Posted on 09/24/2003 11:25:56 PM PDT by betty boop
This shift of attention to the individual psyche marks a decisive, revolutionary break with the characteristic habits of thought of the ancient world, the cosmological consciousness, which conceived of man mainly in terms of his connections to units larger than the individual, and envisioned a cosmos filled with gods. For Plato’s life-long meditation on the psyche – the human soul -- was deeply implicated in his speculation on the nature of the divine, which radically departed from the Hellenic people’s myth of the gods. Psyche also was the basis of Plato’s life-long meditation on “the best possible” political order.
Platonic thought can probably best be understood as a kind of spiritual autobiography. Great philosopher that he was (perhaps the greatest), Plato was not a “system builder”; he did not propound any positivist doctrine on any subject at all.
This aspect of Platonic thought is difficult for the modern imagination to grasp; for when we moderns think of a “philosopher,” we think of an intellectual who investigates propositions about truth and draws conclusive answers about the objects of his investigation. The philosopher then assembles his insights into systematic form allegedly useful in telling us about the real nature of things. (Plato called this sort of thing “philodoxy,” – love of transitory opinion -- the specialty of the Sophists, his adversaries. He would not call it “philosophy” – love of wisdom. This issue, however, is beyond the scope of the present essay.)
Although Plato is usually classed as an Idealist, his own instinct in philosophizing was uncompromisingly Realist, in the sense that he knew that certain questions can never be “closed” in principle. For the truth of existence, of Reality, is the object of zetesis -- of a search or quest -- that cannot be completed by any human being in the time of his own existence. Rather, it is a quest engaging all mankind proceeding through countless generations. Plato could point out the way. But the student must engage in the quest by and for himself, and understand it as he experiences it, according to his love for divine things.
On that note, we turn now to the consideration of psyche proper. Plato conceived of the individual human being as psyche-in-soma: an eternal soul incarnated in finite bodily existence.
The soul has a characteristic structure, a hierarchy of dynamic forces: the rational element, whose ordering power is sophia, wisdom; the spirited, whose ordering power is andreia, or manly virtue/courage; and the appetitive, whose ordering power is to “feel the pull” of physis, or bodily nature. The well-ordered soul is the healthy integration of the three forces, giving each its proper role and function.
In addition to elaborating a hierarchy of forces in the soul, the Platonic meditation also elaborates its hierarchical “structure”: At psyche’s “summit” is nous, intellect; followed by the conscious mind – including feeling, sensation; and “at bottom,” the unconscious mind, with its root in the “depth” of the soul, in which the soul’s “ground of being” can be found.
I’ve used a lot of quotation marks in the above passage for a reason. To use language like this is to intend as reified objects what are really processes on-going in the soul. We aren’t speaking of “thing-like objects” here. Processes aren’t things at all. But they are real all the same.
With that caution in mind, we have, so far, a “force field” and a “structure” for the soul, and importantly, the suggestion that the soul ought to be well-ordered.
And so the question arises: By what criteria does the soul order itself? And why would it even want to order itself?
To answer such we questions, we have to remember that the Platonic speculation maintains the immortality of the soul. The soul coming into bodily existence, however, does not remember its pre-existence at all; for at its birth into the present existence, the “circuits of the brain” become “deranged,” so the soul cannot remember anything about its life prior to its birth in this one. So it comes as a shock to the soul to discover that its body will die someday. The anxiety is acute, for the soul does not yet realize that its life is not dependent on the body, and is not destroyed with the body.
It is here (The Republic) that Plato inserts a drama in which the soul must act, the Pamphylian myth.
In the myth, “dead souls” – that is, souls separated from the body at physical death – receive reward or punishment according to their conduct in life, the bad souls going to their suffering beneath the earth, the good souls to their blessed existence in heaven. Then, after a thousand years, all the dead souls are brought into the Judgment of Lachesis, the daughter of Ananke (Necessity). And there the dead souls must draw their several lots and choose their individual fate for their next period of incarnated existence:
| Ananke’s daughter, the maiden Lachesis, her word: Souls of a day! Beginning of a new cycle, for the mortal race, to end in death! The daemon will not be allotted to you; but you shall select the daemon. The first by the lot, shall the first select the life to which he will be bound by necessity. Arete has no master; and as a man honors or dishonors her, he will have her increased or diminished. The guilt is the chooser’s; God is guiltless. |
Now a soul that had just spent one thousand years in purgative punishment in the netherworld would be most anxious to choose his daemon rightly, lest at the conclusion of the next life, he find himself returned to the suffering below for another thousand years. On the other hand, the blessed souls do not necessarily make better choices than the purged souls. And they are just as liable to wind up in punishment in the next round if they do not choose wisely.
But choose they must, and thereby bind themselves to their fate over the next cycle of life and death. A soul’s only guide in the choice is the character it had acquired during its preceding life. The choice is free, but the wisdom to make a good choice may be deficient. Under the circumstances, the best course would be to make the best choice one can, and then follow Arete – Virtue. To “diminish her” – to dishonor her call to justice, temperance, courage, love of wisdom, zealous search for true being – is to incur culpable guilt. The daemon is there to warn the soul when it wanders from Arete, endeavoring to push the soul up into the light.
The daemon might be thought of as the mediator or agent of cosmic spiritual substance in the soul, a little spark of the divine in man. Plato’s symbol for the divine substance is the Agathon, the Good.
The Agathon is utterly transcendent, so immanent propositions about it cannot be constructed in principle. Yet the soul, in an act of transcendence, may have a vision of the Agathon, of its eternally divine goodness, purity, beauty, truth, and justice. Such experiences of transcendence inform the soul, building up its just order by fortifying the Arete in the soul.
Thus the soul is drawn upward into the light of the vision of the Agathon, and participates in the divine life so far as that is possible for a man.
It is important to bear in mind that the Agathon is not God. Though Plato often refers to the One God “Beyond” the world of created things, and “Beyond” the generations of the intracosmic gods (the gods of the Age or Chronos, subsequently replaced by the Olympians under the rulership of Zeus), and strongly suggests that the Logos of divine Nous is the ordering principle of the Cosmos, he does not elaborate. That elaboration had to wait for the Revelation of Christ.
For Plato, the vision of the Agathon was the basis of the idea of the human family, of a common shared humanity, of the idea of the brotherhood of mankind. As Eric Voegelin noted (Order and History, Vol. III, Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1957), “The understanding of a universal humanity originates in the experience of transcendence; and the ineffable kinship of men under God revealed in the experience can immanently be expressed only in a myth of descent from a common mother or father….”
In this, Plato seems to anticipate St. Paul’s one body of Christ, interjecting the idea that, despite their differences, all men are equal as brothers in the sight of God.
For Plato, the daimon-mediated tensional suspense of the soul “in between” (metaxy) its cosmic ground in the “depth” of the soul and its extracosmic height in a transcendental “beyond” in the one God, was the site and sensorium of human spiritual reality. The form of the metaxy might be seen as a faint foreshadowing of the mediating process of Christ in the salvation and perfection of the soul, uniting souls to the Father through Himself, as declared by Christian revelation, most clearly in John’s Gospel.
It is possible to imagine that there are certain seed ideas in Plato that could not come into full bloom until Jesus Christ irrupted into human history four centuries after Plato’s death.
And man is unique among creatures, for he alone possess nous; and thus is capable of being drawn to the paradigm of divine Nous -- to the contemplation of divine things. Thus man is uniquely capable of ordering his soul according to the divine paradigm, in justice and in love. And by a process of transcendence, to attain wisdom, freedom, and true Being in the contemplation of the divine Idea, the Agathon.
I’m so glad you enjoyed the information on Philo and Justin Martyr! As you requested, here are the links:
You raised a very important point at 236 in that no mere mortal has possessed God’s wisdom to the full:
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. - Ephesians 3:1-7
Then he, the prisoner, is forced back down "below," to tell his fellow prisoners of the Light, and to inform them that what they have taken to be “truth” – the shadow images playing on the wall of the cave – are, in Truth, illusions. (This is not welcome news to his fellow prisoners. Plato says that if they could lay hands on him, maybe they’d try to “kill the messenger.”)
The Light is immutable, truthful, and perfect Being; the shadow play the report of the eternally perishing, of the false picture of reality that deludes the human mind, with grave consequences for the human spirit.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them]. - Matthew 13:10-17
And thank you so much for coming to my defense, betty boop! You are absolutely correct. I love everyone – including Hank and all those who choose to be an enemy to me. I pray for them also and to whatever extent an offense has transpired against me, it is forgiven. And I pray that such is forgiven by God as well. Where that feeling is mutual, there is no tension!
With regard to the post in question and the Scriptures cited, I did not judge the poster or attribute intent to his person. Rather, I judged the matter – the incident, i.e. how it is construed.
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.
As I Corinthians 6:1-8 says, the best Christian solution to a matter at law is to suffer the injury. I have. God is my witness as to my suffering injuries all along. A polite request to discontinue posting to me does not constitute a retaliation; is an act of love.
To illustrate, if a neighbor’s flock comes onto your land and eats your crop, it is the Christian response to suffer the injury and forgive the neighbor. But if the neighbor does not restrain his flock, it is also more loving to erect a fence to prevent a recurrence rather than again subject the neighbor to a need for forgiveness.
This is moreover true when both neighbors are Christian, because repeating an injury is an unloving thing to do and thus violates the Great Commandment to love one another. So the one neighbor loves the other by preventing him from inadvertently breaking the commandment.
hint: how does Plato's name translate?
This fascinating article frankly claims that Alexander the Great was led of God to lay the groundwork. It has many interesting theories and puts particular emphasis on this passage:
And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. - John 12:20-23
This article makes a compelling case that Greek religion (as compared to either philosophy or culture) did not influence the religious thought of either Jews or Christians.
Here are a few useful maps:
Jesse, in my experience, it can be difficult to have a conversation with a fellow Christian. Which is really a rather remarkable thing, don't you agree? I mean, we share the same Source -- God's inerrant Word as conveyed to us in the Holy Scriptures -- and yet seem to come to quite different conclusions. Often the "great divide" turns out to be the question of faith vs. works.
On that question, let me offer this, from The Cloud of Unknowing, a 15th-century English Catholic work of enormous spiritual power, by an anonymous mystic, drawing from the sources of Christian Neoplatonism, in particular the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. It is devoted to the “work” of divine contemplation and spiritual union.
What it is not, may I suggest at the outset, is a work of "gnosticism." The particular mystical tradition elaborated in this work is remarkable for its emphasis on the virtues of "manly," active, bodily life. It represents, not a rejection of the world, but the desire for spiritual union with God.
This is a Middle-English text, and thus uses some words that are unfamiliar to the modern reader. I’ve defined the words in bold, below.
* * * * * * *
This desire [for spiritual union with God] behoveth altogether be wrought in thy will, by the hand of Almighty God and thy consent. But one thing I tell thee. He is a jealous lover and suffereth no fellowship, and Him list not work in thy will but if He be only with thee by Himself. He asketh none help, but only thyself. He wills, thou do but look on Him and Him alone. And keep thou the windows and the door, for flies and enemies assailing. And if thou be willing to do this, thee needeth but meekly press upon Him with prayer, and soon will He help thee. Press on then, let see how thou bearest thee. He is full ready, and doth but abide in thee. But what shalt thou do, and how shalt thou press?…
LIFT up thine heart unto God with a meek stirring of love; and mean Himself, and none of His goods. And thereto, look the loathe to think on aught but Himself. So that nought work in thy wit, nor in thy will, but only Himself. And [to] do that in thee is to forget all the creatures that ever God made and the works of them; so that thy thought nor thy desire be not directed or stretched to any of them, neither in general nor in special, but let them be, and take no heed of them. This is the work of the soul that most pleaseth God. All saints and angels have joy of this work, and hasten them to help it in all their might. All fiends be furious when thou thus dost, and try for to defeat it in all that they can. All men living in earth be wonderfully holpen of this work, thou wottest not how. Yea, the souls in purgatory are eased of their pain by virtue of this work. Thyself art cleansed and made virtuous by no work so much. And yet it is the lightest work of all, when a soul is helped with grace in sensible list, and soonest done. But else it is hard, and wonderful to thee for to do.
Let not, therefore, but travail therein till thou feel list. For at the first time when thou dost it, thou findest but a darkness; and as it were a cloud of unknowing, thou knowest not what, saving that thou feelest in thy will a naked intent unto God. This darkness and this cloud is, howsoever thou dost, betwixt thee and thy God, and letteth thee that thou mayest neither see Him clearly by light of understanding in thy reason, nor feel Him in sweetness of love in thine affection.
And therefore shape thee to bide in this darkness as long as thou mayest, evermore crying after Him that thou lovest. For if ever thou shalt feel Him or see Him, as it may be here, it behoveth always to be in this cloud in this darkness. And if thou wilt busily travail as I bid thee, I trust in His mercy that thou shalt come thereto.
* * * * * *
Definitions:
LIST. So much of the meaning of these passages depends on a correct understanding of the meaning of “list,” which is virtually untranslatable into modern English. Evelyn Underhill, who edited the version of Cloud in my possession, wrote:
“…the verb ‘to list,’ with its adjective and adverb ‘listy’ and ‘listily,’ and the substantive ‘list,’ derived from it. ‘List’ is best understood by comparison with its opposite, ‘listless.’ It implies a glad and eager activity, or sometimes an energetic desire or craving: the wish and the will to do something. The noun often stands for pleasure or delight, the adverb for the willing and joyous performance of an action: the ‘putting of one’s heart into one’s work.’ The modern ‘lust,’ from the same root, suggests a violence which was expressly excluded from the Middle English meaning of ‘list.’”
BEHOVETH: regarded
WIT: knowledge, understanding
HOLPEN: helped
WOT: know
LET: restrain, prevent
BEHOVETH: helps
* * * * * *
Well, that’s just a tiny sample. The work explores how a “blind intent stretching to God” can achieve spiritual union with Him, by His Grace and Will. For “the [human] will alone, however ardent and industrious, cannot of itself set up communion with the supernal world: this is the ‘work of only God, specially wrought in what soul that Him liketh.” But man can and must do his part. Specifically, man’s “character must be set in order, his mind and heart made beautiful and pure, before he can look on the triple star of Goodness, Truth, and Beauty, which is God. Every great spiritual teacher has spoken in the same sense: of the need for… the “mending of life” -- regeneration, the rebuilding of character – as the preparation of the contemplative act.” More human works, divinely drawn….
In closing, please let me add the anonymous author’s definition of Christian charity:
Charity is nought else…but love of God for Himself above all creatures, and of man for God even as thyself.”
Thanks for writing, Jesse.
Well, she decided to put me on VI...not because I attacked her personally, but because I challenged her (first in freepmail) when she quoted scripture to me in an inappropriate way. That scripture implied that I was I committing the unpardonable sin. That she would do so in the way she did without knowing me at all was , at the very least, unwise.
She sometimes makes very questionable conclusions (as she did in my case) based on her "inner voice". All true Christians have the Holy Spirit as teacher and guide...including me. In my case, she took correction poorly and "won" the argument by quoting scripture in a most inappropriate way. Like a Christian that doesn't take to correction in the local church, she "left" by putting certain of us on "VI".
And even upon their return, Paul and Barnabas split company over John Mark. Barnabas wanted to take his nephew, but Paul did not find him worthy of the honor.
In the end, all of these disputes were soothed over and the Gospel was spread further because of them.
I take comfort in that knowledge and the knowledge that Jesus choose twelve very different personalities for disciples and accepted very different churches in Revelation. IOW, it is ok to disagree over some details as long as we agree on the articles of faith in Jesus Christ.
Yes, I do agree, A-G. No one knows the mind of God, or what forms of worship are acceptable in His sight. To say otherwise is to "reduce" Him to a partisan of our own particular persuasion, or creed. Which is a violation of His absolute Sovereignty.
All I really know is all Christians have a duty to love Him, and each other for the sake of our love of Him. Therefore, I find it unseemly that we Christians of different confessions should be quarreling like this: It is to violate the "prime directive" (so to speak).
Truly, I wish the bickering would stop, and the mutual forgiveness begin. FWIW.
God bless you all, and may He bless me, too.
It is not about forgiveness...that is a given.
However, the issue was raised again, and I decided to set the record straight. The fact that certain people have a hard time appologizing for an obvious wrong commited against another is a pride issue.
But HalfFull, a "pride issue," if there be one here, is a matter exclusively between the soul and its God. The judgment is His, not ours.
Meanwhile, it is painful to me that Christians quarrel like this, expecially in full view of unbelievers.
Just my 2 cents worth....
Are you saying that believers have no responsibility for identifying and correcting bad behavior within, for example, the local church? We are not to deal with discipline issues at all?
Meanwhile, it is painful to me that Christians quarrel like this, expecially in full view of unbelievers.
I don't like it much either. Christians do quarel, unfortunately. And the fact that unbelievers see our differences is unfortunate. However, sometimes actions, words, or deeds are serious enough that they must be challenged...even publically. For example, Paul strongly rebuked Peter to his face in a public forum (Gal 2:11-16)
I thought you mind find the story in Acts 5 appropriate to our ongoing discussion, because of the prisoner metaphor and how this thread has become derailed on doctrinal disputes.
To sum it up, from about verse 16 forward, the apostles were arrested and placed in prison, but were released by an angel of the Lord and were told to go preach the Word of God in the Temple. They did and after it was discovered they were missing, they were arrested again. Starting at verse 28 and continuing to 39 (emphasis mine):
Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
When they heard [that], they were cut [to the heart], and took counsel to slay them.
Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
I choose to not interfere with another Christian’s mission, even if I disagree with the details of their doctrine.
None of us are capable of knowing the full mind of God. Moreover, we are all parts of the body of Christ with our own functions and gifts (I Corinthians 12:27-31). If I am a foot, then who am I to instruct an arm? And if I strove to make a foot out of the arm, wouldn’t I be doing more harm than good?
Thus, I prefer to leave each to their own mission in peace. In the next life I’m sure we’ll see how it worked together for the good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.