I. The Greek World View
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:18 am
This thread is for discussing I. "The Greek World View."
Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell taught me the definition of archetype and I can’t get my head around how Tarnas paints early Greek philosophy with the same brush. It kinda works as in I think I see his allegorical use but Form and Idea (with a capital F and I), I don’t know. It seems to me he is taking 2500 years of human assimilation of their ideas and the human conclusions down through the years and projected back onto Socrates and Plato to present their beliefs here.“One of its most striking characteristics [is]a sustained, highly diversified tendency to interpret the world in terms of archetypal principles?. . . At its basis was a view of the cosmos as an ordered expression of certain primordial essences or transcendent first principles, variously conceived as Forms, Ideas, universals, changeless absolutes, immortal deities, divine archai, and archetypes.”
Certainly this is an explanation for the crises of our times. But, I am not a scholar of philosophy, however, what readings I’ve done cause me to form the opinion that the philosophy of Socrates and Plato is grossly overrated as defining a definition for the purpose of life.“Because Socrates and Plato believed that knowledge of virtue was necessary for a person to live a life of virtue, objective universal concepts of justice and goodness seemed imperative for a genuine ethics. Without such changeless constants that transcended the vagaries of human conventions and political institutions, human beings would possess no firm foundation for ascertaining true values, and would thus be subject to the dangers of an amoral relativism.”
is true, and Plato’s Republic establishes for me that he believed it as true, a full life cannot be known by the masses. With 6 ½ billion people on earth having IQs ranging from 70 to 200, only 2 percent of the population have the intellect to derive knowledge directly from the Ideas which are infallible and have real knowledge.“The Platonic perspective thus asks the philosopher to go through the particular to the universal, and beyond the appearance to the essence. It assumes not only that such insight is possible, but that it is mandatory for the attainment of true knowledge.”
My saying to people who speak with such conviction is “often wrong but never in doubt.” What I hear Tarnas saying is Socrates and Plato showed us the plans of their tree house and humans throughout history have used it as the basis for all architecture. There thinking is a period study. Use what might be accurate for defining your reality today but don’t fall on your sword because someone says it must be true Plato said it.Plato never constructed a complete, fully coherent system of Ideas. Yet it is also evident that, despite his own unresolved questions concerning his central doctrine, Plato considered the theory true, and that without it human knowledge and moral activity could have no foundation.”
I thoroughly agree, especially about regurgitating. There is a legend regarding Alexander the Great when he first arrived in Asia. The rulers met with him and on a bid to prevent as much damage as possible, they offered him half of everything they owned. His answer was that his intention was leaving for them whatever it was he did not care to take, not what they cared to offer him. We need to be like the Alexanders of Philosophy, if you will.Grim wrote:Yes Lawrence I am having trouble "interpreting" this book as well. I think much of the problem stems from the aggregate nature of the book. Tarnas up to this point is not concerned with arguments for or against the theories he is presenting. He is merely regurgitating the contemporarily accepted interpretation of Greek meaning. I have yet to find synthesis or synergy rather wade through simplistic reliance on conservative interpretation greatly reducing the significance or influence of his conclusions. What this books first section looses in vision, creativity, inspiration, insight and ultimately significance has been traded for broadness, convenience, pace and breadth of scope. I would much rather read a book this thick on one of Plato's dialogues as opposed to covering such a range of topics as has been attempted in this first section. The risk here is causing one to think by mistake that he had learned something of relevance in so superficial a manner.
I will catch you on the flip side (the next section).
Lawrence wrote:Your succinct comments cause me to consider if I should apologize for recommending this book. does anyone know of a female philosopher and why have no females made a post to this discussion?
It then follows: why are there no female philosophers?
That's the standard trade-off of a broader book: it covers more ground but in less depth. For a reasonable understanding of Plato's ideas, you've got to read Plato. However, for someone like myself, who's read just tiny excerpts of Plato and is unlikely to read more, an overview is better than nothing. Only very serious students of philosophy will read all the philosophers who Tarnas describes, and even for them a book like this provides some helpful context.Grim wrote: I think much of the problem stems from the aggregate nature of the book. Tarnas up to this point is not concerned with arguments for or against the theories he is presenting. He is merely regurgitating the contemporarily accepted interpretation of Greek meaning. I have yet to find synthesis or synergy rather wade through simplistic reliance on conservative interpretation greatly reducing the significance or influence of his conclusions. What this books first section looses in vision, creativity, inspiration, insight and ultimately significance has been traded for broadness, convenience, pace and breadth of scope. I would much rather read a book this thick on one of Plato's dialogues as opposed to covering such a range of topics as has been attempted in this first section. The risk here is causing one to think by mistake that he had learned something of relevance in so superficial a manner.
That brings up the general question about the point of studying philosophy. Everyone in this forum must believe that there's some benefit, or we wouldn't spend time reading books like The Passion of the Western Mind in the first place. That quote summarizes Plato's philosophical approach: finding universal truths, which he views as more essential than the concrete world we can see directly.Grim wrote:If, as Tarnas states on page 8,The Platonic perspective thus asks the philosopher to go through the particular to the universal, and beyond the appearance to the essence. It assumes not only that such insight is possible, but that it is mandatory for the attainment of true knowledge.”
is true, and Plato’s Republic establishes for me that he believed it as true, a full life cannot be known by the masses.