Extracts from Plato's Republic - The Myth of the Cave

 For talk in Athens - Thursday 23rd March - 2023

 

Extracts of Plato’s Cave:

(Plato’s Book Republic – 514a to 517a)

Translated by:  Waterfield, Robin. Republic (Oxford World's Classics) OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

The Prisoner Ascends from the Cave   (Plato’s Republic – 514a to 517a)

514a ‘Next,’ I said, ‘here’s a situation which you can use as an analogy for the human condition—for our education or lack of it. Imagine people living in a cavernous cell down under the ground; at the far end of the cave, a long way off, there’s an entrance open to the outside world. They’ve been there since childhood, with their legs and necks tied up in a way which keeps them in one place and allows them to look only straight ahead, but not to turn their heads. There’s firelight burning a long way further up the cave behind them, and up the slope between the fire and the prisoners there’s a road, beside which you should imagine a low wall has been built—like the partition which conjurors place between themselves and their audience and above which they show their tricks.’ B

‘All right,’ he said.

‘Imagine also that there are people on the other side of this wall who are carrying all sorts of artefacts. These artefacts, human statuettes, and animal models carved in stone and wood and all kinds of materials stick out over the wall; and as you’d expect, some of the people talk as they carry these objects along, while others are silent.’ c

515a

‘This is a strange picture you’re painting,’ he said, ‘with strange prisoners.’

‘They’re no different from us,’ I said. ‘I mean, in the first place, do you think they’d see anything of themselves and one another except the shadows cast by the fire on to the cave wall directly opposite them?’

‘Of course not,’ he said. ‘They’re forced to spend their lives without moving their heads.’ ‘And what about the objects which were being carried along? Won’t they only see their shadows as well?’ b

‘Naturally.’ ‘Now, suppose they were able to talk to one another: don’t you think they’d assume that their words applied to what they saw passing by in front of them?

‘They couldn’t think otherwise.’

“And what if sound echoed off the prison wall opposite them? When any of the passers-by spoke, don’t you think they’d be bound to assume that the sound came from a passing shadow?’

‘I’m absolutely certain of it,’ he said.

‘All in all, then,’ I said, ‘the shadows of artefacts would constitute the only reality people in this situation would recognize.’ c

‘That’s absolutely inevitable,’ he agreed. d

‘What do you think would happen, then,’ I asked, ‘if they were set free from their bonds and cured of their inanity? What would it be like if they found that happening to them? Imagine that one of them has been set free and is suddenly made to stand up, to turn his head and walk, and to look towards the firelight. It hurts him to do all this and he’s too dazzled to be capable of making out the objects whose shadows he’d formerly been looking at. And suppose someone tells him that what he’s been seeing all this time has no substance, and that he’s now closer to reality and is seeing more accurately, because of the greater reality of the things in front of his eyes—what do you imagine his reaction would be? And what do you think he’d say if he were shown any of the passing objects and had to respond to being asked what it was? Don’t you think he’d be bewildered and would think that there was more reality in what he’d been seeing before than in what he was being shown now?’

‘Far more,’ he said.

‘And if he were forced to look at the actual firelight, don’t you think it would hurt his eyes? Don’t you think he’d turn away and run back to the things he could make out, and would take the truth of the matter to be that these things are clearer than what he was being shown?’ e

‘Yes,’ he agreed.

‘And imagine him being dragged forcibly away from there up the rough, steep slope,’ I went on, ‘without being released until he’s been pulled out into the sunlight. Wouldn’t this treatment cause him pain and distress? And once he’s reached the sunlight, he wouldn’t be able to see a single one of the things which are currently taken to be real, would he, because his eyes would be overwhelmed by the sun’s beams?’

516a

‘No, he wouldn’t,’ he answered, ‘not straight away.’

‘He wouldn’t be able to see things up on the surface of the earth, I suppose, until he’d got used to his situation. At first, it would be shadows that he could most easily make out, then he’d move on to the reflections of people and so on in water, and later he’d be able to see the actual things themselves. Next, he’d feast his eyes on the heavenly bodies and the heavens themselves, which would be easier at night: he’d look at the light of the stars and the moon, rather than at the sun and sunlight during the daytime.’ b

‘Of course.’

‘And at last, I imagine, he’d be able to discern and feast his eyes on the sun—not the displaced image of the sun in water or elsewhere, but the sun on its own, in its proper place.’

‘Yes, he’d inevitably come to that,’ he said.

‘After that, he’d start to think about the sun and he’d deduce that it is the source of the seasons and the yearly cycle, that the whole of the visible realm is its domain, and that in a sense everything which he and his peers used to see is its responsibility.’ c

‘Yes, that would obviously be the next point he’d come to,’ he agreed.

‘Now, if he recalled the cell where he’d originally lived and what passed for knowledge there and his former fellow prisoners, don’t you think he’d feel happy about his own altered circumstances, and sorry for them?’

‘Definitely.’

‘Suppose that the prisoners used to assign prestige and credit to one another, in the sense that they rewarded speed at recognizing the shadows as they passed, and the ability to remember which ones normally come earlier and later and at the same time as which other ones, and expertise at using this as a basis for guessing which ones would arrive next. Do you think our former prisoner would covet these honours and would envy the people who had status and power there, or would he much prefer, as Homer describes it, “being a slave labouring for someone else—someone without property”, and would put up with anything at all, in fact, rather than share their beliefs and their life?’ d

‘Yes, I think he’d go through anything rather than live that way,’ he said. e

‘Here’s something else I’d like your opinion about,’ I said. ‘If he went back underground and sat down again in the same spot, wouldn’t the sudden transition from the sunlight mean that his eyes would be overwhelmed by darkness?’

 ‘Certainly,’ he replied.

‘Now, the process of adjustment would be quite long this time, and suppose that before his eyes had settled down and while he wasn’t seeing well, he had once again to compete against those same old prisoners at identifying those shadows. Wouldn’t he make a fool of himself? Wouldn’t they say that he’d come back from his upward journey with his eyes ruined, and that it wasn’t even worth trying to go up there? And wouldn’t they—if they could—grab hold of anyone who tried to set them free and take them up there, and kill him?’

517a

‘They certainly would,’ he said.

The Escaped Prisoner Must Go Down Into The Darkness Again To Help The Others

(Republic-519c/d to 520e):

‘Our job as founders, then,’ I said, ‘is to make sure that the best people come to that fundamental field of study (as we called it earlier): we must have them make the ascent we’ve been talking about and see goodness. And afterwards, once they’ve been up there and had a good look, we mustn’t let them get away with what they do at the moment.’  e

‘Which is what?’

 ‘Staying there,’ I replied, ‘and refusing to come back down again to those prisoners, to share their work and their rewards, no matter whether those rewards are trivial or significant.’

‘But in that case,’ he protested, ‘we’ll be wronging them: we’ll be making the quality of their lives worse and denying them the better life they could be living, won’t we?’

‘You’re again forgetting, my friend,’ I said, ‘that the point of legislation is not to make one section of a community better off than the rest, but to engineer this for the community as a whole. Legislators should persuade or compel the members of a community to mesh together, should make every individual share with his fellows the benefit which he is capable of contributing to the common welfare, and should ensure that the community does contain people with this capacity; and the purpose of all this is not for legislators to leave people to choose their own directions, but for them to use people to bind the community together.’ e

520a

‘Yes, you’re right,’ he said. ‘I was forgetting.’ b

 ‘I think you’ll also find, Glaucon,’ I said, ‘that we won’t be wronging any philosophers who arise in our community. Our remarks, as we force them to take care of their fellow citizens and be their guardians, will be perfectly fair. We’ll tell them that it’s reasonable for philosophers who happen to occur in other communities not to share the work of those communities, since their occurrence was spontaneous, rather than planned by the political system of any of the communities in question, and it’s fair for anything which arises spontaneously and doesn’t owe its nurture to anyone or anything to have no interest in repaying anyone for having provided its nourishment. “We’ve bred you, however,” we’ll say, “to act, as it were, as the hive’s leaders and kings, for your own good as well as that of the rest of the community…..

You’ve received a better and more thorough education than those other philosophers, and you’re more capable of playing a part in both spheres. So each of you must, when your time comes, descend to where the rest of the community lives, and get used to looking at things in the dark. The point is that once you become acclimatized, you’ll see infinitely better than the others there; your experience of genuine right, morality, and goodness will enable you to identify every one of the images and recognize what it is an image of.

 And then the administration of our community—ours as well as yours—will be in the hands of people who are awake, as distinct from the norm nowadays of communities being governed by people who shadow-box and fall out with one another in their dreams over who should rule, as if that were a highly desirable thing to do. No, the truth of the matter is this: the less keen the would-be rulers of a community are to rule, the better and less divided the administration of that community is bound to be, but where the rulers feel the opposite, the administration is bound to be the opposite.”’ c d

Plutarch and the E of Delphi (Part 2)

Plutarch and the E of Delphi (Part 2)

I would like to conclude my look at Plutarch’s essay ‘The E of Delphi’ (pronounced EI) by looking at the final pages of the essay which are given over to his teacher AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher. (Remember we are referring to ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (circa 46 to 120 CE), a respected philosopher and writer throughout Greece and Rome, who was a high-ranking priest here in Delphi before the destruction of the Temple of Apollo some 300 years after his death. (Surely he is a good place to look to begin to understand what Delphi was really all about…..)

May I remind Greek members of the group that in my previous post there is a link to Plutarch’s essay on this subject in ‘modern Greek’ for people to read easily. In the meantime, here are a few of the things Ammonius says about the E at Delphi, as recorded by Plutarch.

I will be discussing Plutarch’s other 2 essays about Delphi (‘Why Oracles at Delphi Are No Longer Given in Verse’, and  ‘The Obsolescence of Oracles’) in due course…..probably over a coffee with anyone who is interested, since I feel the material is too sacred for discussion via social media…

[James’ selected Quotes – The E at Delphi - Part 2.  Ammonius the teacher of Plutarch concludes the conversation and gives his own deep opinions on the subject…… ]

 The Speakers:

AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch’s teacher.

LAMPRIAS, Plutarch’s brother.

PLUTARCH.

THEON, a literary friend.

EUSTROPHUS, an Athenian.

NICANDER, a priest of the temple.

XVII. Ammonius, as one who himself gave Mathematics no mean place in Philosophy, was pleased at the course the conversation was taking, and said: ‘It is not worth our while to answer our young friends with too absolute accuracy on these points; I will only observe that any one of the numbers will provide not a few points for those who choose to sing its praises. Why speak about the others? Apollo’s holy “Seven” will take up all one day before we have exhausted its powers. Are we then to show the Seven Wise Men at odds with common usage, and “the time which runs”, and to suppose that they ousted the “Seven” from its pre-eminence before the God, and consecrated the “Five” as perhaps more appropriate? ‘My own view is that the letter signifies neither number, nor order, nor conjunction, nor any other omitted part of speech; it is a complete and self-operating mode of addressing the God; the word once spoken brings the speaker into apprehension of his power. The God, as it were, addresses each of us, as he enters, with his “KNOW THYSELF”, which is at least as good as “Hail”. We answer the God back with “EI” (Thou Art), rendering to him the designation which is true and has no lie in it, and alone belongs to him, and to no other, that of BEING.

‘For we have, really, no part in real being; all mortal nature is in a middle state between becoming and perishing, and presents but an appearance, a faint unstable image, of itself.

“It is impossible to go into the same river twice”,

said Heraclitus; no more can you grasp mortal being twice, so as to hold it.

Hence becoming never ends in being, for the process never leaves off, or is stayed. From seed it produces, in its constant changes, an embryo, then an infant, then a child; in due order a boy, a young man; then a man, an elderly man, an old man; it undoes the former becomings and the age which has been, to make those which come after. yet we fear (how absurdly!) a single death, we who have died so many deaths, and yet are dying. For it is not only that, as Heraclitus would say, “death of fire is birth of air”, and “death of air is birth of water”; the thing is much clearer in our own selves. The man in his strength is destroyed when the old man comes into being, the young man was destroyed for the man in his strength to be, so the boy for the young man, the babe for the boy. He of yesterday has died unto him of to-day; he of to-day is dying unto him of to-morrow.

No one abides, no one is; we that come into being are many, while matter is driven around, and then glides away, about some one appearance and a common mould. Else how is it, if we remain the same, that the things in which we find pleasure now are different from those of a former time; that we love, hate, admire, and censure different things; that our words are different and our feelings; that our look, our bodily form, our intellect are not the same now as then?

Time is a thing which moves and takes the fashion of moving matter, which ever flows or is a sort of leaky vessel which holds destruction and becoming. Of time we use the words “afterwards”, “before”, “shall be”, and “has been”, each on its face an avowal of not being. For, in this question of being, to say of a thing which has not yet come into being, or which has already ceased from being, that “it is”, is silly and absurd.

All things are coming into being, or being destroyed, even while we measure them by time. Hence it is not permissible, even in speaking of that which is, to say that “it was”, or “it shall be”; these all are inclinations, transitions, passages, for of permanent being there is none in Nature. XX. ‘But the God IS, we are bound to assert, he is, with reference to no time but to that age wherein is no movement, or time, or duration; to which nothing is prior or subsequent; no future, no past, no elder, no younger, which by one long “now” has made the “always” perfect. Only with reference tot his that which really is, is; it has not come into being, it is not yet to be, it did not begin, it will not cease. Thus then we ought to hail him in worship, and thus to address him as “Thou Art”, aye, or in the very words of some of the old people, “Ei Hen”, “Thou art one thing”. For the Divine is not many things,…..

Therefore the first of the names of the God, and the second, and the third. “Apollo” (Not-many) denies plurality and excludes multitude. Ἴητος means one and one only; Phoebus, we know, is a word by which the ancients expressed that which is clean and pure,…..

Now The One is transparent and pure, pollution comes by commixture of this with that, just as Homer, you remember, says of ivory dyed red that it is stained, and dyers say of mingled pigments that they are destroyed, and call the process “destruction”.

But now that we see them dreaming of the God in the fairest of nightly visions, let us rise and encourage them to mount yet higher, to contemplate him in a dream of the day, and to see his own being. Let them pay honour also to the image of him and worship the principle of increase which is about it; so far as what is of sense can lead to what is of mind, a moving body to that which abides, it allows presentments and appearances of his kind and blessed self to shine through after a fashion.

To my thinking the word “EI” is confronted with this false view, and testifies to the God that THOU ART, meaning that no shift or change has place in him, but that such things belong to some other God, or rather to some Spirit set over Nature in its perishing and becoming,…..

Anyhow, the phrase “KNOW THYSELF” seems to stand in a sort of antithesis to the letter “E”, and yet, again, to accord with it. The letter is an appeal, a cry raised in awe and worship to the God, as being throughout all eternity; the phrase is a reminder to mortal man of his own nature and of his weakness.’

Source: Plutarch. Delphi Complete Works of Plutarch. (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 13) .

Plutarch and the E of Delphi (Part 1)

 

I would like to continue my comments on Plutarch - ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (circa 46 to 120 CE), who was a respected philosopher and writer throughout Greece and Rome, and was also a high-ranking priest here in Delphi before the destruction of the Temple of Apollo some 300 years after his death.

I remind Greek members of the group that in my previous post there is a link to Plutarch’s essay on this subject in ‘modern Greek’ for people to read easily. In the meantime, here are a few of the things Plutarch writes about the E at Delphi - pronounced EI.

The Speakers:

AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch’s teacher.

LAMPRIAS, Plutarch’s brother.

PLUTARCH.

THEON, a literary friend.

EUSTROPHUS, an Athenian.

NICANDER, a priest of the temple.

 

[James’ selected Quotes - Part 1]

‘Well, then, our kind Apollo, in the oracles which he gives his consultants, seems to solve the problems of life and to find a remedy, while problems of the intellect he actually suggests and propounds to the born love of wisdom in the soul, thus implanting an appetite which leads to truth….

….. We may well guess that it was not by chance, or by lot, that, along among the letters, it received pre-eminence in the God’s house, and took rank as a sacred offering and a show object. No, the officials of the God in early times, when they came to speculate, either saw in it a special and extraordinary virtue, or found it a symbol for something else of serious importance, and so adopted it……

…… That the God is no less philosopher than he is prophet appeared to all to come out directly from the exposition which Ammonius gives us of each of his names. He is ‘Pythian’ (The Inquirer) to those who are beginning to learn and to inquire; ‘Delian’ (The Clear One) and ‘Phanaean’ to those who are already getting something clear and a glimmering of the truth; ‘Ismenian’ (The Knowing) to those who possess the knowledge; ‘Leschenorian’ (God of Discourse) when they are in active enjoyment of dialectical and philosophic intercourse. ‘Now since,’ he continued, ‘Philosophy embraces inquiry, wonder, and doubt, it seems natural that most of the things relating to the God should have been hidden away in riddles, and should require some account of their purpose, and an explanation of the cause. For instance, in the case of the undying fire, why the only woods used here are pine for burning and laurel for fumigation; again, why two Fates are here installed, whereas their number is everywhere else taken as three;…..

……Look again at those inscriptions, KNOW THYSELF and NOTHING TOO MUCH; how many philosophic inquiries have they provoked! What a multitude of arguments has sprung up out of each, as from a seed! Not one of them I think is more fruitful in this way than the subject of our present inquiry.’….

….. IV. Ammonius gave a quiet smile; he had a suspicion that Lamprias had been giving us a view of his own, making up history and legend at discretion…… [James Note: A good general warning when we listen to some people or read their books….]

V. ‘No, the Delphic Officials’, said Nicander the priest, speaking for them, ‘believe that it is a vehicle, a form assumed by the petition addressed to the God; it has a leading place in the questions of those who consult him, and inquire, If they shall conquer; If they shall marry; If it is advisable to sail; If to farm; If to travel. The God in his wisdom would bow out the dialecticians when they think that nothing practical comes of the “If” part with its clause attached; he admits as practical, in his sense of the word, all questions so attached…..’

…… Just so, when the God puts out ambiguous oracles, he is exalting and establishing Dialectic, as essential to the right understanding of himself. You will grant again, that in Dialectic this conjunctive particle has great force, because it formulates the most logical of all sentences. This is certainly the “conjunctive”, seeing that the other animals know the existence of things, but man alone has been gifted by nature with the power of observing and discerning their sequence. That “it is day” and “it is light” we may take it that wolves and dogs and birds perceive. But “if it is day it is light”, is intelligible only to man; he alone can apprehend antecedent and consequent, the enunciation of each and their connexion, their mutual relation and difference, and it is in these that all demonstration has its first and governing principle. Since then Philosophy is concerned with truth, and the light of truth is demonstration, and the principle of demonstration is the conjunctive proposition, the faculty which includes and produces this was rightly consecrated by the wise men to that God who is above all things a lover of truth……

Also, the God is a prophet, and prophetic art deals with that future which is to come out of things present or things past. Nothing comes into being without a cause, nothing is known beforehand without a reason.

Hence, though it may perhaps seem a petty thing to say, I will not shrink from it; the real tripod of truth is the logical process which assumes the relation of consequent to antecedent, then introduces the fact, and so establishes the conclusion. If the Pythian God really finds pleasure in music, and in the voices of swans, and the tones of the lyre, what wonder is it that as a friend to Dialectic, he should welcome and love that part of speech which he sees philosophers use more, and more often, than any other.

For Aeschylus says: ‘In mingled cries the dithyramb should ring,……. With Dionysus revelling, its King. ‘But Apollo has the Pæan, a set and sober music. Apollo is ever ageless and young; Dionysus has many forms and many shapes as represented in paintings and sculpture, which attribute to Apollo smoothness and order and a gravity with no admixture, to Dionysus a blend of sport and sauciness with seriousness and frenzy:…..’

XVII. Ammonius, as one who himself gave Mathematics no mean place in Philosophy, was pleased at the course the conversation was taking, and said: ‘It is not worth our while to answer our young friends with too absolute accuracy on these points; I will only observe that any one of the numbers will provide not a few points for those who choose to sing its praises. Why speak about the others? Apollo’s holy “Seven” will take up all one day before we have exhausted its powers. Are we then to show the Seven Wise Men at odds with common usage, and “the time which runs”, and to suppose that they ousted the “Seven” from its pre-eminence before the God, and consecrated the “Five” as perhaps more appropriate? ‘My own view is that the letter signifies neither number, nor order, nor conjunction, nor any other omitted part of speech;

----------

I will conclude my comments on this text ‘The E at Delphi’ next time by giving an outline of what Ammonius (the teacher of Plutarchos) thinks is the reason for the E. We should note that Plutarch significantly leaves his teacher’s views and comments to last to conclude his piece.

James.

Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris' and some deeper philosophical wisdom.....

 A few words about why I like Plutarch (Πλούταρχος) – and some clues to the richness and wisdom one can find in his writings.

Firstly, let me say that I am talking about the ‘real’ or ‘famous’ ’ Plutarch, well to my mind at least. He is usually known as ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (a city in central Greece) and lived around  46 CE and died around 120.    (In other words, this is not the latter Plutarch of Athens who lived around 350 – 430 CE and was one of the latter Neo Platonist group of that time – a group that I personally have mixed feelings about…… but that is something for another day.)

Plutarch was born into a wealthy and well connected family and received the best possible education.  He travelled to Asia minor and Egypt – and later made a series of visits to Rome where he was given official recognition by the emperors Trajan and Hadrian, which added to his fame.  

He writes in a popular / accessible and practical way…. You will know what Plutarch was getting at after you read the one of his essays – even if you do not agree with him about everything.   If you prefer reading this with specialist vocabulary, supposed esoteric hidden meanings, and the discussion of very vague abstract ideas opened to interpretation or esoteric deliberations - then I think this Plutarch will not be to your taste.

However, if like me - you are not put off by down to earth and straightforward philosophical writing, I think it is fair to say Plutarch’s essays contain a rich source of spiritual and philosophical guidance and nourishment; along with several suggested pitfalls to avoid in a quest to lead a more philosophical life. Keep in mind, he also held responsible positions here in Delphi in the priesthoods there…and was very well respected here. When he speaks about ‘certain’ spiritual things – albeit in a simple and straightforward way - we should consider at least that he not only knows what he is talking about – but has an understanding of these deeper things as well.

Personally, I try to read some Plutarch every year or two at least…… to remind myself of the wisdom within his writings about how to live, and what kinds of attitudes we should have towards other people……

When I hear some modern commentators relegate Plutarch to the side lines simply - because he uses down to earth and very understandable language - I am not that impressed. After all, Socrates himself (who lived some 400 years before Plutarch ) warns us about just accepting ‘clever or stylish  arguments’ over ideas that are presented simply and in a straightforward manner. Socrates is very critical of rhetoric (basically the art of persuasion and clever speech making) - if it is in the wrong hands. By this Socrates means, if the speaker however elegant and polished, does not really what they are talking about and just pretends they do, or is deliberately trying to mislead is audience.…… as is often the case with our political leaders, or people who perhaps are trying to persuade us to buy things we don’t want, or do things that are not good for us.

Plutarch wrote two main works which have come down to us today:

..... One was the more well know Parallel Lives of outstanding Greek and Roman leaders – which deliberately and cleverly compares two leaders at a time who may have different characters or outlooks on certain matters; so the descriptions are very ‘philosophical’ as well, and not just historical.

The second lesser well know work (book) is conventionally known as The Moralia which is a Latin translation of a Greek term for ‘Moral Pieces’ (ēthika), – which comprised of some 26 essays on various subjects – not just moral subjects as we might suppose. (Incidentally, Plutarch’s son, Lamprias, is attributed with compiling and editing his father’s essays and papers into books after Plutarch’s death.)

Within The Moralia Plutarch writes an essay explaining The E at Delphi, and I will make a few comments about this over the next week or two.  Greek members of this group can read Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris, and about the E in Delphi from:

https://www.kaktos.gr/el/authors/archaioi-suggrafeis/ploutarchos/ploutarhos-ithika-10-978-960-352-354-3.html

However, let me finish this post by telling you some of the more unusual things (but very straightforward and important things) Plutarch says within his essay on the Gods Isis and Osiris.  I feel these are importance quotes to share with people who are on the philosophical path….

Some Quotes from Plutarch’s essay on Isis and Osiris

(Plutarch is talking to a friend, Clea, in Delphi)

🔑All good things, my dear Clea, sensible men must ask from the gods; and especially do we pray that from those mighty gods we may, in our quest, gain a knowledge of themselves, so far as such a thing is attainable by men. For we believe that there is nothing more important for man to receive, or more ennobling for God of His grace to grant, than the truth.

🔑For the Deity is not blessed by reason of his possession of gold and silver, nor strong because of thunder and lightning, but through knowledge and intelligence.

🔑Therefore, the effort to arrive at the Truth, and especially the truth about the gods, is a longing for the divine. For the search for truth requires for its study and investigation the consideration of sacred subjects, and it is a work more hallowed than any form of holy living or temple service; and, not least of all, it is well-pleasing to that goddess whom you worship, a goddess exceptionally wise and a lover of wisdom, to whom, as her name at least seems to indicate, knowledge and understanding are in the highest degree appropriate. For Isis is a Greek word,…..

🔑.....for she is wise, and discloses the divine mysteries to those who truly and justly have the name of “bearers of the sacred vessels” and “wearers of the sacred robes.” These are they who within their own soul, as though within a casket, bear the sacred writings about the gods clear of all superstition and pedantry; and they cloak them with secrecy, thus giving intimation, some dark and shadowy, some clear and bright, of their concepts about the gods, intimations of the same sort as are clearly evidenced in the wearing of the sacred garb. ……

🔑 It is a fact, Clea, that having a beard and wearing a coarse cloak does not make philosophers, nor does dressing in linen and shaving the hair make votaries of Isis; but the true votary of Isis is he/she who has legitimately received what is set forth in the ceremonies connected with these gods, and uses reason in investigating and in studying the truth contained therein…

🔑 But for all this there is only one true reason, which is to be found in the words of Plato: “for the Impure to touch the Pure is contrary to divine ordinance.”  [Note: This is particularly important for readers searching for the truth, the beautiful, the good or the divine….]

🔑 In Saïs the statue of Athena, whom they believe to be Isis, bore the inscription: “I am all that has been, and is, and shall be, and my robe no mortal has yet uncovered.” Moreover, most people believe that Amoun is the name given to Zeus in the land of the Egyptians, a name which we, with a slight alteration, pronounce Ammon. But Manetho of Sebennytus dthinks that the meaning “concealed” or “concealment” lies in this word.

🔑 When they, therefore, address the supreme god, whom they believe to be the same as the Universe, as if he were invisible and concealed, and implore him to make himself visible and manifest to them, they use the word “Amoun”; so great, then, was the circumspection of the Egyptians in their wisdom touching all that had to do with the gods. 10 1 Witness to this also are the wisest of the Greeks: Solon, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, who came to Egypt and consorted with the priests; and in this number some would include Lycurgus also.

🔑 ……and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal’s watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom,b since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks. Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters.

🔑 If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.

🔑 Moreover, Lysippus the sculptor was quite right in his disapproval of the painter Apelles, because Apelles in his portrait of Alexander had represented him with a thunderbolt in his hand, whereas he himself had represented Alexander holding a spear, the glory of which no length of years could ever dim, since it was truthful and was his by right. 25 1 Better, therefore, is the judgment of those who hold that the stories about Typhon, Osiris, and Isis, are records of experiences of neither gods nor men, but of demigods, ewhom Plato and Pythagoras and Xenocrates and Chrysippus, following the lead of early writers on sacred subjects, allege to have been stronger than men and, in their might, greatly surpassing our nature, yet not possessing the divine quality unmixed and uncontaminated, but with a share also in the nature of the soul and in the perceptive faculties of the body, and with a susceptibility to pleasure and pain and to whatsoever other experience is incident to these mutations, and is the source of much disquiet in some and of less in others. For in demigods, as in men, there are divers degrees of virtue and vice.

🔑 The assumption, then, is that the demigods (or daemons) have a complex and inconsistent nature and purpose; wherefore

🔑 …..That Osiris is identical with Dionysus who could more fittingly know than yourself, Clea? For you are at the head of the inspired maidens of Delphi, and have been consecrated by your father and mother in the holy rites of Osiris. If, however, for the benefit of others it is needful to adduce proofs of this identity, let us leave undisturbed what may not be told, but the public ceremonies which the priests perform in the burial of the Apis, when they convey his body on an improvised bier, do not in any way come short of a Bacchic procession; for they fasten skins of fawns about themselves, and carry Bacchic wands and indulge in shoutings and movements exactly as do those who are under the spell of the Dionysiac ecstasies.

🔑 The Egyptians, as has already been stated, point out tombs of Osiris in many places, and the people of Delphi believe that the remains of Dionysus rest with them close beside the oracle; and the Holy Ones offer a secret sacrifice in the shrine of Apollo whenever the devotees of Dionysus wake the God of the Mystic Basket.

🔑 We must not treat legend as it were history at all, but we should adopt that which is appropriate in each legend in accordance with its verisimilitude.

Talks in Delphi - Program for June 2021

Every Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday Evening during JUNE 2021

@ Apollon Café – High Street, Delphi. (On the lovely terrace watching the sun go down.) Meet new people and learn something new.

Meet 7.00pm for a prompt 7.15 start

3 Introductory Philosophy Talks With Time for Questions and Discussion Afterward.

(by James, throughout June 2021)

3 Introductory Talks by James:

Monday Nights: 'Know Yourself’ - Socrates tells young Alcibiades; and we will look at Plato’s book ‘First Alcibiades' to help explain this ‘apparently’ easy idea. (Will include a general introduction to Plato and Socrates if you wish…..)

Tuesday Nights: ‘The Nuts and Bolts of Plato’ - Helping us to understand and enjoy Plato’s books more by looking at 3 regular themes frequent throughout his writings – Metaphysics, Psyche (the soul) and Ethics

Wednesday Nights: Plato’s Book ‘The Phaedrus' - suggesting that LOVE is an important driving force for our journey to the stars…..  

Note: No previous study of philosophy is needed to come along and enjoy the talks, while more experienced philosophers are also welcome. Talks are in English and last about 45 minutes with time for questions afterwards.

How to find us: The Apollon Cafe is in the little High Street in Greece - and we are meeting on the outside terrace at the rear of the cafe. When you arrive - please make your way through the cafe and out on to the terrace. Please find James and let him know you are there for the talk.

Cost: Places at the Delphi/June talks are limited, and need to be reserved. Tickets are offered on a ‘pay-what-you-can’ basis. (Suggested amount for those who can is 5 to 10 euros). The subject of the talk varies on different nights of the week - so please reserve your place for the correct evening at EVENTBITE.COM at:

….. or go to ‘Greek Philosophy Talks from Delphi on Eventbrite.com

To Contact James: to arrange another time for a private talk (subject to availability) for individuals and groups email:

jamestalksgreece@hotmail.com

Believing just eighty per cent in the soul, as I suspect quite a few people do these days, can be an awkward place to be......

 

Extract From James Head’s Book – Life Choices: Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle    https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540552624 

  Chapter 5 - Plato’s Phaedo

...... Remember, we are not meant to study Plato as if he is the font of all truth and knowledge, since in Plato’s philosophy our human soul is meant to be that font; assuming of course that we have one in the first place and that we occasionally listen to our souls if we do. His books should not be read like a religious dogma. Plato was just a philosophy teacher and writer (albeit an enormously respected one), and like any other philosophy teacher or spiritual guide, he can only point people towards the truth. The student must then put one foot in front of the other and walk at his or her own pace towards the truth.

Plato writes to stimulate our investigation and exploration of the truth, and many of the questions he raises and asks us to consider for ourselves are important signs for us to follow; especially if we want to ‘prove’ the existence of the soul to our own satisfaction at least – or alternatively perhaps disprove it. Believing just eighty per cent in the soul, as I suspect quite a few people do these days, can be an awkward place to be. Generally speaking, ‘life’ is much easier and straightforward if you believe (or disbelieve) one hundred per cent.  (Even at the end of The Phaedo, one of Socrates’ closest friends Simmias, says he is still not certain about the existence of the soul.)

It is interesting to note that the word ‘theory’ literally means ‘to contemplate’ in Greek, and Socrates and Plato only want us all to come to our own theories and opinions on these matters, hopefully with well thought out reasons to back them up. Very usefully, in my opinion, Socrates and Plato offer us a structured approach towards such contemplation and investigation which all too often is a rather vague or confusing undertaking. When investigating anything (even the existence of the soul), having a structured approach helps us to arrive at our own opinions on many important spiritual and practical matters.

Be careful as you take those first philosophical steps through the pages of The Phaedo, since Plato combines accepted factual information, well known Greek myths, lesser known allegories, and some divine riddles of his own making within his text. He does this to stimulate our minds, promote our understanding of reality, and allow us to create our own unique paths towards the truth, and perhaps also to the mystical visions he describes. Plato is opening some windows for us to look through to see new things, or perhaps just to see some familiar things again but from a different perspective.

Let me now set the scene of The Phaedo a little more for people either new to this book or indeed to Socratic philosophy generally. Socrates aged 70 has been found guilty by the law courts of ancient Athens of impiety and corrupting the youth of the city, and has been sentenced to death. It is 400 years BCE……..

An Underlying Problem to Finding our Own Unique Path ……. as Individuals and as a Society.

What Is The Purpose of Life?  Does It Matter Anyway.....?

A regular question to the attendees of my philosophy talks in Athens is ‘what is the purpose of life’. It’s not that I particularly like asking this question, it’s just that the underlying ideas behind it seem to crop up quite regularly when discussing various topics within Greek philosophy.

Quite often people seem to assume that I’m asking about ‘divine purposes’ or any reason or purpose that a God (should one exist) decide to create the universe and everything in it. Well the audience naturally tend to fall into two camps here depending on their own spiritual position.

The more religious among us start to try and come up with an answer for a universal ‘purpose of life’. Then, oddly in some ways, the people who do not believe in any kind of God or divine hand in the universe answer the question negatively, saying there is no purpose to life whatsoever. Of course, it’s quite difficult answering some of these deep questions off-the-cuff at a talk, so I cannot be completely sure that these people really think there is no purpose at all to life if there is no God.

As I quickly remind to the non-religious people - whether we are religious / spiritual and not - at some level we all still need to have ‘some’ purpose in life as we get out of bed in the morning and go about our daily routines. I disagree that no God necessarily means no purpose whatsoever.

……. and then we start to get to the nub of the question; or rather my intended question. For example, if someone asked me whether the pen I am writing with is a good pen or not, I can say yes or no, only because I know what a pen is - and what it is for. The same is true of say a glass to drink water from. Does it achieve its known purpose well or not….  However, if I asked someone whether they were a good person or not, if they do not know what a person actually is – and what our purpose is – then it is pretty difficult to say yes or no with any certainty; and everybody’s opinion about themselves and the way they live would be as good as anyone else’s. There would no recognizable truth to anyone’s answer. (Be careful of one of the traps with this. I asked a young gentleman ‘what’ he was and he replied that he was an engineer – and a good one too. Of course, this would not necessarily make him a good person…… it’s not quite the same thing.)

So when we start to talk about and consider finding the right path, and being ‘good’ people who use our time wisely (or at least fairly wisely), things start to get a little complicated. It is easy enough to know whether we are simply ‘busy’ people – but again, that is not the same thing at all. Afterall, some of the worse tyrants in history were fairly busy people…...

If we do not have ‘some’ idea of what our purpose is as individuals - surely it gets difficult to say with any certainty what the best or better path for us to follow actually is, and indeed, what sorts of things we should be doing and not doing so often along that path, and how we use our time.

Perhaps this is one of the underlying problems with society as a whole in the 21^st century as traditional religious explanations of the world have tended to crumble to the forces of the media, consumerism and scientific dogmatism.

Whether we are religious or not - without some idea of what the main purpose of a human being is and what it is for - surely it will be difficult to say with any certainty at all whether our goals and objectives (indeed purposes) are good and wise ones, or foolish.

 

[Comments welcome below]

https://www.oraclesfromdelphi.org/

Text for Talk - 'Know Yourself' - Gnothi Sayton

Text for talk 'Know Yourself'

 ‘Know Yourself’

'Extracts' from Plato’s First Alcibiades

(Translated by Benjamin Jowett 1817 – 1893)

(From Apx 129a) [Context – Socrates has been talking about the shoes on our feet and rings on our finger not being the actual person ‘themselves’…]

SOCRATES: Then in taking care of what belongs to you, you do not take care of yourself?

ALCIBIADES: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: For the art which takes care of our belongings appears not to be the same as that which takes care of ourselves?

ALCIBIADES: Clearly not.

SOCRATES: And now let me ask you what is the art with which we take care of ourselves?

ALCIBIADES: I cannot say.

SOCRATES: At any rate, thus much has been admitted, that the art is not one which makes 

any of our possessions, but which makes ourselves better?

ALCIBIADES: True.

SOCRATES: But should we ever have known what art makes a shoe better, if we did not know a shoe?

ALCIBIADES: Impossible.

SOCRATES: Nor should we know what art makes a ring better, if we did not know a ring?

ALCIBIADES: That is true.

SOCRATES: And can we ever know what art makes a man better, if we do not know what we are ourselves?

ALCIBIADES: Impossible.

SOCRATES: And is self-knowledge such an easy thing, and was he to be lightly esteemed who inscribed the text on the temple at Delphi? Or is self-knowledge a difficult thing, which few are able to attain?

ALCIBIADES: At times I fancy, Socrates, that anybody can know himself; at other times the task appears to be very difficult.

SOCRATES: But whether easy or difficult, Alcibiades, still there is no other way; knowing what we are, we shall know how to take care of ourselves, and if we are ignorant we shall not know.

ALCIBIADES: That is true.

SOCRATES: Well, then, let us see in what way the self-existent can be discovered by us; that will give us a chance of discovering our own existence, which otherwise we can never know.

ALCIBIADES: You say truly.

SOCRATES: Come, now, I beseech you, tell me with whom you are conversing?—with whom but with me?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: As I am, with you?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: That is to say, I, Socrates, am talking?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: And Alcibiades is my hearer?

ALCIBIADES: Yes. 

SOCRATES: And I in talking use words?

ALCIBIADES: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And talking and using words have, I suppose, the same meaning?

ALCIBIADES: To be sure.

SOCRATES: And the user is not the same as the thing which he uses?

ALCIBIADES: What do you mean?

SOCRATES: I will explain; the shoemaker, for example, uses a square tool, and a circular tool, and other tools for cutting?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: But the tool is not the same as the cutter and user of the tool?

ALCIBIADES: Of course not.

SOCRATES: And in the same way the instrument of the harper is to be distinguished from 

the harper himself?

ALCIBIADES: It is.

SOCRATES: Now the question which I asked was whether you conceive the user to be always different from that which he uses?

ALCIBIADES: I do.

SOCRATES: Then what shall we say of the shoemaker? Does he cut with his tools only or with his hands?

ALCIBIADES: With his hands as well.

SOCRATES: He uses his hands too?

[From apx First Alcibiades-129 c ]

SOCRATES [Talking about the shoemaker…]:  And does he use his eyes in cutting leather?

ALCIBIADES: He does.

SOCRATES: And we admit that the user is not the same with the things which he uses?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: Then the shoemaker and the harper are to be distinguished from the hands and feet which they use?

ALCIBIADES: Clearly.

SOCRATES: And does not a man use the whole body?

ALCIBIADES: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And that which uses is different from that which is used?

ALCIBIADES: True.

SOCRATES: Then a man is not the same as his own body?

ALCIBIADES: That is the inference.

SOCRATES: What is he, then?

ALCIBIADES: I cannot say. I do not know.

---------

SOCRATES: Nay, you can say that he is the user of the body.

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: And the user of the body is the soul?   [….. or simply X Factor / psyche ]

ALCIBIADES: Yes, the soul.

SOCRATES: And the soul rules?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: Let me make an assertion which will, I think, be universally admitted.

ALCIBIADES: What is it?

SOCRATES: That man is one of three things.

ALCIBIADES: What are they?

SOCRATES: Soul, body, or both together forming a whole.

ALCIBIADES: Certainly.

SOCRATES: But did we not say that the actual ruling principle of the body is man?

ALCIBIADES: Yes, we did.

SOCRATES: And does the body rule over itself?

ALCIBIADES: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: It is subject, as we were saying?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: Then that is not the principle which we are seeking?

ALCIBIADES: It would seem not.

SOCRATES: But may we say that the union of the two rules over the body, and 

consequently that this is man?

ALCIBIADES: Very likely.

SOCRATES: The most unlikely of all things; for if one of the members is subject, the two united cannot possibly rule.

(end of extract)