No, they're not, but I think numbers, universals, and the Forms are of the same order - they inhere in the 'formal realm', the domain of pure form, which is not visible to the senses but only to reason - which is a straightforward Platonist view. — Wayfarer

Correct. It is the close proximity of mathematical objects to Forms that tends to lead to the erroneous assumption that they are Forms.

In reality, according to Plato, mathematics is just the preparatory intellectual training that unshackles the soul and enables it to turn away from the shadows and towards the light.

The contemplation of mathematical objects starts off the learning or recollecting process leading to a grasp of the Forms (and can take years before the philosopher is ready for the study of the Forms).

But mathematical objects are not Forms. An ideal triangle is a mathematical object conceived in the mind, but it is not a Form. The Form corresponding to the mathematical object “triangle” is Shape.

1. The Good or the One.

2. Nous or "intellect" proper: World of Forms, e.g. Shape

3. Logistikon, "intellectual" or "thinking" aspect: World of mathematical objects, e.g. ideal triangle.

4. Thymos or "emotional" aspect.

5. Epithymetikon or "sensual aspect".

So, Forms are above mathematical objects.

Of course we could say, for example, that Shape itself is a kind of mathematical concept. However, being above "triangle", it is not the same as the mathematical object, it is more a function constitutive of objects than an object as such.

Forms are also different from universals in that they are prior to the objects, though again, they are close to universals or in the same general direction leading to the light of reality ....

I was wondering recently whether this is because our culture has only kept those elements of Platonism which are useful for science and engineering, while discarding the moral and aesthetic principles that Plato apparently thought indispensable to his philosophy. — Wayfarer

This seems to be a plausible cause.

But another possibility I had in mind would be that Plato's Forms are not mathematical objects.

Perhaps to decipher the "Linear B" script, we should use the ancient Vedic and/or Iranian (?) alphabets. — Gus Lamarch

"Vedic alphabet"? Do you mean Brahmi or Indus script (that no one knows what it is)?

Forms are mathematical objects. Forms are a subset of math. — ArisTootelEs

I don't remember my math teacher saying anything about goodness or justice though.

I don't believe that in our lifetime an event as big as a "war" of the proportions you refer to - religious wars - will happen. — Gus Lamarch

If it does happen, it will be in places like Africa, Mid East, India, Indonesia.

In the West Islam is far more likely to spread as it has done for decades - through immigration, high birth-rates, and conversions. Too gradual and peaceful for non-Muslims to feel motivated to put up resistance ....

And the meaning of 'anamnesis' is recalling what the soul knew prior to this life. These are associated with asceticism and specifically, in the context, with Orphic asceticism. — Wayfarer

Plato's connections with Orphism are essential in the correct reading of his writings.

I have noticed that when anti-Platonists fail to understand something they invariably resort to the rather risible claim that Plato (or Socrates) is being “ironic”.

But what is really funny is that they go so far as to deny the text of the dialogue itself and to conveniently forget that Plato’s cave has an entrance open to outside light, and that there is a whole new world out there illumined by the sun! :grin:

In reality, the attentive reader cannot fail to see that the allegory only makes sense if there is a world outside the cave and the possibility of those inside to visit the outside world.

The philosopher who ventures outside the cave is not an ordinary philosopher but one who has seen the light. The symbolism of light is very important in Socrates (and Plato). Socrates compares the light of truth to the light of the Sun and later relates the vision of a column of light (616b).

Further, he also speaks of a guide that leads the soul to that vision of light, and of the enlightened philosopher descending back into the cave to lead the others.

I think the Orphic symbolism is unmistakable. Socrates himself is the guide who descends into the netherworld (the world of ignorance) in order to lead the unenlightened to the light above. The dialogue starts with Socrates descending to Piraeus where they pray to the Thracian Goddess (Orphism was associated with Thrace) and gaze on the celebrations, and ends with the vision of light.

Socrates’ method of guidance is his dialectic which leads to a “turning around of the soul” (periagoge), and “transformation” or “conversion” (metanoia) and, finally, to a vision of reality:

This organ of knowledge [inner eye] must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periact in the theater, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being (Rep. 518c)

This raises an interesting question as to whether a philosopher or philosophers have any duty towards their fellow citizens. What do you think? — Shawn

I think there can be absolutely no doubt about it. Both in general and in a Platonic context. Plato's philosophers, after all, were to be trained for the express purpose of serving the people.

Perhaps we could look at our argument in a new way? How were European Christians educated? — Athena

Good idea. European Christians were educated in institutions run by the clergy. The catechetical schools founded in the early days of Christianity at Alexandria and Antioch were run by the Church. Professors from ecclesiastical and lay schools later formed universities like that of Bologna. This shows that Christianity did value and promote knowledge and explicates the important fact that science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.

The Bible is not a revealed work of God but the work of men, as are all holy books. — Athena

The Bible does not need to be a revealed work of God. It is sufficient to be the eye-witness account of certain events that manifested divine revelation or were interpreted as such. Matthew says:

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about …

So the Christian Bible is not God dictating things, it is a record of eye-witness accounts related to the writer.

Regarding the subordination of women to men, this was not the teaching of Jesus, but the opinion of the author of Timothy which reflected the prevailing situation of the time. And subordination does not necessarily equate “oppression”. The lower ranks of the military are not “oppressed” by the higher echelons just because they are subordinate to them.

The Koran, on the other hand, seems to be a totally different story. It is supposed to be the direct word of Allah as dictated to Mohammad:

This is the book! There is no doubt about it —a guide for those mindful ˹of Allah˺ who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We [Allah] have provided for them and who believe in what has been revealed to you, O Prophet!˺

St John of Damascus, a Christian scholar who lived in the early days of Islamic rule in Syria, investigated the current claims regarding the Koran and was told that the Koran was given to Mohammad in a dream. He also found out that Mohammad obtained knowledge of Christian scriptures from his close companions some of whom were Christians (of whom there were many in Arabia at the time). He concluded that "This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments, devised his own heresy".

And we know that St John is not lying because it is confirmed by Islamic tradition (Hadith). Mohammad did in fact have Christian friends and relatives and used to spend time on his own in caves in the mountains. When someone hears stories about prophets from his friends, and then spends time on his own thinking about those stories he will likely dream about them and may even conceive the thought that he could be a prophet himself!

In any case case, why did Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) claim that Allah said that of all men he alone could have an unlimited supply of women? And why did Allah tell Mohammad’s wives to be submissive to their husband or else Allah will replace then with better and more submissive ones? What could this mean?! Was the Prophet unable to control his wives and needed some assistance from Allah to subdue them? I think these are important questions that should not be ignored.

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have. — Athena

It has happened in many places. And it is happening gradually. By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun.

Women in Afghanistan have not fought against Islam. Those who have done so have been a minority and the results are quite clear, IMO.

We are not born all-knowing, but only with the capacity for learning. — Athena

Exactly. Learning who we really are. Self-knowledge is the central aim of philosophy.

Most often I hear the indignant comment " do you think you are god?" Or "playing God." meaning we should not attempt to control what happens. If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. — Athena

Being godlike is not the same as being God. Nothing to do with "controlling" anything.

If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. — Athena

1. "Perfect" as far as humanly possible. On the other hand, if we don't want to improve ourselves, what does this say about us?

2. If we must be spiritual, then we live in fear of never being spiritual (or good) enough and we feel cut off from all that is spiritual ....

Isn't it the case that in the later tradition of Aristotelian philosophy that nous apprehends the forms, and the senses apprehend the body? That all particulars are a compound of form (morphe) and matter (hyle)? — Wayfarer

Correct. According to Socrates, particulars exist by virtue of their participating in the Forms. This is why Socrates urges us time and again to go beyond our sense-perceptions and use our reasoning and intuitive faculties to get to the truth.

This is what sets the true philosopher apart from the nonphilosophical crowds.

The properties seen in the particulars, the sun’s reflections seen in water, the shadows reflected on the wall, all draw the philosopher’s attention to the existence of realities beyond and above the objects of ordinary perception and everyday experience. Thus he proceeds to the unknown by means of the known and to the new by means of the old.

In contrast, the anti-Platonists (and anti-philosophers) are the ones who refuse to contemplate anything beyond everyday experience. They are the ones who are supremely content with their chained condition, who refuse to see the light or even conceive its existence.

In their opinion, the world of shadows reflecting images of beings in the outside world is all there is, and nothing else can ever exist.

Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

I think what Plato is saying is that not everyone can unshackle and free themselves. Plato's philosophers are an intellectual elite with special abilities and training and capable of seeing a higher truth. As such, the philosophers are mankind’s link to a higher reality.

There seems to have been an age-old tradition in which priests, shamans, and wise men and women spent a period of time (usually years) exploring, discovering, and learning new or special knowledge that they later imparted to their communities.

Similarly, the task of Plato's philosophers is to distance themselves from everyday life in order to see things in a different light (the light of the Good) after which they return to society to enlighten their fellow citizens.

In Christian times, a comparative role was performed by monks, hermits, and holy men. Obviously, not all attained the same degree of enlightenment, but as in the case of Plato’s philosophers, they had some kind of cognitive contact with the “light (or Form) of the Good”, i.e., they somehow “saw the light” and were able to impart some of it to others.

With the rise of materialism, people in general became perhaps less receptive to guidance from such individuals and this has led to loss of interest in the practical application of philosophy and to its reinterpretation as a purely intellectual endeavor.

That's why I was leery of Apollodorus' linkage of 'nous' with the root 'gno-' (knowledge), which I thought suggested a form of gnostic insight. I think there's a distinction to be made between 'gnostic' and 'noetic' (the latter being more associated with the Platonic tradition.) — Wayfarer

My linkage of nous with gno was due to Bailly's Greek-French Dictionary where he has:

νόος-νοῦς ... R. Γνω, connaitre, v. γιγνώσκω

- Anatole Bailly, Le Grand Bailly: Dictionnaire grec-français, p. 1333

I am aware that the etymology of nous is currently held to be "unknown" or "uncertain". But a derivation from "to know" seemed more plausible to me than one from "to swim", "to sniff" and other suggested alternatives .... :smile:

Of course nous changes its meaning according to context so that on a higher level it is closer to English "intuition" and on other levels closer to "knowledge" or, again, to "reason", "sense", "wit", and so on.

At any rate, both "intuition" and "knowledge" seem to be functions of the same immaterial, living, intelligent or conscious psyche or "soul".

recognizing that the Greek mind of the period was one to which naturalism, that is, the natural world and its intrinsic conditions, was the absolute rule, "Tradition" makes much more sense to them contemporarily than "Mind". — Gus Lamarch

Certainly interesting as a working hypothesis, but given the paucity of supporting evidence it seems like an uphill task.

What if the Greeks started with psyche and then developed the notion of nous as an attribute or faculty of it?

It is not claimed that "Nous" encompasses all these concepts. It is only said that "Nous" is one of those attributes. — Gus Lamarch

Would it be possible to know which of those attributes nous is claimed to be? And what is it an attribute of?

Sure. However, I would have thought that if nous is already known to mean awareness, consciousness, intelligence, etc., then it may be easier to simply add newly-found meanings to the existing list than to coin a new word?

By the way, where would you say nous is used in the sense of "tradition" by Plato?

You are right about techne. If anything, it would be more like an art or skill.

As to nous, if we can't decide what it actually means, I can see no advantage in creating a new word for it. But I do not wish to prevent anyone from doing so. :smile:

Is it hard to be, or merely to become, good? — Gary M Washburn

As with everything else, there are different levels or degrees of goodness.

The highest level is attained through knowledge or experience of the Good (to Agathon) which is the source of everything that is good. Only when acting in complete harmony with the Good does man become perfectly good (and divine).

I was under the impression phronesis and sophrosune were synonyms, usually (incorrectly) translated as "prudence". Sophia appears as a root in many words, bringing it a bit more down to earth than divine wisdom. — Gary M Washburn

Correct. "Prudence" is a rather odd translation that makes little sense to modern ears (to the younger generations in any case).

And yes, sophia does appear to have been used in the sense of "practical wisdom", "skillfulness" or "cleverness". However, the point Socrates is making is that God alone is wise (sophos) and that the philosopher (philosophos) is not one who is wise but one who aspires to be wise:

I think, Phaedrus, that the epithet “wise” is too great and befits God alone; but the name “philosopher,” that is, “lover of wisdom,” or something of the sort would be more fitting and modest for such a man (Phaedrus 278d).

In other words, the philosopher is sufficiently wise to realize his own ignorance and to consciously start on the journey from ignorance to wisdom (sophia). This would make sophia the highest goal.

In any case, "Nous" would most likely be better synthesized contemporarily by the creation of a new term that encompasses "mind/intellect/reason" and "tradition/common sense". — Gus Lamarch

However, considering that there is a tradition to use Greek or Latin when creating new words, we may simplify matters by keeping the original nous.

This difference between a god and spirit is very problematic. Let's see, spirit and ghost can mean the same thing. So the term would be I am the spirit of God-made flesh? — Athena

According to the Bible, God created us in his own image, which implies that in some way we are godlike already. This seems to be the implication of some NT statements:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34)

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God (John 1:12)

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48)

Being godlike by birth, humans have the potential to manifest their divinity by becoming perfect like God. This comes very close to the Platonic teaching to the effect that man must strive to become as godlike as possible, and it implies that on a higher level we are, in fact, godlike.

But I am not sure this is something that Ancient Celts would have recognized as part of their tradition. My guess would be that when moderns speak of “Celtic spirituality”, they really mean “Neo-Celtic” or simply some kind of New-Age concoction. In which case I think it would be more honest to not label it “Celtic”.

Then what of sophia? — Gary M Washburn

Good question.

Philosophy was in its infancy. There were no exact technical terms in the modern sense. And even in modern usage the same word can have different meanings, depending on the context.

We also need to remember that Plato was a Greek who wrote for Greek speakers. Even in the Roman Empire those who wanted to learn philosophy started by learning Greek. In fact, the higher classes in the Roman Empire would have learned Greek as part of their education.

The real problem starts when we insist on reading Ancient Greek authors in English or other modern languages. This is why, personally, I would leave key terms like nous untranslated.

Having said that, Socrates/Plato does make a clear distinction between body (soma) and “soul” (psyche). And nous is associated with psyche.

“Wisdom”, “knowledge”, etc, are the various modern translations of Greek words like phronesis and gnosis.

Socrates says that strictly speaking the epithet “wise” (sophos) befits God alone (Phaedrus 278d).

It may be inferred from this that sophia is a higher, if not highest, form of wisdom. But this doesn’t exclude the possibility of humans having some degree of sophia in certain matters. So, again, it would depend on the context ….

Jack Cummins presents a more universal understanding of spiritualism and social organization before the Father in Heaven replaced the mother. — Athena

Unfortunately, there are no Ancient Celts available to confirm that this was their actual view. After all, they never put their beliefs into writing.

And I don't think Christianity holds us separate from God. It is for the individual believer to hold themselves as far or as near to God as they choose.

In any case, Christianity teaches its followers to see the Spirit of God in his Creation and states that the human body is the temple or dwelling place of God:

Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God? (1 Cor. 6:19)

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory? — Athena

We do not know that there was no hierarchy in Celtic society or that there was no fear of deities and other supernatural forces.

Plus, an empire cannot be organized in the same way as a small nomadic tribe.

I think more complex societies tend to be more hierarchical than less complex ones. Humanity cannot revert to nomadism.

Ancient Celtic religion, commonly known as Celtic paganism, comprises the religious beliefs and practices adhered to by the Iron Age people of Western Europe now known as the Celts, roughly between 500 BCE and 500 CE, spanning the La Tène period and the Roman era, and in the case of the Insular Celts the British and Irish Iron Age. Very little is known with any certainty about the subject, and apart from documented names, which are thought to be of deities, the only detailed contemporary accounts are by hostile Roman writers, who were probably not well-informed.

Ancient Celtic Religion - Wikipedia

If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality?

The true origins of Platonism make an interesting topic and Kingsley does make some good points. Unfortunately, his In the Dark Places of Wisdom was published by the Golden Sufi Center, which raises some questions as the Center tries to link Irina Tweedie and Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee with a "Sufi" chain going back to prophet Mohammad. :smile:

Golden Sufi Center

Worth reading though.

A. Uzdavinys takes a similar but more conventional stance in The Golden Chain.

Perhaps he is saying "wisdom of character' = ethos. — Gary M Washburn

Perhaps. But he literally says "noesis en ethei", "wisdom in ethos", which seems to differentiate noesis from ethos.

Why are people in a democracy talking about a kingdom instead of principles of democracy and how did it feel to be a Celt or Native American before Rome and kingdom spread? — Athena

Obviously, we can't know what Ancient Celts felt. But who says that Celts did not have kingdoms?

Apparently, pre-Christian Iron Age Celtic social structure was based on class and kingship:

In the main, the evidence is of tribes being led by kings, although some argue that there is also evidence of oligarchical republican forms of government eventually emerging in areas which had close contact with Rome. Most descriptions of Celtic societies portray them as being divided into three groups: a warrior aristocracy; an intellectual class including professions such as druid, poet, and jurist; and everyone else.

Celts - Wikipedia

And, of course, they practiced slavery like everyone else.

A hodge-podge of stuff an outsider can safely dabble in, flirt with, never committing to it. — baker

"Outsider"? You mean there are modern insiders to Celtic spirituality?

For us, it only remains to theorize and interpret about their texts, since, for the true understanding of classical Greek metaphysics, one has to think like an ancient Greek, something that is no longer possible. — Gus Lamarch

Another difficulty is that not all Greeks saw the nous in exactly the same way. But I think we can still get some idea as to what the nous means in Plato. In the Cratylus, Socrates says:

The ancients seem to have had the same belief about Athena as the interpreters of Homer have now; for most of these, in commenting on the poet, say that he represents Athena as mind (νοῦς) and intellect (διάνοια); and the maker of her name seems to have had a similar conception of her, but he gives her the still grander title of “mind of God” ἡ θεοῦ νόησις, seeming to say that she is a ἁ θεονόα … he may have called her Theonoe because she has unequalled knowledge of divine things (τὰ θεῖα νοοῦσα) … Perhaps, too, he may have wished to identify the goddess with wisdom of character (ἐν ἤθει νόησις）by calling her Ethonoe (Crat. 407a-c).

Socrates here seems to equate nous with knowledge and wisdom. Elsewhere he says that the nous remembers, etc. So, at least theoretically, it should be possible to measure some of the faculties of the nous by means of modern IQ tests. Though others probably are less measurable by scientific methods.

The main difference to the modern scientific view of intelligence is that Plato's nous exists independently of the physical body whose death it survives.

When you believe in things that you don't understand you suffer .... — 180 Proof

Quite possibly, you suffer even more when you believe in things that you deliberately misunderstand ....

The LSJ link I posted above does derive it from "gno", to know:

Étymologie: R. Γνω connaître ; cf. γιγνώσκω.

Nous has been derived from words or roots meaning "to swim", "to sniff", "to spin", etc. none of which is conclusive.

One interesting derivation is from neomai, “to return”:

More recently, νοῦς has been linked with νέομαι and νόστος (to return, the return) and derived ultimately from the Indo-European root *nes, meaning 'a return from death and darkness'. On this view, νοῦς arises out of the religious conception of the return to conscious life.

James H. Lesher: The Meaning of ΝΟΥΣ in the Posterior Analytics. In: Phronesis 18, 1973, S. 44–68, hier: 47f.

However, whatever the etymological origins, it does refer to that aspect of the soul that knows either directly or by means of sensory perception.

I think that it is worth looking at other cultures as much as it is important to look at the past, in order to open up the imagination to the widest scope of possible options for understanding life and the symbolic dimensions. — Jack Cummins

Sure. Nothing wrong with opening up the imagination. I am simply saying that, ideally, imagination should not be substituted for attested historical fact.

In other words, a distinction should be drawn between what we subjectively prefer a spirituality to be (or to have been) and the historical reality of what that tradition actually was based on the historical evidence.

In any case, I think it would be useful to start with a definition of "Celtic/North American spirituality".

I don’t believe that is correct. The root ‘gn-‘ is found in ‘gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘Jñāna’ but according to etymology online ‘nous’ is a separate root meaning ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’. — Wayfarer

Well, etymology is not an exact science and, ultimately, we have no hard evidence for any of this.

But, see for example:

Understanding the reflexes of PIE *ǵneh3- in Sanskrit, Latin and Greek

And:

νόος – LSJ

If noos is unrelated to gno, "to know", then where does it come from?

Personally, I am all for exploring and drawing inspiration from any system. As long as we don't romanticize and mythologize historical fact. At the end of the day, it may be argued that all systems have good sides and bad sides.

But how do we define 'the spirituality of the Celts'?

The word nous comes from the root gno- from which gnoos > noos, and it signifies the knower, i.e., that within us that is aware, knows, and understands.

In Plato it refers to a higher form of intelligence that is aware of higher metaphysical realities, but it also is used in the more general sense of mind. In the latter sense it may well be assessed in modern IQ tests.

The rule book for the people of Venice, was Roman law, not the Bible. That is important — Athena

Very important, indeed.

If the law was Roman, then this is one of the many aspects of Classical culture that Christianity did NOT destroy. In fact, Roman law was preserved in the Greek East into modern times!

But we are talking about Christian society and therefore a Christian-inspired political philosophy and practice that enabled the rise of capitalism which in turn led to democratic systems. The fact that it didn’t happen in the Islamic world should not be ignored.

For starters, I think it is important to understand that the Muslim Arabs’ success in conquering large territories in the beginning was not due to their “superior” culture or military skills as they had neither.

The Greek-controlled Eastern Roman Empire and Persia had been at war with one another for decades which had weakened their defenses, and this enabled the Arabs to invade and conquer Syria, Persia, and Egypt.

The Arabs did conquer parts of Spain but only because a faction of the Visigoths who controlled Spain sided with the Arabs.

The truth of the matter is that Arab culture lacked some essential elements, such as the use of the wheel (which is why wagons and carts were replaced with camels and donkeys under Islamic rule), the solar calendar (that was more suitable for agriculture than the Arab lunar one), advanced knowledge of ship building and sailing, etc.

Traditional Arab ships were sewn together with coconut and palm-tree fiber, and new techniques had to be learned from the Greeks and Persians. After some initial successes, the entire Arab fleet was annihilated by the Greeks at Constantinople in 672.

Similarly, when the Arabs tried to conquer France from Spain, they were defeated by the Aquitanians at Toulouse in 721 and by the Franks at Tours in 732.

The Arabs never managed to conquer Europe and were eventually conquered by Europeans.

Additionally, Islamic society was highly repressive and discriminatory. Arab Muslims were at the top, followed by non-Arab and mixed-race Muslim converts, followed by the vast majority consisting of non-Muslim locals. The latter were subjected to severe taxation and other forms of discrimination.

In Egypt, for example, the non-Muslim majority was initially allowed to build new places of worship. However, this changed when none other than Caliph Harun al-Rashid of the “Islamic Golden Age” issued an edict demanding the destruction of non-Muslim places of worship built after the Muslim conquest. This set a legal precedent that eventually deprived non-Muslims of their rights concerning religious buildings. At the same time, there were popular uprisings caused by maladministration and excessive taxation.

Muslim discrimination, of course, was endemic not only against Christians but also against Jews. Unfortunately, Harun became the hero of Thousand and One Nights and this is how the mythology of “Islamic Enlightenment” was born. As Bernard Lewis put it:

Even at its best, medieval Islam was rather different from the picture provided by Disraeli and other romantic writers. The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.

- “The pro-Islamic Jews”, Jewish Life and Thought, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1968, p. 401

Religious discrimination remains a serious problem in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia.

“Persecution of Christians ‘coming close to genocide’ in Middle East – report” – The Guardian

On the whole, we can see that not all claims of “Islamic superiority” stand to scrutiny and that a more balanced and nuanced reading of history is essential.

Even if we were to suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Muslim Arabs did have this “great civilization” in the Middle Ages, the question remains as to 1) why they developed this civilization in places that had been part of the Roman and Persian empires (which already had an advanced civilization) and not in Arabia itself, and 2) why this civilization fell apart after just a few hundred years.

The answer to question 1) is that the so-called “Islamic” civilization really was the civilization of the conquered peoples (B. Lewis, What Went Wrong?).

The answer to question 2) is that “Islamic” civilization was not only built from elements of the conquered civilizations but by the conquered peoples themselves.

Muslim Arabs had no advanced education system and no tradition of scholarship. For this reason they employed local scholars from the start in the same way they employed local architects, artisans, engineers, shipwrights, etc.

Though the conquered populations adopted Arabic as the main language of communication with the Arab rulers, and even took on Arab or Arabized names, they retained their local religious and cultural identity.

On average, it took Islam 250 years to spread to 50% of the populations of Syria, Persia, and Egypt. Conversion to Islam was very gradual and, in the beginning, minimal. This means that the scholars who built the “Islamic” civilization were for the most part non-Muslims.

It was in this non-Muslim environment that “Islamic” civilization developed. As the Muslim element gradually increased, the non-Muslim environment decreased and this naturally led to the decline of the civilization it had produced ....

That is perhaps another worthy thread, but even less philosophical than this one. — Athena

IMO economy is a major key to economic and national success. If this thread is about “national success” and “Islam”, which I believe it is, then it should include a discussion of the reasons why Islamic countries have been less successful than Christian ones, and this in turn means discussing the rise of capitalism.

Should there be an explanation of why Rome had slaves and serfs and how Christian wealth including the wealth of the church, was built with slaves and serfs? — Athena

Islam also had slaves. Slavery in the Islamic world was abolished in the 1900’s, it was practiced under ISIS (Islamic State) until a few years ago and it is still practiced in some places even now:

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924. Slavery in Iran was abolished in 1929. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery - in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007. Oman abolished slavery in 1970, and Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain. However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented at present in the predominantly Islamic countries of the Sahel

History of slavery in the Muslim world – Wikipedia

Scholasticism started by the Catholic Church was essential to pulling Christians out of the dark ages and that progress was because of the Greek and Roman classics, not because of the Bible. — Athena

It was not because of the Koran either.

And there are other unresolved issues. For example:

If the Celts were “better” than Greeks and Romans, why admire Greek and Roman culture?

If the Greeks and Romans were “patriarchal” and “worse than the Celts”, why object to Christianity closing down Greek and Roman temples and “destroying” their culture? Should we not welcome it instead?

Moreover, if Christianity “destroyed Greek and Roman culture”, how was Greek and Roman knowledge transmitted to the Muslims?

The truth of the matter is that Celtic religion did involve human sacrifice and Celtic society was dominated by the priestly class that had a monopoly on knowledge. Human sacrifice among the Celts is mentioned by many Roman writers and even in the oral tradition of the Irish Celts (Dindsenchas).

Christianity did not destroy Classical culture. It only abolished the religion which was not a big loss as Roman religion was already developing in the direction of monotheism. The concept of a supreme God who was the Father and King of all other gods was already well-established especially among the educated classes who were also influenced by Platonic beliefs in the ultimate reality of the One.

But Christianity also abolished questionable aspects of Greek and Roman culture like emperor worship, animal sacrifice and gladiator shows. But it did not destroy Classical culture as such. The Church Fathers, including St Paul, were educated men who had a Classical education, spoke Greek and had knowledge of Greek philosophy.

The Church preserved most of the manuscripts of Classical authors like Plato and Aristotle and it saw philosophy as a preparation for Christian theology. It founded the Catechetical School of Alexandria in the 2nd century AD where Classical philosophy was taught alongside Christian theology, science, mathematics, literature, logic and the arts.

In 425 AD the Christian Emperor Theodosius II founded the University of Constantinople (Pandidakterion) with chairs for law, philosophy, medicine, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, rhetoric and other subjects. Other schools, colleges, polytechnics, libraries and fine arts academies also operated in the city at the time.

University of Constantinople – Wikipedia

As the Christian Greeks in the East preserved the works of Classical Greek authors, the Christian Romans in the West preserved works by Juvenal, Ovid, Horace, Cicero, Terence, Tacitus, Seneca, Varro.

Far from destroying Greek and Roman culture, Christianity in fact preserved most of it. To begin with, it preserved Greek and Latin as the language of government and of the Church. It preserved the administrative apparatus, the legal system, and the infrastructure of the Roman Empire. It preserved science, technology, medicine, literature, arts, philosophy, architecture, engineering, etc.

Some Westerners imagine that Roman architecture was just Greek temples in the traditional rectangular style with a colonnade of columns round about and sloping roof. This style was indeed important and influenced even Renaissance and Neoclassical architecture.

However, there were other styles with octagonal or circular structure and domed roof or a combination of the two styles as in the Pantheon of Rome.

The St Sophia Cathedral of Constantinople which was built in the 500’s had a domed roof similar to that of the Pantheon. The Roman basilica style with aisled-hall plan was also widely used in Christian architecture.

In addition, many Greek and Roman temples, bridges, aqueducts, and theaters are still standing!

The Parthenon Temple to Athena was preserved as a church right in the middle of Athens until it was converted into a mosque (and later damaged) by the Turks in the 1460’s, after the fall of Constantinople and the same goes for many other temples.

Parthenon – Wikipedia

Temple of Hephaestus - Wikipedia

Roman bridges – Wikipedia

Roman aqueduct – Wikipedia

The idea that Protestantism created capitalism was promoted by Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). But Weber was a Marxist-influenced liberal who wrote that Catholicism was “otherworldly” and “polytheistic”. The reality is that the foundations of capitalism had been laid centuries before in non-Protestant parts of Europe such as Catholic Italy. At any rate, it is undeniable that capitalism became the dominant economic system in Christian Europe, not in the Islamic world, and was essential in the success of Western economies.

Anyway, if we trace the roots of the myth of “Islamic Superiority” we can see that it emerged in the Western European fantasy of Islam as a world of unbound sexual liberty and culinary enjoyment where men could have up to four wives and an unlimited number of female slaves. Intellectuals and artists with overactive imagination and lots of spare time made a nice profit from encouraging their audience to indulge in imageries of sultans and large harems that were projected as “progress” from the more austere and “backward” culture of Christian Europe.

Voltaire, Rousseau, Mozart and many others were afflicted to different degrees with the new mania.

This was later promoted by atheist academics in the post-war era and was ecstatically embraced by the Hippy and New Age counter-culture influenced by Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Idris Shah, and other self-appointed “gurus”.

It must have been in the cannabis smog of the 60’s and 70’s that the belief emerged that Christians razed everything to the ground after which they retired to their cave dwellings where they have been practicing cannibalism ever since. Replacing Western civilization with Islam – accompanied perhaps by an a-la-carte garnishing of Buddhism, Yoga, and Marx – may have seemed like a brilliant idea at the time, but I think al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Islamic State (ISIS) should long have been a wake-up call even for die-hards. :grin:

For exactly the same reason Christians would still be in the dark ages if it were not for renasaunce. — Athena

My point is that 1) the very existence of the "dark ages" is debatable and 2) there is no evidence that this was brought about by Christianity.

The way I see it, the idea of a Christian “Dark Age” as opposed to an Islamic “Golden Age” has its roots in 1700’s European fantasies about sultans and seraglios that appealed to the anti-Catholic and anti-religious sentiments of the time. It was later promoted by far-left historians from Chicago like Daniel Boorstin.

So, I think it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between actual history and pseudohistory, mythology, or propaganda.

The fact is that the Muslim Arabs invaded Persia in 633 AD, Syria in 634, Egypt in 639.

At the time of the invasions, Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire (to which Syria and Egypt belonged) had the most advanced civilization in the region. They were NOT in the Stone Age!

Syria and Egypt had been under Greek and Roman rule from the time of Alexander the Great. The Egyptian city of Alexandria had been founded by Alexander in 331 BC and had been a leading intellectual center ever since.

The most advanced medical tradition at the time was that of the Greeks, and the Muslim Arabs acquired knowledge of it from Alexandria.

Persia had its own centers of learning in cities like Harran, Ctesiphon, Gundeshapur, where medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy were studied and taught.

In 825, the Abbasid caliph Al-Ma'mun founded the House of Wisdom (Arabic: بيت الحكمة‎; Bayt al-Hikma) in Baghdad, modelled after the Academy of Gondishapur.

He sent envoys to the Byzantine emperor Theophilos, asking him to provide whatever classical texts he had available.

The Christian Hunayn ibn Ishaq was appointed to supervise the translation into Arabic of the works of Galen, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Akron of Agrigent, Democritus, Polybos, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato, Aristotle, Mnesitheus of Athens, Xenocrates, Pedanius Dioscorides, Kriton, Soranus of Ephesus, Archigenes, Antyllus, Rufus of Ephesus.

Later Greek scholars like Oribasius, Philagrius of Epirus, John Philoponus, Gesius of Petra, Alexander of Tralles, Aëtius of Amida, carried on the work of Classical authors and were also translated by Muslim rulers into Syriac and Arabic.

Medicine in the medieval Islamic world – Wikipedia

Constantinople, the capital of the Greek East, was Europe’s largest and culturally most advanced city that had no parallel in the Arab world.

In addition to the Greeks, the Persians too made important contributions to the Islamic Golden Age.

The Arab philosopher and historian Ibn Khaldun (1332 – 1406) wrote:

It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars both in the religious and intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs … Thus the founders of [Arabic] grammar were Sibawaih and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent ....

- Unsur al-Ma’ali, Qabusnama (Mirror for Princes)

And it was not just grammarians, there were Persian theologians, scientists, geographers, mathematicians, philosophers, architects, artists, poets, musicians and more.

But there can be no doubt that the Christian Greeks facilitated the transmission of knowledge from the Classical world by preserving Classical texts and making them available to the Muslims.

This would not have been possible if, as claimed by some, Christianity had “destroyed Greek and Roman culture”.

Yes, Christian rulers did close down Pagan temples, but physicians and scholars were allowed to carry on their profession so long as they did not practice Paganism.

Byzantine medicine encompasses the common medical practices of the Byzantine Empire from about 400 AD to 1453 AD. Byzantine medicine was notable for building upon the knowledge base developed by its Greco-Roman predecessors. In preserving medical practices from antiquity, Byzantine medicine influenced Islamic medicine as well as fostering the Western rebirth of medicine during the Renaissance.

Byzantine medicine – Wikipedia

In Western Europe too, even though much of Greek and Roman culture was lost as a result of barbarian invasions (not as a result of Christianity!), technological developments were able to build on Classical knowledge and were well ahead of their Islamic counterparts.

The Muslim Arabs had no advanced architecture, no town planning, no streets and therefore no wagons, no draft horses and no wheels, no saddles, no stirrups, no evolved administrative system, no literature and no philosophy.

Virtually all of their knowledge was obtained from Greeks, Persians, Syrians, Jews, Armenians and others.

The Muslims did have knowledge of printing technology acquired from the Chinese but they did not actually use the printing press.

Meantime, Europe continued to make advances in technology and without interference from the Christian Church. In fact, the Church actively encouraged economic and technological development and laid the foundations of capitalism.

The Church was the largest landowner in Europe. The estates held by bishops and monasteries began to develop more productive management techniques, started selling their products for cash, and became the largest lenders, thus driving the emergence of capitalism. There were also many private banks, all approved by the Vatican.

Similarly, Venice, which was under the rule of the Greek East, became a leader of Europe’s commercial economy, developing into a city-state and later republic, before being overtaken by Christian Portugal and Spain which had liberated themselves from Islamic rule.

In contrast, in the Islamic world, production was gradually monopolized by the state and this tended to stifle the development of free market economies.

So, if we look beyond appearances and propaganda I think we discover some interesting things that should not be ignored.

Which-hunt may have been practiced centuries ago in Europe, but it still exists in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam:

Witchcraft or sorcery remains a criminal offense in Saudi Arabia, although the precise nature of the crime is undefined.
The frequency of prosecutions for this in the country as whole is unknown. However, in November 2009, it was reported that 118 persons had been arrested in the province of Makkah that year for practicing magic and "using the Book of Allah in a derogatory manner", 74% of them being female.

Witch-hunt - Wikipedia