The Missing Page

[Quid est Veritas?]

Obviously, as the fellow academically minded Christian brother that your are, you're aware of the hermeneutical dynamics at play here in our respective understandings of Plato and his philosophical concepts, such as they are. Not only that, but I'm sure that you, as does @Silmarien, and probably @FireDragon76 as well, know a whole lot more about Plato at the present moment than I do since my attention lies mostly 'elsewhere' on more socially relevant philosophical issues of our current age.

Regardless, while I agree with you and @Silmarien that Plato (and thereby Socrates), accompanied by Aristotle and an assortment of other Greek philosophers of old whom we can value as 'classical,' has value in our thought today, I have a difficult time accepting fully that a single philosopher's ideas, such as those of Plato, can and always should be considered in a fashion divorced from the totality of the rest of what that philosopher believed and left in written form. I'm leery of assuming a less than wholistic approach to study UNLESS the philosopher is known to have qualified a bona-fide recanting of earlier held beliefs and evaluations. Granted, this doesn't mean that bits of useful truth which we still find in a more or less 'socially tainted' set of writings, such as those of Plato, aren't serviceable wihin other quadrants of philosophical evaluations of the world.

However, I also have a difficult time in ignoring how erroneous interpretive measures upon old texts are used and applied, even in society today, much to the detriment of people's well-being. Since I haven't studied much of the history of Australia, I can't say how either Plato's or Aristotle's teachings played into the institution of slavery there, but since I am in the U.S., I am mindful of how classical thought like Plato's has played into slavery (and racism) in the social matrix, and I have been mindful of this for a very long time.

In fact, it isn't JUST Plato and Aristotle that I have a problem with. If we we look closely, we can find this generally racist impropriety of mind existing within the thought of many philosophers even up and through to the modern era, despite their calls to freedom or their calls to 'fraternity among men': Locke being one, Hume and Kant as well with him; Hegel as yet one more contributor to this, and there might even be a few hints in Kierkegaard of this, but that might be debatable. There are others ...

The trick here in our hermeneutics would then be to discern qualitative processes within our respective interpretive measures where we find and denote a difference between 1) what we think the original writers meant when they first wrote, 2) what God may have intended to impart through those writings, and 3) what we in ongoing reflection upon those same 'past' conceptual entities come to see anew as we learn more about them. And this discernment will require various complex considerations of epistemology, theology and our overall movement within the Hermeneutic Circle. So, I agree with you that surface measures of meaning might be questioned, but if the Christian faith is true, then there is more there than simply what we think we understand when we read the Bible.

To some extent, I think you're right in saying that we 'create' own own understanding as we thread our way through useful ancient writings, such as those of Plato. But, this isn't to say that when applying the Hermeneutic Circle, we, in our subjective understandings, don't grow more closely together in time when we work together toward a more objective commonality in our respective readings ....... and then in our realized applications of those readings.

So, my point? We need to be careful with the way in which we try to 'bring in' the apparent philosophical wealth of the nations of the past (and of the present) as we attempt to understand the "truth" of our Christian faith. And Plato is no exception in this regard...

Look, I don't really think we can ever fully appreciate older texts in the manner of their times. You can create an idea of how their world had been, and try to read a text in that light, but inevitably you will still bring your own culture and ideas to bear on the text, or overcorrect and reject things as 'not implied or an impossible interpretation' based on your own simulacrum of the supposed readers of that text. Besides, either way you still crafted the supposed Persona you are reading it as, which cannot escape the traces of your own culture and determinations.

This is a particular problem with Plato and Aristotle. For they are our own. The 19th century saw Aristotle as a Biologist and Scientist; the Mediaevals saw a Schoolman; the 3rd and 4th century Neoplatonics thought they practiced unadulterated Platonism, which we have the gall to label Neo today; Moderns often see something akin to an Evolutionary Biologist when reading Aristotle, etc.

How we perceive the world has also altered markedly. To the mediaeval man, he was a microcosm within a macrocosm in Barfield's memorable phrase. He saw invisible powers of the stars and the spheres at work on him, the rising or falling of the four elements as humours. As such, he perceived something in participation with the Self, not as a discrete Thing apart of it. Likewise the Greeks, hence when Fear took hold of a man, it literally took hold - the Fear arose from the frightening thing and his perception of it was seen as something both outside and inside himself. Fear entered the man and bound him as arising elsewhere and experienced there, which as extracorporal was thus deified as Fear.

We have rejected this, internalising emotion as arising and active only in ourselves, for instance, and seeing other things as objectively separate (though this is breaking down due to our realising we perceive via creating a Representation of the external indirectly in our brains, at least on a theoretical if not cultural level yet).

So when Plato or Aristotle talk of Knowledge derived from the senses being the lowest, it is because this is only passive experience. We exult it, because we perceive it differently. When we read, we read with modern eyes, thinking of external phenomena as separate to our perception of it, as opposed to the unity the ancient assumed. So it is exceedingly difficult to create the actual understanding that had been there, if even it is possible to do so.

You see the same thing in the Bible. When we read of Jeremiah's hand or mouth prophesying, we think of metaphor - while the Jews probably thought of active embodiment. Or how to mediaevals the four senses of the Bible were all valid, while we have decided that the original or the literal is more important - for we lost the sense of unity of meaning that mediaevals had, in such that what we today call metaphorical, was listed as a form of the Literal by Aquinas.

So yes, we need to be careful. But always keep in mind that I read everything through my own prism, and even if I attempt an historical or hermeneutical reading, I still cannot escape the tyranny of my Self or my conception of what was supposed to have been written there. I think Plato can help quite a lot with this, with his highest knowledge derived outside of external experience and his parables of the Cave and Shadow and such. The Mysteries of Christianity, like Jesus as fully man and fully God, or the Trinity, points to unities that I think the ancients could grasp much better than we can, with our intersubjective external Representations we confuse for Reality. We can either wait for some Spiritual rapture to explain these things from God, or we can get down to the nitty-gritty of trying to understand how we perceive and understand, the metaphors we wrap things in, and that my reading is necessarily a Russian nesting doll of competing ideas. Plato and Aristotle are the fount of Western philosophy, and like it or not, all our reading is necessarily coloured by things ultimately derived from them - be it Biblical or not, or whether you are aware of it or not. So to know where things come from, you can perhaps pick up their telltale signs and maybe craft our understanding of what had been understood vs how I understand it, accordingly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Look, I don't really think we can ever fully appreciate older texts in the manner of their times. You can create an idea of how their world had been, and try to read a text in that light, but inevitably you will still bring your own culture and ideas to bear on the text, or overcorrect and reject things as 'not implied or an impossible interpretation' based on your own simulacrum of the supposed readers of that text. Besides, either way you still crafted the supposed Persona you are reading it as, which cannot escape the traces of your own culture and determinations.

This is a particular problem with Plato and Aristotle. For they are our own. The 19th century saw Aristotle as a Biologist and Scientist; the Mediaevals saw a Schoolman; the 3rd and 4th century Neoplatonics thought they practiced unadulterated Platonism, which we have the gall to label Neo today; Moderns often see something akin to an Evolutionary Biologist when reading Aristotle, etc.

How we perceive the world has also altered markedly. To the mediaeval man, he was a microcosm within a macrocosm in Barfield's memorable phrase. He saw invisible powers of the stars and the spheres at work on him, the rising or falling of the four elements as humours. As such, he perceived something in participation with the Self, not as a discrete Thing apart of it. Likewise the Greeks, hence when Fear took hold of a man, it literally took hold - the Fear arose from the frightening thing and his perception of it was seen as something both outside and inside himself. Fear entered the man and bound him as arising elsewhere and experienced there, which as extracorporal was thus deified as Fear.

We have rejected this, internalising emotion as arising and active only in ourselves, for instance, and seeing other things as objectively separate (though this is breaking down due to our realising we perceive via creating a Representation of the external indirectly in our brains, at least on a theoretical if not cultural level yet).

So when Plato or Aristotle talk of Knowledge derived from the senses being the lowest, it is because this is only passive experience. We exult it, because we perceive it differently. When we read, we read with modern eyes, thinking of external phenomena as separate to our perception of it, as opposed to the unity the ancient assumed. So it is exceedingly difficult to create the actual understanding that had been there, if even it is possible to do so.

You see the same thing in the Bible. When we read of Jeremiah's hand or mouth prophesying, we think of metaphor - while the Jews probably thought of active embodiment. Or how to mediaevals the four senses of the Bible were all valid, while we have decided that the original or the literal is more important - for we lost the sense of unity of meaning that mediaevals had, in such that what we today call metaphorical, was listed as a form of the Literal by Aquinas.

So yes, we need to be careful. But always keep in mind that I read everything through my own prism, and even if I attempt an historical or hermeneutical reading, I still cannot escape the tyranny of my Self or my conception of what was supposed to have been written there. I think Plato can help quite a lot with this, with his highest knowledge derived outside of external experience and his parables of the Cave and Shadow and such. The Mysteries of Christianity, like Jesus as fully man and fully God, or the Trinity, points to unities that I think the ancients could grasp much better than we can, with our intersubjective external Representations we confuse for Reality. We can either wait for some Spiritual rapture to explain these things from God, or we can get down to the nitty-gritty of trying to understand how we perceive and understand, the metaphors we wrap things in, and that my reading is necessarily a Russian nesting doll of competing ideas. Plato and Aristotle are the fount of Western philosophy, and like it or not, all our reading is necessarily coloured by things ultimately derived from them - be it Biblical or not, or whether you are aware of it or not. So to know where things come from, you can perhaps pick up their telltale signs and maybe craft our understanding of what had been understood vs how I understand it, accordingly.

While I think I can agree with much that you've said here, you're going to have to show me at least some of the sources that have influenced your thinking in this. For me to agree more fully with you, I'll need to have something by which to better assay your assertions so I can see that they are more than merely a parroting of philosophical musings from elsewhere, Quid ...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

While I think I can agree with much that you've said here, you're going to have to show me at least some of the sources that have influenced your thinking in this. For me to agree more fully with you, I'll need to be able to have something by which to assay your assertions here so that I can see that they are more than what might be a mere parroting of philosophical musings from elsewhere, Quid ...

One man's parroting is another's teaching. If someone else is right, you'd be a fool not to parrot them, maybe. Mostly this is based on CS Lewis, Owen Barfield and my own reading and musing on history. Wittgenstein also has a part here. Saving the Appearances or Poetic Diction of Barfield and the Allegory of Love by Lewis are all good sources for how our perception differed in the past, but you can readily see it in old texts. Even our language shows it, as in 'Fear taking hold' I mentioned above, or how we speak of 'taking heart' or such. You can see it in Anthropology as well, when discussing ideas like Animism, that the perception of primitive tribes differs. Good sources here is Smith's Religion of the Semites or Schmidt's Origin of the Idea of God. I can't point you to just one or two specific texts though, but it seems obvious to me that you can't fully recreate the context of a text when reading it, just your inkling of what it should have meant then. How can you control the biases and background of your own understanding and education? I mean, if I read a science text from the 19th century, my interpretation of their data may be very different indeed. Or if you read popular works from then, we can't conjure up the spirit of the 'White Man's Burden' no matter how hard we try - that ship has sailed, and we are just assailed by caveats and excuses that we picked up culturally in our post-colonial and post-imperial Western world. Or try to think of Shakespeare's Shylock as a comic figure, without any pathos.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One man's parroting is another's teaching. If someone else is right, you'd be a fool not to parrot them, maybe. Mostly this is based on CS Lewis, Owen Barfield and my own reading and musing on history. Wittgenstein also has a part here. Saving the Appearances or Poetic Diction of Barfield and the Allegory of Love by Lewis are all good sources for how our perception differed in the past, but you can readily see it in old texts. Even our language shows it, as in 'Fear taking hold' I mentioned above, or how we speak of 'taking heart' or such. You can see it in Anthropology as well, when discussing ideas like Animism, that the perception of primitive tribes differs. Good sources here is Smith's Religion of the Semites or Schmidt's Origin of the Idea of God. I can't point you to just one or two specific texts though, but it seems obvious to me that you can't fully recreate the context of a text when reading it, just your inkling of what it should have meant then. How can you control the biases and background of your own understanding and education? I mean, if I read a science text from the 19th century, my interpretation of their data may be very different indeed. Or if you read popular works from then, we can't conjure up the spirit of the 'White Man's Burden' no matter how hard we try - that ship has sailed, and we are just assailed by caveats and excuses that we picked up culturally in our post-colonial and post-imperial Western world. Or try to think of Shakespeare's Shylock as a comic figure, without any pathos.

Alright. You've provided a satisfactory indicator of where you're coming from with your references to Lewis, Wittgenstein, Barfield, Smith, Schmidt, and even Shakespeare. I think we're working on the same track here, and what you're implying reflects a number of things the Critical Realists in the Philosophical Hermeneutics school imply. The only minor difference is that since I'm educated not in medicine but in social science, I'm going to hone in a little more on 'how' various texts have been used by various social groups for various social outcomes, not the least of which will be the ways in which the 'Classics' (as Plato is one of) played some formative role in the ideology of the Slaving South in the U.S., but I'll refrain from going down that corridor in this dungeon since I've already scoped out that avenue on another thread.

Let's just say I agree with, and appreciate, the general thrust of all that you've written here in the OP thread thus far. I know that took some time, and I'll have to read all of it as I get time.

Peace, bro!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Aztec Mythology.

The first thing here is of course the pervasiveness of human sacrifice. The fact that human sacrifice is required to sustain existence and human life, is already a parallel of sorts in the necessity of Christ's sacrifice - though obviously an abhorrent one.

If you look at the deities themselves, Tloque Nahuaque jumps out. He is a sort of shadowy early creation figure, the Lord of what is Close and Far, perceived by some anthropologists as a theological abstraction to a Supreme God. He was seen as the being of all things, the sustainer of existence. Not only is there a parallel to the concept of the Logos here, but even comparable titulature in the form of the First and the Last.

He is sometimes syncretised with, or an epithet of, Tezcatlipoca the Smoking Mirror. This is himself a creation god, who interestingly battles an alligator in the creation myth - akin perhaps to the Serpent motief of Order and Chaos of the Middle East or Leviathan. Leaving aside Tezcatlipoca's part in both a flood and fire raining from the sky in Aztec mythology, he is perhaps an embodiment of power or cycle itself. Further he is an opponent of the Feathered Serpent, Quetzalcoatl, which gave man Civilisation, perhaps a parallel of the Fall.

Quetzalcoatl himself is interesting. Spanish friars tried to equate him to St Thomas, and modern Mormons to Jesus. He was associated with the planet Venus, and also a resurrecting and perhaps returning god. On this ground though, the Aztec form of the Corn King is better: Centeotl. Again a resurrecting king, but one for which every seventh day is sacred.

The rapid conversion of Meso-America is often attributed to the violence of the Spaniards, but the real enthusiasm of the populace in the large open plaza Masses or the cult of Guadalupe should not be overlooked. Christianity was uniquely amenable to their outlook, in what is more powerful than God sacrificing His own Son to sustain the world and for us, when your entire system was built on the need for human sacrifice to achieve this exact end?

 

[FireDragon76]

Aztec Mythology.

The first thing here is of course the pervasiveness of human sacrifice. The fact that human sacrifice is required to sustain existence and human life, is already a parallel of sorts in the necessity of Christ's sacrifice - though obviously an abhorrent one.

If you look at the deities themselves, Tloque Nahuaque jumps out. He is a sort of shadowy early creation figure, the Lord of what is Close and Far, perceived by some anthropologists as a theological abstraction to a Supreme God. He was seen as the being of all things, the sustainer of existence. Not only is there a parallel to the concept of the Logos here, but even comparable titulature in the form of the First and the Last.

He is sometimes syncretised with, or an epithet of, Tezcatlipoca the Smoking Mirror. This is himself a creation god, who interestingly battles an alligator in the creation myth - akin perhaps to the Serpent motief of Order and Chaos of the Middle East or Leviathan. Leaving aside Tezcatlipoca's part in both a flood and fire raining from the sky in Aztec mythology, he is perhaps an embodiment of power or cycle itself. Further he is an opponent of the Feathered Serpent, Quetzalcoatl, which gave man Civilisation, perhaps a parallel of the Fall.

Quetzalcoatl himself is interesting. Spanish friars tried to equate him to St Thomas, and modern Mormons to Jesus. He was associated with the planet Venus, and also a resurrecting and perhaps returning god. On this ground though, the Aztec form of the Corn King is better: Centeotl. Again a resurrecting king, but one for which every seventh day is sacred.

The rapid conversion of Meso-America is often attributed to the violence of the Spaniards, but the real enthusiasm of the populace in the large open plaza Masses or the cult of Guadalupe should not be overlooked. Christianity was uniquely amenable to their outlook, in what is more powerful than God sacrificing His own Son to sustain the world and for us, when your entire system was built on the need for human sacrifice to achieve this exact end?

Lots of religions have creator gods, unlike Abrahamic faiths, though, creation isn't the central motif, and usually they are seen as aloof or asleep (like in Hinduism or Buddhism). I think in some ways that bypasses the "problem of hiddenness" altogether.

Yuval Harari, in his course on world history, points out that lots of pagans did believe in a creator or some organizing principle of the universe, but it's hard to make "religion" out of something so abstract and alien to human experience.

Even in Judaism, creation is not a central theme. The central theme in Judaism is the story of the covenant between Yahweh and the Hebrew people.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To expand on Aztec Mythology:

The interesting problem of Our Lady of Gaudalupe.

This renowned icon of Mexico was made to represent a supposed Marian apparition that occured to a Nahuatl speaking Indian named Juan Diego at the hill of Tepeyac. This had been sacred to the Aztec mother goddess Tonantzin, so the result was a mass of Marian devotion amongst the native Mexicans.

Now Tonantzin was represented in blue or green, called the 'Emerald or Jade woman', as well as with Lapis Lazuli. The Nahuatl language doesn't differentiate between green and blue. So when the Lady of Gaudelupe was swathed in a blue cloak, the Indians saw their Mother Tonantzin in a way, and the Spanish the Virgin Mary.

Now Tonantzin had many aspects, as usual in pagan systems. However, she was tbe bringer of corn, which puts her in a mother relationship to Centeotl, the dying corn god mentioned before, and her moveable feast fell around a number of Marian days (such as the Visitation) and has imagery of 7 again, with a procession of virgins. In many ways, she fulfills much the same role as Mary did in mediaeval Catholicism.

Now Juan Diego did not speak Spanish, but the Apparition spoke to him in Nahuatl, and was recorded as Gaudalupe by the Spaniards. This name is impossible in Nahuatl, so must record a Nahautl form. The prevailing theories are that the original Nahuatl was perhaps Tlecuauhtlapeuh or "She who emerges from light like the eagle from Fire"; or Coatlapeuh or "She with dominion over serpents"; or Tequantlanopueh or "She from the summit of the mountain". All these can easily become Gaudalupe to the Spaniards, especially as there was already a Spanish Gaudalupe devotion to Mary. All these forms are emently relatable to aspects of Christianity: from the association of Coatlapeuh with dominion over Coatlique or "the woman with the Serpent Skirt", with human skulls and hearts, which as the mother of Huitzilpochtli the War god, sends a potent message, and bears relation to a more Western Serpent as symbol of darker aspects; or the other two, which represent ideas of Heaven to the Aztecs; which relates perhaps to the Icon's wearing of stars and seeming to reference the Woman in Revelation 12. This all fits with this Nahuatl naming, an the aspects of the gods themselves in question. Hence this apparition had such a lasting effect and became so important to Mexican Christian devotion.

---
I am Protestant though, so these strong Marian overlays that occured here, gives one pause.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Lots of religions have creator gods, unlike Abrahamic faiths, though, creation isn't the central motif, and usually they are seen as aloof or asleep (like in Hinduism or Buddhism). I think in some ways that bypasses the "problem of hiddenness" altogether.

Yuval Harari, in his course on world history, points out that lots of pagans did believe in a creator or some organizing principle of the universe, but it's hard to make "religion" out of something so abstract and alien to human experience.

Even in Judaism, creation is not a central theme. The central theme in Judaism is the story of the covenant between Yahweh and the Hebrew people.

Yes, creation is hardly central in Christianity. The point is more the Incarnation, the overcoming of sin and death, and Regeneration. My primary point was not yhat Aztecs have creator gods with similar themes, but rather the nature of those gods themselves - and even more the Epithets. As I said, Tloque Nahuaque is a shadowy god, akin to a figure like Iovis in Roman mythology, more an abstraction of 'the highest god' or 'ultimate form' rather than much of an active cult. Very much similar perhaps to something like a Brahma.
The importance of sacrifice and regeneration, the Fall of the world into ages and the ilk, are the closer parallels I was getting at.

As an aside: I don't think much of Yuval Hariri myself though, in spite of his recent popular appeal. His Futurism nicely indicates the error he is prone to make, of confusing metaphor for reality - as if the human mind is really a computer and such - and this lack of lateral thinking and a profound Presentism, informs much of his writing. This is why he telescopes modern thinking into the past, assumes more empirical thinking than is really justified. His assumption is that perception has not markedly altered, that how humans envision their own consciousness neither, which is a common enough error - but inexcusable in an historian. He should read more Owen Barfield. It plays though into a certain set of modern presumptions of progress and universality, already ossifying into something bearing a semblance in kind to Scholasticism. He posits self-reinforcing myths and fictions as a basis of human culture and progress for instance, but he is already transposing modern semantic ideas of 'myth' and 'fiction' onto ancient cultures, because he is placing it in relation to epistemology that they never would - because his underlying assumption is a developmental one, though couched in evolutionary terms. When it comes to his understanding of Religion, he seems incapable of an abstraction like "True Myth", and makes the error of Argument to motive far too readily - as when Science is deemed to seek Power, or Religion more Social Order in his mind. Motivations like Worship are materialised into either being advantageous somehow in material terms, or written off as spandrels on no good grounds; which we can clearly see in the cult of celebrity and such, to be innate. As I said, he works best when preaching to the mordern choir - the Spirit of the Age - which an historian is supposed to be critiqueing. He strikes me as a latter day Arnold Toynbee.

In this 'organising principle' not being prone to religion, I don't know to what you are referring. Hariri does think of religion as being cultural order though, so why would not the gods then care about organisation if its primary purpose is Order itself, as many myths and priesthoods and so attest? Anyway, ideas like Ma'at, Rta, the Logos, Li and Heaven in Sinitic culure etc. shows the tendency. Don't know where you would draw the line between such a principle and religion, unless you have artificial definitions of Religion, probably born from modern Western ways of semantic meaning. To ancient minds, ideas like Right, Law, Order, or the institute of the gods, aren't readily distinct. With the Aztecs and their ritual calender to maintain cosmic order, and cyclical regenerstions and rebuilds of Temples, this is even more so.

 

[Jok]

I think that I could read these posts 20 times over, along with your posts in the other thread that we were in, and it’s not really a matter of me just shaking my head and moving on, but instead it’s stuff that I need to slowly digest, it’s an entire new way of thinking. Thanks for adding the link in the other thread, extremely convenient! A lot to take in!

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, creation is hardly central in Christianity. The point is more the Incarnation, the overcoming of sin and death, and Regeneration. My primary point was not yhat Aztecs have creator gods with similar themes, but rather the nature of those gods themselves - and even more the Epithets. As I said, Tloque Nahuaque is a shadowy god, akin to a figure like Iovis in Roman mythology, more an abstraction of 'the highest god' or 'ultimate form' rather than much of an active cult. Very much similar perhaps to something like a Brahma.
The importance of sacrifice and regeneration, the Fall of the world into ages and the ilk, are the closer parallels I was getting at.

As an aside: I don't think much of Yuval Hariri myself though, in spite of his recent popular appeal. His Futurism nicely indicates the error he is prone to make, of confusing metaphor for reality - as if the human mind is really a computer and such - and this lack of lateral thinking and a profound Presentism, informs much of his writing. This is why he telescopes modern thinking into the past, assumes more empirical thinking than is really justified. His assumption is that perception has not markedly altered, that how humans envision their own consciousness neither, which is a common enough error - but inexcusable in an historian. He should read more Owen Barfield. It plays though into a certain set of modern presumptions of progress and universality, already ossifying into something bearing a semblance in kind to Scholasticism. He posits self-reinforcing myths and fictions as a basis of human culture and progress for instance, but he is already transposing modern semantic ideas of 'myth' and 'fiction' onto ancient cultures, because he is placing it in relation to epistemology that they never would - because his underlying assumption is a developmental one, though couched in evolutionary terms. When it comes to his understanding of Religion, he seems incapable of an abstraction like "True Myth", and makes the error of Argument to motive far too readily - as when Science is deemed to seek Power, or Religion more Social Order in his mind. Motivations like Worship are materialised into either being advantageous somehow in material terms, or written off as spandrels on no good grounds; which we can clearly see in the cult of celebrity and such, to be innate. As I said, he works best when preaching to the mordern choir - the Spirit of the Age - which an historian is supposed to be critiqueing. He strikes me as a latter day Arnold Toynbee.

In this 'organising principle' not being prone to religion, I don't know to what you are referring. Hariri does think of religion as being cultural order though, so why would not the gods then care about organisation if its primary purpose is Order itself, as many myths and priesthoods and so attest? Anyway, ideas like Ma'at, Rta, the Logos, Li and Heaven in Sinitic culure etc. shows the tendency. Don't know where you would draw the line between such a principle and religion, unless you have artificial definitions of Religion, probably born from modern Western ways of semantic meaning. To ancient minds, ideas like Right, Law, Order, or the institute of the gods, aren't readily distinct. With the Aztecs and their ritual calender to maintain cosmic order, and cyclical regenerstions and rebuilds of Temples, this is even more so.

The difference is that in Abrahamic religion, the Order of the universe is the result of arbitrary decree of a personal being analogous to the human person, whereas in a religion like Taoism, Tao itself gave rise to the gods. So as Harari points out, it's ultimately a religion about natural law, despite the presence of superficial (poly)theism.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The difference is that in Abrahamic religion, the Order of the universe is the result of arbitrary decree of a personal being analogous to the human person, whereas in a religion like Taoism, Tao itself gave rise to the gods. So as Harari points out, it's ultimately a religion about natural law, despite the presence of superficial (poly)theism.

This is exactly the type of nonsense I was talking about. No Abrahamic religion has the order of the universe as a personal decree, rather implicit in the idea of the Shekinah or Logos, is that the moral order flows from the nature of God. As Augustine put it, it was seeking the Good which creates it. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Similarly, Taoism is not a observational religion, as the "Tao that can be named is not the Tao". The Tao embodies the principle of Existence in essence, and in old style polytheism, the difference between the entity and what it embodies simply does not exist. It was an ancient unity, while under the influence of mediaeval allegory, we have differentiated the concepts out. That is why the Ancients could envision a concept like Concord and immediately deify it, as it was a divinity from the get-go. Read any ancient text and when they speak of Love or War or Justice, it is not just being poetic. The gods embody those concepts, even more when present within men. So we see Panic entering men, or Love, which is an external force acting within, as man is not separate, but a microcosm within a macrocosm. We moderns reverse it.

In like vein, there is an idea that myths are Just So stories or early attempts at 'Scientific hypotheses' do describe things. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the lack of concern of incongruent myths make clear, even having different conflicting myths in one text. The very concept of Natural Law is a western one, and this is merely forcing Western concepts onto Eastern ideas haphazardly, almost procrustean, and is merely a species of Orientalism. The Tao is not natural law in any western sense, as it cannot be observed as such. This goes to the differentiation between perception itself as the solipsistic endpoint rather than sense-data. We are dealing with a more mystical Perception, closer to the Indian concept of Pramana than any western concept. Or maybe more a sort of Plato's Cave in which the Shadows are perceived dimly as such somehow.

You can't just assume people of the past all thought in like manner to you, nor can you conceptualise everything as merely a shade of your frame of reference. This is like an English-speaker claiming to speak the native language by merely shouting in English with an odd phrase thrown in now and again, or more aptly, we are dealing with a Pidgin history - dressing up Western words and forcing them into other peoples' mouths.

So while I agree Taoism is about a 'Natural Law', this is true of all religions in that broad sense - which was why CS Lewis adopted the term. You cannot narrow the term into some post-Enlightenment scope and still think it relevant, and trying to differentiate it from its divine elements, or even to try and impose the Western idea of what denotes the Divine, is foolish and silly. It is similar to how Japanese Kami are casually thought of as 'gods'. I simply don't see where you can draw the line between the Principle and Religion, as I said, and Ancient people didn't attempt to do so - nor even realise there might be a line in the first place. That is why polytheistic practice could so easily mesh with Taoism or Buddhism or what have you. Hariri is that typical modern Westerner, that is merely a pith-hat wearing pompous Victorian once you scratch through his exterior. It is sad that this is what passes as a historian nowadays, when we went to such lengths to try and counteract this tendency - but of course, we Moderns would never fall into such territory, and our reasonings are so 'scientific and objective' today...

In general, someone who writes broadly on something usually only knows something superficially about it. He is also an avowed Futurist, which usually just means a firm believer in the here and now as being somehow more correct. CS Lewis said you must read 2 old books for every new one, so that the fresh breeze of history can disavow you of your foolish notions - you don't realise your mistakes while you make them, and only by adopting the eyes of the past in juxtaposition to your own, do you perhaps see. Hariri refuses to do this, and forces ideas like modern conceptions of Biology or Psychology onto the past, so if he had lived in the 1920s, he would have been a Social Darwinist.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is exactly the type of nonsense I was talking about. No Abrahamic religion has the order of the universe as a personal decree, rather implicit in the idea of the Shekinah or Logos, is that the moral order flows from the nature of God. As Augustine put it, it was seeking the Good which creates it. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

You are Reformed... I don't know how the Dutch Reformed teach things, but I know in American and British Reformed circles, it was always emphasized that God's decrees are arbitrary and not due to anything in the creature (does that include respect to natures?).

In general, Protestantism has always been somewhat agnostic about metaphysical questions, perhaps as a result, and actulaly sets the stage for the modern world in that regard.

Similarly, Taoism is not a observational religion, as the "Tao that can be named is not the Tao". The Tao embodies the principle of Existence in essence, and in old style polytheism, the difference between the entity and what it embodies simply does not exist. It was an ancient unity, while under the influence of mediaeval allegory, we have differentiated the concepts out. That is why the Ancients could envision a concept like Concord and immediately deify it, as it was a divinity from the get-go. Read any ancient text and when they speak of Love or War or Justice, it is not just being poetic. The gods embody those concepts, even more when present within men. So we see Panic entering men, or Love, which is an external force acting within, as man is not separate, but a microcosm within a macrocosm. We moderns reverse it.

Interesting thoughts. A few months ago I had an experience hat made me realize there is a certain "reason" of attributing personal identity to abstract concepts like that , because on some level we can relate to such things in personal, albeit limited, ways.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as the lack of concern of incongruent myths make clear, even having different conflicting myths in one text.

Good point. Protestant Fundamentalists would never like this being pointed out, for instance, but the Bible has several different creation stories that diverge a great deal in their details. The ancient Hebrews did not systematize their religious myths, and modern day Jews really do not, either.

The very concept of Natural Law is a western one, and this is merely forcing Western concepts onto Eastern ideas haphazardly, almost procrustean, and is merely a species of Orientalism. The Tao is not natural law in any western sense, as it cannot be observed as such.

I don't think that's a fair distinction. Tao is not a reified thing necessarily, and it's certainly not radically transcendent, but to say it's completely unknowable goes against the experience of the dàoshi (Dao-practitioner) and xian (holy people, Immortals). It's fairer to say that it involves a system of ethical living and cultivation, rather than philosophical speculation.

You can't just assume people of the past all thought in like manner to you, nor can you conceptualise everything as merely a shade of your frame of reference.

I don't think Harari makes that error, or if he does, I don't see it as having an inordinate influence. Part of his point is that humans themselves have undergone several cognitive revolutions. That he doesn't take their beliefs at face value isn't all that surprising. He seems fairly open in the fact that he is committed to the notion that science is a more compelling narrative than ancient religious notions. And I think in all honesty, it is a rather compelling narrative and religious people will have to do better in apologetics if they want to persuade people like Harari.

On the positive side, Harari is not completely tone-deaf to the benefits of religion, as he did study humanistic Buddhism under the Ven. S.M. Goenka, and he spends two hours a day meditating. He also doesn't own a cell phone and believes they aren't a good influence, BTW.

So while I agree Taoism is about a 'Natural Law', this is true of all religions in that broad sense - which was why CS Lewis adopted the term.

I don't think you could seriously say American Christianity is about natural law, as many Christians in the US have frankly lost the argument about defending their moral and ethical stances as rational. So it's difficult for me to see that as so. At least its hard to see how that religion compares to a religion like Hinduism or Buddhism. Buddhists, for instance, believe that morality is so innate within nature itself, that they don't have the exhaustive lists of strict moral prescriptions that Christians do. You'll find far fewer Buddhists who would insist that abortion or homosexuality are defining litmus tests for who is, and isn't a "true Buddhist", for instance (and in many cases, Buddhist stances on ethics diverge from Christianity a great deal, with both homosexuality and suicide, for instance, being accepted traditionally in some cases, or even sacralized (as in the Buddhist practice of self-immolation).

In general, someone who writes broadly on something usually only knows something superficially about it. He is also an avowed Futurist, which usually just means a firm believer in the here and now as being somehow more correct. CS Lewis said you must read 2 old books for every new one, so that the fresh breeze of history can disavow you of your foolish notions - you don't realise your mistakes while you make them, and only by adopting the eyes of the past in juxtaposition to your own, do you perhaps see.

And I think Lewis saw the past through Romantic lenses, which is a dangerous habit.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You are Reformed... I don't know how the Dutch Reformed teach things, but I know in American and British Reformed circles, it was always emphasized that God's decrees are arbitrary and not due to anything in the creature (does that include respect to natures?).

In general, Protestantism has always been somewhat agnostic about metaphysical questions, perhaps as a result, and actulaly sets the stage for the modern world in that regard.

This is just confusion. The Reformers worked from Augustine of Hippo, to such an extent that the Reformation has been called merely an argument over what he meant. Augustine worked firmly from a Neoplatonic frame of Reference, in which God was the source of the Good. The problem is Natural Theology, which much of the Reformation came to look askance at, most notably and recently Karl Barth. This is where the idea of 'arbitrariness' enters, as things can only be understood through the revelation of Christ, not by other values. It is shorthand for a more nuanced position, that thus popularly gets lost more often than not.

I don't think that's a fair distinction. Tao is not a reified thing necessarily, and it's certainly not radically transcendent, but to say it's completely unknowable goes against the experience of the dàoshi (Dao-practitioner) and xian (holy people, Immortals). It's fairer to say that it involves a system of ethical living and cultivation, rather than philosophical speculation.

It is not reified, but the Taoist Sage does without knowing. How pray tell, is the Tao then equivalent to Natural Law? The whole point of the latter is that it is Reasoned.

I don't think you could seriously say American Christianity is about natural law, as many Christians in the US have frankly lost the argument about defending their moral and ethical stances as rational.

That is merely a value judgement, and I disagree from my experience on these forums. Some certainly, but many not. I don't have first hand experience with the American Christian community off-line though.

I am not saying they are about Natural Law primarily though, but the standard old moralities are certainly couched therein. For instance, partner abuse and suicide is more prevalent in homosexual and transgender populations, so from a purely observational viewpoint of human bellcurves of behaviour, that would appear a risk factor for agreed undesirable behaviour. Besides, Buddhist divergence in some instances is expected - I mean, they try and present Gautama abandoning his wife and child as a positive, or the idea of violent warrior monks engaging but being non-attached to what they are doing. It is similar to how the Aztecs thought human sacrifice on a massive scale was desirable. You can't reach a level we would term 'moral' without some revelation, which is a Christian point. Take it away, and we leave a willed morality as Nietsche taught, and our western Liberal attitudes are mostly just the residue of the Christian Revelation in the process of being dismantled in the name of expedience - with no reason to think it might not be done even further. For instance, all pro-abortion arguments are just as applicable to infanticide - as even bio-ethicists admit.

I don't think Harari makes that error, or if he does, I don't see it as having an inordinate influence.

I have said my peace on Hariri. I disagree. His entirety is Presentism with an eye on Futurism, and I see no inclination to trying to understand the past for its own sake.

And I think Lewis saw the past through Romantic lenses, which is a dangerous habit.

Oh, Lewis was not a Romantic, he was a Medieavalist. His academic work is on mediaeval allegory, Spencer's Faerie Queen and Paradise Lost. That period can be quite grim, with Fortune's wheel or the Dance Macabre. Or did you not mean to capitalise the R in Romantic? Anyway, his whole point is how readily we fall into thinking our own ways best, as each age has always done. An attitude of nostalgia is also not good, I agree. Look at works like Abolition of Man though, and Lewis was a prescient 'Futurist' himself, almost prophetic.