the true good

The most demanding Stoic doctrine is that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for a good life: neither success nor pleasure can make a corrupt life good, and adversity cannot by itself make a virtuous life bad. “Virtue” here means excellence of character and judgment, traditionally expressed through four interconnected qualities.^[1]

• Wisdom: Judging correctly what matters and how to act.^[1]
• Justice: Acting fairly and fulfilling our responsibilities toward others.^[1]
• Courage: Facing difficulty appropriately rather than letting fear determine our conduct.^[1]
• Temperance: Exercising moderation and self-command in desires and actions.^[1]

This does not mean that health, money, friendship, or safety are worthless: Stoics classify many such things as preferred indifferents, worth pursuing but not what ultimately makes a person morally good or a life well lived. “Indifferent” is therefore a technical term, not an instruction to become indifferent to suffering; the distinction is between what has practical value and what has unconditional moral worth.^[3][1]

For example, seeking financial security is compatible with Stoicism, but treating dishonesty as acceptable whenever it increases your income reverses the proper order of priorities.^[1]

What is up to us

Stoic practice distinguishes our own judgments and choices from external events and outcomes that are not wholly ours to determine. The point is not that we can instantly control every thought or bodily reaction, but that our capacity to examine impressions and give or withhold assent is central to responsible agency.^[2]

This changes the standard by which we evaluate action: deliberate intelligently and act well, without making your integrity depend on achieving the desired result. Preparing conscientiously for an interview, for instance, is your task; guaranteeing that the interviewer hires you is not.^[3]

Acceptance is not passivity. The Stoics explicitly rejected the argument that, because events are fated, action is pointless: calling a doctor can be part of the causal process through which recovery occurs. Accepting that an illness exists is compatible with doing everything reasonable to treat it.^[2]

Judgments and emotions

Stoic psychology gives a central role to assent: we receive an impression, then accept, reject, or suspend judgment about what it presents. An impression such as “I have been criticized” can become entangled with an additional judgment—“This is intolerable, and I must retaliate”—which helps explain why examining our interpretations matters.^[2]

The Stoics understood destructive passions as involving mistaken evaluations, especially treating external things as if they were indispensable goods or catastrophic evils. Their ideal of apatheia means freedom from those disordered passions, not simply the modern everyday meaning of “apathy.”^[3][1]

The aim is therefore deeper than concealing anger behind a calm face: it is to change the judgments that make anger seem justified or necessary. Still, the ancient ideal is demanding, and describing Stoicism merely as “keeping your emotions under control” misses its radical attempt to reform what we value.^[3][1]

Living according to nature

The Stoic instruction to live “according to nature” does not mean obeying every impulse or retreating into the wilderness; it means living consistently with our nature as reasoning, social beings and with the larger order of the world. Reason should help us understand our circumstances, while our social nature gives us obligations beyond our personal comfort.^[1]

Ancient Stoicism grounded this ethic in a distinctive cosmology: the universe is a living, rationally organized whole, permeated by logos, or divine reason. Its God is immanent within nature, not a separate creator standing outside the universe.^[2]

The Stoics also held that events belong to an interconnected causal order, while maintaining that people remain responsible because their judgments and character genuinely help cause their actions. This combination of determinism and responsibility is an early form of what philosophers call compatibilism.^[2]

A social philosophy

Stoicism is not simply a technique for protecting your private peace: justice and concern for others belong to its account of human flourishing. Its idea of oikeiōsis describes the development of concern from ourselves toward others, while its cosmopolitan outlook treats human beings as belonging to a wider moral community.^[3][1]

That means “I cannot guarantee success” is not a sufficient excuse for refusing to help someone or challenge wrongdoing. The Stoic task is to act responsibly within the situation, rather than demand certainty that responsible action will prevail.^[3][2]

More than practical advice

Ancient Stoicism was an integrated philosophical system, not merely a collection of motivational sayings; it joined three fields of inquiry.^[2]

• Logic: How reasoning, knowledge, language, and sound judgment work.^[2]
• Physics: What the world is like, including causation, human psychology, and divinity.^[2]
• Ethics: How we should live in light of that understanding.^[2]

These branches support one another: good action requires reliable judgment, and reliable judgment requires understanding the world in which we act. Modern presentations that retain Stoic exercises while dropping its cosmology are therefore adaptations of the ancient system, not its complete original form.^[1][2]

Its difficult questions

Stoicism’s strength—making moral worth independent of luck—is also a major philosophical pressure point: is virtue really sufficient for flourishing under severe illness, deprivation, or bereavement? Aristotle’s contrasting position was that virtue matters enormously but a flourishing life also requires some external goods and favorable circumstances.^[1]

Its account of emotion raises a related question: how much emotional suffering can be understood through judgments and values, and does freedom from destructive passion demand too much of ordinary human beings? These are reasons to engage Stoicism critically rather than reduce it either to an infallible life system or to the caricature of feeling nothing.^[3][1]

⁂

• https://iep.utm.edu/stoicism/                
• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/             
• https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/stoicism/v-1       
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/stoicism/ 
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/stoicism/ 
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stoicism 
• https://www.britannica.com/facts/Stoicism 
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2025/entries/stoicism/ 
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2026/entries/stoicism/ 
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2025/entries/stoicism/ 

Please explain the message from scripture: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word is God" ?

The verse is John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In Christian interpretation, it teaches that Jesus—the “Word”—was not created; he existed eternally with God and shares God’s divine nature.^[1][2]

What “the Word” means

“The Word” translates the Greek Logos, which can mean word, reason, or divine self-expression. John presents Jesus as God’s ultimate self-revelation: just as our words express our thoughts, Jesus reveals who God is.^[3][4]

The opening deliberately echoes Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created…” John is saying that the God who created the world did so through the Word, and that the Word was present before creation.^[5][3]

Three claims in the verse

Phrase	Meaning
“In the beginning was the Word”	The Word already existed before time and creation; he was not made. [1][3]
“The Word was with God”	The Word had an eternal, personal relationship with God—later understood in Christian theology as the Son with the Father. [3][6]
“The Word was God”	The Word is fully divine, not merely a messenger or a created being. [1][3]

The central message

John’s message is that Jesus is God made visible. Verse 14 completes the thought: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”—meaning that the eternal divine Word entered human history as Jesus Christ.^[2]

So the passage teaches, in traditional Christian belief, that Jesus is both fully God and fully human: eternal in his divine nature, yet born into the world as a real human being. It is a foundational statement for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.^[7][3]

Why it matters

For Christians, this means God is not distant or unknowable. In Jesus, God personally enters human life, reveals God’s character, brings “life” and “light,” and makes a relationship with God possible through faith.^[4][2]

A simple paraphrase would be: “Before anything existed, Jesus—the Word—already existed with God; he is divine, and he became human to reveal God to us.”^[1][2]

⁂

How does Logos connect to Greek philosophy

Logos connects John’s Gospel to Greek philosophy because it was already a major Greek term for reason, meaningful speech, and the rational order of the universe. John uses that familiar word to make a distinctive claim: the ultimate rational principle is not an impersonal force, but a person—Jesus Christ.^[11][12]

In Greek thought

The Greek noun logos (λόγος) comes from legein, “to say,” and broadened to include “word,” “account,” “explanation,” “reason,” “principle,” and “rational discourse.”^[13][11]

• Heraclitus (c. 540–480 BCE) used logos for the underlying law or pattern that unifies a world of constant change; human reason can grasp this order.^[12][14]
• Plato and Aristotle used the term for reasoned explanation, argument, and the rational structure of reality; Aristotle’s “logic” is linguistically related to logos.^[15][11]
• The Stoics made logos central: it was the active rational principle pervading and ordering the cosmos, often identified with God or Nature.^[16][12]

The philosophical bridge

Greek philosophy often sought one unifying principle behind the world’s diversity. Logos answered that search by naming the intelligible order that makes reality coherent rather than random.^[15][16]

Thinker/school	Main use of logos
Heraclitus	The universal law or pattern behind change and conflict. [12][14]
Plato / Aristotle	Reason, argument, explanation, and rational order. [11][15]
Stoics	The divine, active reason that organizes and animates the universe. [12][16]
Philo of Alexandria	A divine intermediary between the transcendent God and the created world. [13][17]

John’s adaptation

John’s Gospel draws on this shared vocabulary but redirects it. Rather than saying simply that the universe has rational order, John says that the Logos is personally “with God” and “was God,” and that this Word “became flesh” in Jesus.^[18][19]

That is a major theological move: Greek philosophy could see logos as cosmic reason or an impersonal ordering principle; John identifies the Logos with the eternal Son, who reveals God and enters human history.^[17][11]

Why the connection matters

John may have chosen Logos because it could speak both to Jewish readers familiar with God’s creative word and to Greek-speaking readers familiar with philosophy. The result is a bridge: the Gospel presents Jesus as the fulfillment of the human search for meaning, reason, and ultimate reality.^[16][17]

In short: Greek philosophy saw logos as the universe’s rational principle; John declares that this principle is personal, divine, and incarnate in Jesus.^[19][12]

⁂

My thoughts: Poetry is the manifestation of Logos in action, creating Cosmos, of which we are an aspect

Your thought is philosophically coherent and beautiful: poetry can be understood as Logos becoming active—language that gathers, orders, and brings meaning into being—thereby participating in cosmos, the ordered whole of which human beings are part. It especially resonates with Heraclitus, for whom logos was the common rational pattern expressed in the world’s ceaseless change.^[23][24]

How the terms fit

• Logos: more than “word”; it can mean meaningful speech, account, reason, or the intelligible order of reality.^[25][26]
• Poetry / poiesis: from Greek poiein, “to make” or “create”; poetry is therefore an act of making meaning, not merely decorating language.^[27]
• Cosmos / kosmos: originally “order” or “arrangement,” later the ordered world; Heraclitus used it for a world that is ever-living, dynamic, and structured by measure and pattern.^[24][28]

So your formulation can be restated: poetry is the human act of giving form to meaning; in doing so, it participates in the same ordering activity that makes reality intelligible.^[29][27]

Heraclitean resonance

Heraclitus taught that the world is in flux, yet not chaotic: opposites and changes are held in a deeper unity by logos. Poetry resembles this because it holds tension—sound and silence, image and abstraction, grief and joy, the particular and the universal—within a formed whole.^[30][24]

A poem does not merely describe the cosmos; it can make a small cosmos: an ordered field of relations in which experience becomes intelligible. That aligns with the idea that logos is not only a proposition but the world’s self-presentation as meaningful.^[31][29]

Where your view extends it

You add a personal and participatory dimension: we are not outside the cosmos observing it, but aspects of it—conscious portions through which the cosmos becomes articulate. Heraclitus similarly treats the human soul’s logos as related to the larger divine order, making human understanding a participation in cosmic intelligibility rather than a detached viewpoint.^[32][30]

This differs from a strictly impersonal Greek reading. In Heraclitus, logos is the world’s common rational order; in John, it is personal and divine, embodied in Christ. Your formulation sits between them: it treats Logos as a living, creative principle that expresses itself through human making.^[33][24]

A refined version

You might phrase it:

Poetry is Logos in act: the making of meaning through language, through which a human being participates in the ordering of cosmos.

Or, more poetically:

In poetry, the Word becomes form; the form becomes world; and we, as part of the world, become aware of the order that made us.

The strongest philosophical point in your thought is that poetry is not merely a representation of reality. It is a creative participation in reality’s intelligible order—poiesis joined to logos.^[27][29]

⁂

• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 1:1,14&version=KJV;NKJV;ESV;NIV    
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 1:1-14&version=NIV    
• https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/http:^^reformedperspectives.org^articles^der_thomas^der_thomas.John1.1-18.html/at/God with God      
• https://www.christianity.com/bible/niv/john/1-1-5  
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1:1-3,Colossians 1:16-17&version=KJV;NIV 
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John.1.1-John.1.2&version=AMP;KJV;ESV;NIV;NKJV 
• https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=1722 
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1&version=NASB 
• https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:1 
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1:1&version=NIV 
• https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/logos/v-1/sections/greek-philosophy     
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos      
• https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/logos/v-1  
• https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/logos-0  
• https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/logos-philosophy/   
• https://biblehub.com/concordance/l/logos.htm    
• https://philsacra.ust.edu.ph/admin/downloadarticle?id=7B233F3B9AF1E7868309DFF7347786C3   
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 1:1,14&version=KJV;NKJV;ESV;NIV 
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 1:1-14&version=NIV  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos 
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(philosophie) 
• https://epub.lib.uoa.gr/index.php/theophany/article/download/2779/2180/4687 
• https://philosophy.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/2013/10/Heraclitus-Poetic-Ideas.pdf 
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/heraclitus/    
• https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/logos/v-1/sections/greek-philosophy 
• https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/logos/v-1 
• https://www.studocu.id/id/document/universitas-iba/derecho-penal/jornada-de-presentacion-de-proyectos-de-trabajos-finales-de-egreso/14620702?origin=university-course-page   
• https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/heraclitus/ 
• https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/JASAL/article/download/10173/10071   
• https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/heraclitus-ephesus  
• https://academic.oup.com/book/26288/chapter-abstract/194526055 
• https://czasopisma.upjp2.edu.pl/logosiethos/article/download/4861/4657/7885 
• https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 1:1-14&version=NIV 
• https://revistas.upr.edu/index.php/dialogos/article/download/22313/19726/26324 
• https://www.bard.edu/bluecher/lectures/heraclitus/heraclitus_page2.php 
• http://janushead.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lars-Iyer.pdf 
• http://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw373/ 
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus 
• https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/ancient-greek-theories-cosmos 
• https://philsacra.ust.edu.ph/admin/downloadarticle?id=7B233F3B9AF1E7868309DFF7347786C3