andrewcriddle

This is a big and fascinating subject.

For an example of Neoplatonic interpretation of Homer see porphyry_cave_of_nymphs e.g. For a general account read Lamberton Homer the Theologian (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Andrew Criddle

Jaybees

An interesting answer to some other question.

But thanks for trying.

Horatio Parker

Try reading the quote from the Republic.

The statement was that ancient Greeks didn't take Homers tales of the gods literally. The above is a direct statement from an ancient source to that effect.

You can lead a horse to water....

Jaybees

Your answer about the ancient gods is one isolated quote from Plato. Your answer about the present gods is zilch.

I call that a very poor defense of your original generalization. "I see no more evidence for that generalization then for the assertion that modern "intellectuals" no longer take the Xtian/Judaic/Muslim god seriously."

Horatio Parker

One Greek, perhaps, but an influential one.

And that's not an isolated quote; it's an essential component to Plato's approach to justice. Homer's stories of the gods are immoral and untrue and as such should not be taught to children, who might take them literally.

Plutarch says something similar:

Again, not literal.

That's not my generalization.

Clivedurdle

I understand modern American teachers in their training are explicitly told not to use irony and sarcasm because children will take them literally and believe them!

mountainman

The speaking of the Greek language itself, to the mind of the Greeks, differentiated them from the "barbarians" whom they mocked as speaking "ba-ba-ba" language. The ability to speak Greek was a prerequisite to enter the Olympic Games and to enter into the Eleusian Mysteries.

Another thing that in the mind of Greeks that differentiated them from the "others" (i.e. the barbarians) was their possession of, and the barbarian lack of, logos.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Tommy

Sure He was black, He never got a fair trial (old joke).

gurugeorge

Not in The Laws it isn't. There, God and the Gods seem to be accepted as quite real.

And people have argued for centuries whether The Republic or The Laws represents Plato's "true" opinion. It's quite conceivable that The Republic was just an intellectual exercise.

Horatio Parker

Can you cite something a little more specific than the entire book?

How do you know which writings are exercises and which are not? How do you know Laws is not an exercise?

I tend to agree with those who think the Republic was theoretical, the text says the planning of the society was in order to examine justice, because the state is the soul "writ large". If that's what you mean by exercise, I agree. But I don't see why it would follow that his statements about poetry and education, among other things, are therefore invalid.

Plato was no atheist, but the ultimate reality, the nature of the good and the one, was a mystery. That the one exists is an assumption, a matter of belief.

The Republic was a middle work, and Laws a late work, that could account for some differences. I've only looked at a smattering of the Laws, I don't know the work. But I would be surprised if Platos fundamental approach to reality is substantially altered.