Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-01-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I would assume that all hugely illiterate congregants were read to by Greek readers in Greek. The Greek theatres of Alexandria and Athens and Antioch and Pergamum would also have heard renditions of Plato. Hence the importance of the Platonist lineage, and what happened to it at Nicaea.

What evidence do you have for these claims?

Common sense tells us that in the early 4th century (as in all others) literate Greeks orated (perhaps from memory, perhaps from texts - scrolls or codices) in the Greek language to the large mass of illiterates. This applied equally to pagans and christians. The Christian Greek readers had to parse the Greek nomina sacra in their stride while reading to their congregations.

Quote:

We do know that Constantine executed the head Platonist Sopater c.336 CE.

How many fellow Xtians were executed or exiled? Granted the Church could be vicious, but they were just as hard on their own.

The Church was filled with Heresiologists. Just as the Romans thought everyone else were barbarians, so did the monotheistic canon-following Roman church think that everyone else were heretics. The conversion of Constantine certainly helped the Christian cause.

Quote:

The Christian takeover of the prestige of the "Holy Trinity" of the Platonists, and by this I refer to Plato's "ONE SPIRIT SOUL", was hostile and top-down. The Christian "Holy Trinity" does not enter the record until after Nicaea. The later continuators of Eusebius were weaving their veneer of historiological harmonies over savage military despotism, and the suppression of the Greek intellectual tradition. Plato burned; the Bible was replicated 50 fold.

I've never heard of any trinity in Plato. Perhaps in Proclus? But by Proclus' time the church could be influencing the Academy.

According to Bertram Russel and others the trinity in Plato is found in Plotinus.
The Christians found Plotinus in the books of Porphyry, which they burnt.

Horatio Parker · 02-01-2012, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

What evidence do you have for these claims?

Common sense tells us that in the early 4th century (as in all others) literate Greeks orated (perhaps from memory, perhaps from texts - scrolls or codices) in the Greek language to the large mass of illiterates. This applied equally to pagans and christians. The Christian Greek readers had to parse the Greek nomina sacra in their stride while reading to their congregations.

My common sense suggests something else; that philosophy was an elite activity.

And IIRC, there were no Platonic rituals or theurgy. Philosophy is not religion.

Quote:

According to Bertram Russel and others the trinity in Plato is found in Plotinus.
The Christians found Plotinus in the books of Porphyry, which they burnt.

Finding the trinity in Plato is not the same thing as a Platonic trinity. And Russell calls Plotinus' three hypostases a holy trinity, but that clearly is a xtian influence, and most likely just a pun.

mountainman · 02-02-2012, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

What evidence do you have for these claims?

Common sense tells us that in the early 4th century (as in all others) literate Greeks orated (perhaps from memory, perhaps from texts - scrolls or codices) in the Greek language to the large mass of illiterates. This applied equally to pagans and christians. The Christian Greek readers had to parse the Greek nomina sacra in their stride while reading to their congregations.

My common sense suggests something else; that philosophy was an elite activity.

And IIRC, there were no Platonic rituals or theurgy. Philosophy is not religion.

I agree with all of the above. But my response was directed at your original question:

Quote:

How many of their hugely illiterate congregants could understand Plato?

I was not sure whether you were referring to congregants of Platonists, pagans or Christians, in the above question, hence my response. In all of these there appears to have been the elite classes and the hugely illiterate congregants.

Quote:

According to Bertram Russel and others the trinity in Plato is found in Plotinus.
The Christians found Plotinus in the books of Porphyry, which they burnt.

Finding the trinity in Plato is not the same thing as a Platonic trinity. And Russell calls Plotinus' three hypostases a holy trinity, but that clearly is a xtian influence, and most likely just a pun.

Here is what Russell writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell - 1945

p.289

Chapter 30 - PLOTINUS (204-270 CE)

Plotinus (204-270 CE), the founder of Neoplatonism, is the last of the great philosophers of antiquity.

The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity: The One, Spirit and Soul.

These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Holy Trinity; the One is supreme, Spirit comes next, and Soul last.[2]

THE ONE is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being.

THE NOUS "SPIRIT" - offspring/reflection of the ONE. includes mind - the intellect.

SOUL - offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on NOUS, and another, which faces the external.

[2] Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus and had the same teacher in philosophy, taught that the First Person was superior to the Second, and the Second to the Third, agreeing in this with Plotinus. But Origen's view was subsequently declared heretical.

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I agree with all of the above. But my response was directed at your original question:

I was not sure whether you were referring to congregants of Platonists, pagans or Christians, in the above question, hence my response. In all of these there appears to have been the elite classes and the hugely illiterate congregants.

Any of the above. If we assume a literacy rate of even 10%, maybe half of whom were probably functionally illiterate, and most of the rest would have trouble with arguments as complex as Plato's. Maybe 2 or 3%, or even less?

If there did exist a common, plebian understanding of Platonic thought, it would be fascinating to know what it consisted of.

Quote:

Here is what Russell writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell - 1945

p.289

Chapter 30 - PLOTINUS (204-270 CE)

Plotinus (204-270 CE), the founder of Neoplatonism, is the last of the great philosophers of antiquity.

The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity: The One, Spirit and Soul.

These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Holy Trinity; the One is supreme, Spirit comes next, and Soul last.[2]

THE ONE is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being.

THE NOUS "SPIRIT" - offspring/reflection of the ONE. includes mind - the intellect.

SOUL - offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on NOUS, and another, which faces the external.

[2] Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus and had the same teacher in philosophy, taught that the First Person was superior to the Second, and the Second to the Third, agreeing in this with Plotinus. But Origen's view was subsequently declared heretical.

I'm familiar with that passage. And "Holy Trinity" appears to be Russell's characterization, one that obviously refers to the Xtian term. FWIW I think he's punning. It's not evidence for a Platonic trinity.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 07:28 AM

Since this is my thread, I'd like to return to its original point which certainly is not to provide mountainman yet another opening to repackage his idiotic conspiracy theory. The original topic was whether or not the Nicene Creed (and perhaps other creeds before it) was developed to counter the idea that that Jesus was the Father's ousia. In other words, the Christian system was identical with the surviving Hebrew conception of ayin and yesh (and where Yeshu = yesh). As such the Father was 'nothingness' and the first created thing that was yesh - his 'substance' or ousia. This was Jesus. The Logos, presumably would have been something which participated in the yesh or Jesus but was not Jesus.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 07:40 AM

It would seem then that the Jewish mystical distinction between ayin and yesh is developed from the Platonic theory of ideas. Ayin (= nothing) and Yesh (= substance = Jesus?):

Quote:

It seems, then, that for knowledge in the strict Platonic sense to be possible, its objects must be capable of being, concomitantly, in two different modes: both καθ’ αὑτό, in itself, and πρὸς ἄλλο, in relation to something else. It is precisely this dual character of the Form as πρός τι and as καθ’ αὑτό that allows it to be an object both of δόξα and of ἐπιστήμη. If it were only πρός τι, it could be only an object of opinion, relative to the perceiver (even if it is a Form), an opinion that could be neither true nor false, for there would be nothing in itself to which it could be related in any way. But for ἐπιστήμη (or even for true δόξα), an object is needed that is καθ’ αὑτό, in itself. Episteme is γνῶναι ὡς ἔστι τὸ ὄν, to know what is as it is.

Nevertheless, this is still cognition as apprehension, albeit apprehension of a peculiar object. How does this apprehension relate to the definition of ἐπιστήμη as (true) δόξα with a logos? It should be noted that, on the triadic model, ἐπιστήμη is no longer pure, unmediated apprehension. It would be, if ὡς ἔστι were equivalent to καθ’ αὑτό, and then it would also be redundant, as it has been often taken to be. But it is not. It presupposes it, of course, but, in Plato’s technical use of the term, ἔστι is primarily a matter of οὐσία, of something being as it is, i.e., with all its interconnections. [18] If so, ὡς ἔστι, ‘as it is’, refers to the object including (or rather: pointedly stressing) its characteristics, [19] i.e., setting it within the context of the other objects of knowledge (in the strict sense of ἐπιστήμη) expressed in its logos. γνῶναι […] τὸ ὄν gives us true δόξα; ὡς ἔστι gives us the logos that will transform this δόξα into ἐπιστήμη.

This formulation thus bridges the gap between the object-based concept of knowledge (of the Phaedo) and the structure-based concept (of the Meno). The object is now seen in its particular structure, and apprehending it properly implies apprehending its structure. The implications of this will be seen in a moment.

But first, a word of caution about οὐσία. Forms are not substances. For Plato, οὐσία is simply the abstract noun corresponding to εἶναι. It is what a thing is; it refers to whatever attribute is considered in the subject in question. [20] For reasons of his own, Plato makes no distinction between being essentially and being accidentally. οὐσία is whatever anything, sensible object or Form participates in. It is so used, technically, in the Parmenides, e.g., in the expression μετέχειν οὐσίας. [21] οὐσία is, then, whatever is participated in.

This is important for our subject, because it follows that having an οὐσία (not being an οὐσία) does not imply the separation of the Form participated in. The Form is not a substance, if by being a substance one means being separate tout court. Since Aristotle, it is common-place to accuse Plato of χωρισμός, of separating the Forms from the sensible things. But nowhere does Plato use the word χωρίς of the Forms. (In the Parmenides it is used by Parmenides as his interpretation of the Platonic Forms, except at 129d6, where young Socrates says that he would like to see someone proving that the Forms are both χωρίς, separate, and capable of mixing with each other). [22]

Did Aristotle, then, misunderstand Plato? Not really, although he is not innocent of some misrepresentation. If Plato’s Forms are οὐσίαι, then, in Aristotelian terms, they must be καθ’ αὑτά, per se, not per accidens. But if so, they must be separate, for to be a substance (for Aristotle) is to be separate, to be what it is on its own. In other words, Aristotle means Platonic Forms make poor Aristotelian substances. Indeed.

http://gramata.univ-paris1.fr/Plato/spip.php?article49

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 07:49 AM

The reason I think my Jesus = ousia theory has so much going is that so much of the early terminology in Christianity is Platonic. Take the term gnostikos. It is a technical term from Plato which means to be brought into acquaintance with knowledge or the ability or capacity to know. Why is this important? I never really understood why Jesus coming to earth to reveal himself would have anything to do with the Father if - according to the old way of thinking, Jesus was the Son.

If Jesus was the yesh or ousia then it would make sense insofar as he is bringing humanity into acquaintance with the unknown and unknowable Father (a theme repeated over and over again in the Nag Hammadi literature).

In Philo I notice the ousia of God is repeated referenced as something which cannot be apprehended by humanity. Moses for instance is said to have only seen the hind parts of God. Clearly the Christians took matters one step further and argued that 'at the end of times' or something like that, the ousia made himself manifest.

This probably also explains why Jesus engages in 'deception' throughout the gospel narrative. Peter is convinced he is the Christ, the healed people think he is the Son but Tertullian preserves for us the Marcionite notion that all these witnesses are wrong. Why would Jesus engage in deception? Well now we have a clue. The ousia of God can't be apprehended directly by humanity.

Why would the ousia of the Father come down to earth if humanity is incapable of seeing him? Perhaps the theophany at the crucifixion is the solution. Something about the cross or appearing as dead may have made the parousia of the ousia manageable for humanity? I don't know. I am just trying to work out the details. Maybe God appearing dead allows living people to see him?

sotto voce · 02-02-2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

the first created thing

Arianism, eh.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 08:04 AM

Yes it would certainly seem to be Arianism

mountainman · 02-02-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

If we assume a literacy rate of even 10%, maybe half of whom were probably functionally illiterate, and most of the rest would have trouble with arguments as complex as Plato's. Maybe 2 or 3%, or even less?

Yes, perhaps even less, and perhaps only those who had seriously studied Plato and an active student of extant Platonists like Plotinus, who is reported to have had 11 or 12 "disciples".

Quote:

If there did exist a common, plebian understanding of Platonic thought, it would be fascinating to know what it consisted of.

I think that there must have been a common plebian understanding of Platonic thought of some kind simply because of the political prominence of the Platonists and the imperial sponsorship of Plotinus by the Emperor Gallienus. It may be reasonable to think that the plebians knew, for example, that the Platonist philosophers discussed the "ONE SPIRIT SOUL" idea, and they may have had a popular opinion about that this idea represented.

Here is a quotation from Heidi Marx-Wolf, author of the book High Priests of the Highest God: Third-Century Platonists as Ritual Experts (or via: amazon.co.uk). The quote is from an earlier paper:

Quote:

"This paper explores the way in which third-century philosophers, especially Platonists, portrayed themselves as high priests or "priests of the god who rules all." It argues that figures such as Origen, Porphyry, and Iamblichus incorporated this hieratic status into their identity at the expense of the reputations of more ordinary, local priests.

Furthermore, they grounded their authority on theological and ritual matters in their knowledge of the nature of various kinds of spiritual beings inhabiting the cosmos, beings which they tended to order in systematic and hierarchical ways. Finally, this paper presents evidence that these intellectuals endeavored to use their authority in these matters to position themselves socially as potential advisors to provincial and imperial leaders."

The Platonists thus did have a reasonably high profile in the later 3rd century, and as such would have been the subject of a certain amount of public opinion. The public may not have understood the nuances of Platonic (or Plotinic) philosophy, including the fundamental notion of "ONE SPIRIT SOUL", but they may have been aware of certain public information that accompanied the success of these philosophers in attracting imperial sponsorship.

Quote:

I'm familiar with that passage. And "Holy Trinity" appears to be Russell's characterization, one that obviously refers to the Xtian term. FWIW I think he's punning. It's not evidence for a Platonic trinity.

You may be correct in that Russel is punning. That is, in the exposition of what Plotinus refers to as the "ONE SPIRIT SOUL" there is no direct mention or reference to a "Holy Trinity". Russel certainly counterpoints what he terms the Platonic "Holy Trinity" with the Christian conception of the "Persons of the Holy Trinity" and finds great differences. However Russel does insist that "the metaphysics of Plotinus begins with [a Holy Trinity:] The One, Spirit and Soul.".

It seems that the underlying Plotinic philosophy of this "ONE SPIRIT SOUL" may have provided the Christian version of the "father, holy spirit, son" business, especially considering the role played by the figure of Origen. In the third century there was apparently a Christian Origen and a Platonist Origen which are to be disambiguated in the historical record, along with their respective teachers - Ammonius the Christian, and Ammonius Saccas the Platonist, and "Father of Neoplatonism". These duplicate identities are entirely suspicious IMO.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2012, 07:28 AM	#45
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Since this is my thread, I'd like to return to its original point which certainly is not to provide mountainman yet another opening to repackage his idiotic conspiracy theory. The original topic was whether or not the Nicene Creed (and perhaps other creeds before it) was developed to counter the idea that that Jesus was the Father's ousia. In other words, the Christian system was identical with the surviving Hebrew conception of ayin and yesh (and where Yeshu = yesh). As such the Father was 'nothingness' and the first created thing that was yesh - his 'substance' or ousia. This was Jesus. The Logos, presumably would have been something which participated in the yesh or Jesus but was not Jesus.

02-02-2012, 07:49 AM	#47
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The reason I think my Jesus = ousia theory has so much going is that so much of the early terminology in Christianity is Platonic. Take the term gnostikos. It is a technical term from Plato which means to be brought into acquaintance with knowledge or the ability or capacity to know. Why is this important? I never really understood why Jesus coming to earth to reveal himself would have anything to do with the Father if - according to the old way of thinking, Jesus was the Son. If Jesus was the yesh or ousia then it would make sense insofar as he is bringing humanity into acquaintance with the unknown and unknowable Father (a theme repeated over and over again in the Nag Hammadi literature). In Philo I notice the ousia of God is repeated referenced as something which cannot be apprehended by humanity. Moses for instance is said to have only seen the hind parts of God. Clearly the Christians took matters one step further and argued that 'at the end of times' or something like that, the ousia made himself manifest. This probably also explains why Jesus engages in 'deception' throughout the gospel narrative. Peter is convinced he is the Christ, the healed people think he is the Son but Tertullian preserves for us the Marcionite notion that all these witnesses are wrong. Why would Jesus engage in deception? Well now we have a clue. The ousia of God can't be apprehended directly by humanity. Why would the ousia of the Father come down to earth if humanity is incapable of seeing him? Perhaps the theophany at the crucifixion is the solution. Something about the cross or appearing as dead may have made the parousia of the ousia manageable for humanity? I don't know. I am just trying to work out the details. Maybe God appearing dead allows living people to see him?

02-02-2012, 08:04 AM	#49
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes it would certainly seem to be Arianism

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.