The metaphysical worldview of Platonists like Plotinus, for example, is concentric and hierarchical. Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. Hence Christian and Platonic mystics use similar language.

If there was no essential identity between the two, there could be no "return" or "reunion".

There is a triadic cycle of abiding-procession-return, μονή mone, πρόοδος proodos, επιστροφή epistrophe.

Simply put, the Universal Intelligence abides in itself, proceeds out of itself in creation and reverts back into itself. Or interiorisation of consciousness.

But these are just intellectual or theoretical concepts. What matters is practice, practice in every day life, in the way we look on the world, in the way we interact with fellow humans and nature, in the way we express ourselves, in the way we think, feel and speak, and in the way we practice meditation or contemplation.

Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. Hence Christian and Platonic mystics use similar language. — Apollodorus

Nice. Thanks for sharing. The 'heart of man is the heart of God.' That sounds like the incarnation myth and like my experience and the goal in general. To have God's heart. As Feuerbach might remind us, God is composed from human virtues. The divine predicates are ours as much as 'His' (who's just an idea, a symbol, a picture.)

If there was no essential identity between the two, there could be no "return" or "reunion". — Apollodorus

:up:

Simply put, the Universal Intelligence abides in itself, proceeds out of itself in creation and reverts back into itself. Or interiorisation of consciousness. — Apollodorus

Sounds like Hegel. I can relate to it.

But these are just intellectual or theoretical concepts. — Apollodorus

:up:

Yeah, and I'd say concepts are something like dried-up metaphors. The vivid image is downplayed but it's a poem.

I do believe that Plotinus is an important writer and I downloaded one of his works recently. The idea is a cosmic circle is important, and of the heart. That is because sometimes philosophy becomes too much time an intellectual pursuit, detached from life.

I like your idea of concepts as 'dried up metaphors', although it would probably offend some. I do think that some are people, including philosophers, are inclined to miss seeing that they are only constructed models, which are only representations of 'truth'.

Exactly.

Arabian culture in the Middle Ages didn't have a very developed system of philosophy, hence they borrowed it from the Greeks along with its name "falsafa". Ibn Rushd (Averroes), after studying Greek philosophy, said "everything has been perfectly examined by the ancient masters, all we need to do is to go back to their books".

Even the Church Fathers took much from the Platonists - quite apart from the fact that many had started off as Platonic philosophers or had studied philosophy as part of standard higher education in the Roman Empire.

We need to rediscover their attitude of humility, of readiness to learn from the ancients instead of desperately trying to reinvent the wheel. Humans haven't changed that much over the centuries. Deep down we are the same, speak the same language and have the same experience of life and of ourselves.

I like to think of philosophy like art: it evolves and changes with the times (or rather it should).

I disagree with OP when s/he says the central questions of philosophy remain constant. And I also think the questions he mentions are left-overs of a bygone era; it was an era void of the scientific certainty of our current times. This is why God, existence, free will were all thrown into relief.

At the moment our moral leaders (media, education system) are debating contemporary sexy issues such as democracy and climate change like headless chickens.

Those trained in analytical philosophy should get their heads out of the clouds and apply rigour to these hugely important issues.

I like your idea of concepts as 'dried up metaphors', although it would probably offend some. I do think that some are people, including philosophers, are inclined to miss seeing that they areonly constructed models, which are only representations of 'truth'. — Jack Cummins

:up:

Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By makes a strong case for how embodied and metaphorical our thinking is. There's also this guy: Hof

Thanks for the link to the article by Hofstadter . I will read it tomorrow because I have just been so tired today.

Thanks from me, as well - a good read.

Thanks for the link to the article by Hofstadter . I will read it tomorrow because I have just been so tired today. — Jack Cummins

Thanks from me, as well - a good read. — Banno

:up:

Glad you enjoyed. Hof is great. I got absorbed in his I am a Strange Loop & just like his style.

This was a reminder that there is a body of his writing with which I am not familiar. I read Godel, Escher, Bach when it first came out, and several of his books since, and have long had a soft spot for the beauty of reciprocity and iteration. I am a Strange Loop came out at around the time my father died, and so resonated with my own experiences - although I consider it's thesis a myth, I found it satisfying.

I also enjoyed the Loop thesis as a myth, tho I think it got something right about personality and is rich with insights and poetic invention.

Worth a new topic.

I read the article and found it interesting, especially the discussion about poetry. What I thought was particularly interesting was the whole complexity of how concepts and images come together in thought processes. Certainly, I am aware that on a daily basis images, mainly visual ones and sounds are at the core of my stream of consciousness.

Poetry taps into the dimension of images and it seems probable that this is a key aspect of memory, including the development of earliest memory, alongside the development of language abilities in childhood. I also believe that songs probably have the same evocative power.

I ran some music groups with older adults who were in hospital with a variety of mental health issues, including dementia. It seemed to me that by playing the songs which they were familiar with from earlier stages of their life has such a stimulating effect on them. It is likely that was due to the way in which images, interconnected with long term memories are interconnected with
the nature of cognitive processes.

There are several mysteries which seem essential to the philosophical quest; the existence of God, free will and, life after death. These seem to be central to philosophy. Endless books have been written on these subjects. However, no one seems to have come up with any clear answers, and it seems to me that they remain as unsolved mysteries. We all contemplate these aspects of life, but it does seem that there are no definitive answers. Perhaps the whole aspect of mysteries is central to philosophy and what keeps us searching. Are they unfathomable mysteries, beyond human understanding? — Jack Cummins

We can not have empirical information about God because we do directly experience God.

Some people have died and their hearts have been restarted bringing them back to life, and their stories of their deaths share things in common, but this appears to be more about how brains work than an empirical experience of death. However, we can gather empirical information about dying, so we might come up with empirical information supporting the possibility of life after death. Studying how John Edwards communicates with the deceased provides some convincing arguments that he does actually communicate with the deceased.

On free will, that is a tough one. I think a decision to shoplift or not is a matter of free will, and people have changed their behavior as a result of deciding to do so. However, shoplifting is associated with youthful "catch me if you can" behavior that is common for youth, as opposed to intentional human behavior that one knows is wrong. And shoplifting is associated with grief. That is, we tend to have compulsive behaviors when we are children before our judgment and self-control are developed or when our emotions are strong. This means there is empirical evidence that we can lack self-control in our youth or when emotionally disturb and we should not draw a firm line between having free will or not.

Also, our consciousness is open and we are all imprinted differently depending on our time in history. We can not control the greater forces of our time in history. Therefore it can be argued we lack self-determination and are subject to our time in history.

The metaphysical worldview of Platonists like Plotinus, for example, is concentric and hierarchical. Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. Hence Christian and Platonic mystics use similar language. — Apollodorus

Most interesting. I do not mean to be argumentive but the notion of conscious, and our inability to have the consciousness of the past, intrigues me. Do you suppose that was always so for Christians or is it contingent on knowing the Platonists' worldview? Because the Bible was written by Greeks, some of that world view is in the Bible, but people were illiterate and I do not think awareness of the Platonists" world view would be possible for the people of Europe at the time of Rome, nor after Roman fell, until the Reasaunce and printing books spread Aristotle's and Plato's ideas and enabled people to read the Bible for themselves. I think for them, superstition was basic to their Christian worldview, not the Greek philosophy.

Like when we speak of Christianity in the past, that consciousness might be limited to fear of God and fear of Satan and demons and faith in religious icons, burning candles, prayers, and other such religious rituals, but be totally different from Greek influenced consciousness and present-day Christian consciousness.

I think that your point that 'our consciousness is open and we are all imprinted differently depending on our time in history' is important. I am not just going back to relativism, but about our perception of reality and , as we grasp for objectivity in exploring our consciousness and beyond. Some become mystics, and it is hard to know where to draw the line in interpretation, as we confront the ideas expressed in the various metaphors and models.

The Church Fathers were indeed aware of Greek philosophy in general and of Platonism in particular as this was the dominant philosophical system especially in the eastern parts of the empire. The Apostle Paul, though a Jew, spoke Greek and was able to discuss philosophy with the Greek philosophers of Athens, as the Bible tells.

And, as a matter of fact, the early Church leaders were often educated, upper-class citizens who had the ability and the means to organize congregations and provide venues for meetings, etc.

Ordinary, or uneducated, Christians were a different matter. They didn't need philosophy to understand the higher teachings of Christianity as faith in Christ and his word was enough for them. However, even uneducated mystics may have chosen to learn from the educated ones if they desired to communicate their experience or discuss it in a more refined language.

Unfortunately, we don't know much about them, we tend to hear more about prominent Christians, church leaders, martyrs, etc.

In any case, silent prayer in solitude or making a "temple of God within one's heart", all of which amounts to concentration and interiorization of consciousness both in Platonism and Christianity, would have been understood by all, irrespective of intellectual or spiritual ability.

In other words, there were different levels of religious experience just as in Graeco-Roman religion. While the majority were happy with rituals, singing hymns, participating in religious festivals, etc. a minority would have looked for something else, such as philosophy.

Christianism is heir, among other, of graeco latin high culture, plato and Aristotle. In my opinion in its summit with st thomas aquinas

i guess there are some answers that science can't give. For example in meta physics which is beyond physics. Through reason we recognize the existence of entities beyond our physical experience, as mathematics show. But there is the discussion if this actually exist, which divides mathemaricians between platonists an not platonists. I guess we are clearly limited and hoping to understand some big questions is rather courageous but given the fact that a question has an answer, and if we can see the question, why not hope to arrive at the answer. I see Aristotelian ontology as pretty strong on the one hand, and platonism also, considering structures and relations, mathematical, that go beyond our world and may not have a physical correspondence.

I'd add that history of philosophy has long beeb regarded as to be rather a footnote to plato and Aristotle

I am just starting to read Plotinus and I do agree that Plato and Aristotle were essential. So many of the metaphysical questions are very hard to answer. Really, one writer who I find extremely helpful is Rudolf Steiner, but I think that he is a writer who is probably not considered to be of much importance within mainstream philosophy, and probably by most people who use this site. However, I find his writings, and those of Ken Wilber to be wider in scope, in contrast to those which are reductionist.

Christianism is heir, among other, of graeco latin high culture, plato and Aristotle. In my opinion in its summit with st thomas aquinas — Alexandros

I don't know about Aquinas but Christian philosophy certainly borrowed much from Greek philosophy.

Some - like Athena, above - seem to think that knowledge of Greek philosophy only became available to Europe "during the Renaissance". In reality, philosophical texts were preserved in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire ("Byzantium") into the Middle Ages. That's how they came to be translated into Arabic and then transmitted to Western Europe via Latin translations. But the Greeks knew them throughout this time. It was Greeks like George Gemistos Platon ("the second Plato") that inspired the reintroduction of Platonism into Italy in the 1400s.

That's right, Apollodorus. Greek philosophy was there in the middle ages, and here again is st. Thomas Aquinas an example of the 13th century. I think that there is a dark legend about middle ages as if there was nothing going on there and that's evidently false. Morover when we talk about Byzantium which was the center of cultural development in the upper middle ages.

I think that the availability of knowledge and its transmission is complex, because some of it was the preserve of certain authorities, especially the church or various churches. So, while knowledge may have been preserved, whether it was available to wider circles until much later times is questionable.

knowledge was never intended to be given to the masses, look nowadays what happens. Anyway, there is a good side of it.

By way of an intensive bout of introspection, I have discovered that the universe is shaped like a doughnut.

@Jack Cummins

So, it is a mystery as to whether the philosophical mysteries are even solvable.

But let's imagine that they are actually unsolvable. What would be the implications? Would that mean philosophy is a waste of time? Should we give up on philosophy and do something else? Is philosophy to be regarded as some kind of primitive, but fatally flawed, way of making sense of the world (as David Stove suggested)?

These are questions that have been bothering me for a while. If I could drop philosophy would but I keep scratching that itch.

I think that it is not simply a matter of whether we can solve the mysteries, but to what extent? I think that it is inevitable that we wonder about the existence of God, and whether there is life after death and, probably most human beings have asked the questions. It could be that some people just grow up in a secular context and don't see the relevance, of course.

Generally, I believe that the metaphysical questions of philosophy are about finding explanations and giving us a framework to for finding meaning, and that both aspects are important. Some reductionist philosophies may provide explanations but don't give any basis for mythic structures. Of course, it may be that people can create their own, but that can be difficult. In contrast, some religious or mystic philosophies can be seen as more romantic, and inadequate for providing causal explanations. So, it is an art of juggling this to come up with systems of thinking which work for us individually.

As you can imagine from my various threads and posts, I dwell on these matters a lot, whereas many don't agonise in quite the way which I do. But, I most certainly would not give up exploring or suggest that anyone should not bother trying to look at the questions, just because they are difficult. I would go as far as to say that it is this searching which is central to my own values, and if I stopped thinking about such issues, I would probably not have a reason to get out of bed each day.

I don't know if my answer is of any help to you, but, personally, I wouldn't give it up? What are you going to replace it with?

You say that 'knowledge was never intended for the masses', but the way I see is that we have so much information available. It can be overwhelming, but it does give us scope. It is hard to know what the consequences will be, and perhaps this will be asked in retrospect historically, if humanity survives...