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 Platos 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 peoples myth of the gods. Psyche also was the basis of Platos 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 psyches 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 souls ground of being can be found.
Ive 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 arent speaking of thing-like objects here. Processes arent 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:
Anankes 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 choosers; 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 souls 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. Platos 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. Pauls 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 Johns 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 Platos 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 had not read the actual documents and his testimony. It was certainly astonishing to me, especially these words "my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."
Now, having learned of his personal ordeal from your post, those words are even more piercing. Thank you!!!
To use scripture to attack/make personal accusations is especially disturbing to me. BB and I were having a normal discourse but this individual would not let things alone.
No, not at all, gshs. I find you a perfectly lovely and gracious person to talk to.
I don't know the source of your FReepmail. But if it comes to you second hand -- that is, not from the person with whom some of your party, at least, seems to have a problem -- I wouldn't read too much into it, or take it too much to heart.
FWIW, there were no "winners" here today.
I've just got to get this off my chest: I have been posting at FR for five-and-a-half years now; and not once have I ever asked the AdminMod to pull a post, or ban anybody. There are two reasons for this:
(1) I truly believe free speech is a great blessing that is absolutely indispensable to the functioning of a civil society under law. It is something that must be defended, almost all of the time (incitement to crime, for instance, would be an exception to protected speech, and quite properly so, IMHO).
(2) I really do think it's better to leave "the public record" intact.
This might strike some readers as a Machiavellian insight; but sometimes what people say about each other sheds more light on the speaker than on his "target."
So I just say, leave it all up there -- let it all hang out. The careless speaker can discredit his entire line of argument by relying on ill-founded maneuvers. And if such backfires get posted "up there" in neon, indefinitely, there might be something there from which the rest of us might draw some timely and practical instruction.
Of course, that question is now moot, WRT some of my more "adversarial" friends at any rate. Good grief, but I find myself already missing them.
I don't mind adversity in the least. In fact, when I sponsor a thread, like this one, truly I want to encourage the broadest diversity of views.
I'll make my case as strongly and fairly as possible, and I expect others to do exactly the same. I just hope with civility and graciousness, if that's at all possible.
But the research! And the resource! that gets built up in this kind of process really is marvelous, extraordinary. So many have helped to make it so.
I humbly hope JimRob will reinstate any present persona non grata established as such on this thread as soon as possible. And that all the parties will make peace with each other. And then we can begin to move on together -- again.
Maybe there can be winners here today. Where do we go from here?
May God grant His grace and blessing on all today's "contestants."
In Christ's love....
I have absolutely had this "she" language, or "the unspeakable one" language, right up to my gills by now; and as far as I'm concerned, it is totally indefensible.
It is completely inconceivable to me that a Christian would use such language in reference to another Christian.
End of story, right there, gshs.
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.