We do see things differently, but I think it is safe to say that neither of us feel threatened by that or feels the need to convert the other. — Fooloso4
Is this understanding the result of a realization or an experience or just something you believe to be true? — Fooloso4
he says in the Apology that his wisdom is human wisdom not divine wisdom. — Fooloso4
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were...spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84). Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta, despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. For this reason, they call upon far more than “reason alone.”
That is why I say that the vertical axis, the dimension of real quality, has been lost in Western philosophy, which is a flatland of materialism and pragmatism. Ideas are simply the by-product of an hominid brain, shaped by and conditioned solely towards survival. There's no philosophy proper in that attitude. — Wayfarer
,where the spiritual aspect is 'bracketed out', — Wayfarer
I'm reading Pierre Hadot' Philosophy as a Way of Life: — Wayfarer
Does Plato identify a spiritual aspect? The spirited part of the tripartite soul in the Republic, for example, is not spiritual in the sense I think you are using the term. The chariot image of the soul in the Phaedrus does not have a spiritual aspect either. — Fooloso4
Nowhere in all of this is the soul identified as "spiritual". — Fooloso4
Nowhere in all of this is the soul identified as "spiritual". — Fooloso4
If the soul is an immortal, non-physical, and life-giving entity, I think that makes it spiritual, from Latin spiritus: — Apollodorus
Does Plato identify a spiritual aspect? The spirited part of the tripartite soul in the Republic, for example, is not spiritual in the sense I think you are using the term. The chariot image of the soul in the Phaedrus does not have a spiritual aspect either. The desire for wisdom, in the Symposium, is described as erotic and eros is demoted. Like Socrates' daimonion, eros is not a god but half way between the human and the gods. — Fooloso4
Plato's theory of soul, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the psyche (ψυχή) to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how people behave. He considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think. He believed that as bodies die, the soul is continually reborn (metempsychosis) in subsequent bodies. — Wikipedia
What is at issue is the distinction between intellectual and spiritual. — Fooloso4
In the Aristotelian scheme, nous is the basic understanding or awareness that allows human beings to think rationally. For Aristotle, this was distinct from the processing of sensory perception, including the use of imagination and memory, which other animals can do. This therefore connects discussion of nous to discussion of how the human mind sets definitions in a consistent and communicable way, and whether people must be born with some innate potential to understand the same universal categories in the same logical ways. Deriving from this it was also sometimes argued, especially in classical and medieval philosophy, that the individual nous must require help of a spiritual and divine type. By this type of account, it came to be argued that the human understanding (nous) somehow stems from this cosmic nous, which is however not just a recipient of order, but a creator of it. — Wikipedia
I think there is a difference between philosophy as eros for what one lacks and the fulfillment of that desire; between Socrates who says he does not know and someone who possesses knowledge of the Good itself. — Fooloso4
If the soul is an immortal, non-physical, and life-giving entity — Apollodorus
In an emergentist view point (mine in any case), the vertical axis is being built patiently, as a tower would be, stone after stone, one emerging form pilled upon another, rather than being some preexisting ideal or transcendental axis. It's a work in progress (and regress), maybe a sisyphean task — Olivier5
I also am ambivalent in respect of the word 'spiritual'. The terms I'm familiar with are psyche, nous, and logos. Many of these key concepts were assimilated and transformed by the Greek Christian theologians and are now seen through that lens. — Wayfarer
I think he does. — Wayfarer
Many of these key concepts were assimilated and transformed by the Greek Christian theologians and are now seen through that lens, which is a big part of the interpretive issue in my view. — Wayfarer
Isn't that is what 'hermeneutics' is for? — Wayfarer
Deriving from this it was also sometimes argued, especially in classical and medieval philosophy, that the individual nous must require help of a spiritual and divine type. — Wikipedia
How this relates the spiritual and the intellectual is like this. — Wayfarer
You're pretty close to saying that really, Plato doesn't know anything, he only writes about it. — Wayfarer
Whatever we choose to call it, it is still a non-physical, life-giving reality. "Spiritual" in the sense of "psychic", and "pneumatic", i.e., "relating to spirit, psyche or pneuma" is simply the English adjective for "spirit" or "soul".
This being so, in what sense may it be said that spirit is not spiritual or that soul is not soul-like? — Apollodorus
(Questioner:) "Yājñavalkya, answer this. There is an eternal Being which is immediately presented into experience and directly observed; which is the Self of all beings and internal to everything. Explain it to me. What is that which is innermost to all beings, which is internal to everything, which is non-immediate experience – not immediately experienced as through the senses when they perceive objects, and which is direct, not indirect experience?"
"This very Being in you is your internal Self" says Yājñavalkya .
"But what is this internal Being you are speaking of? Tell me that again," Uṣasta asks.
"He who breathes in through the Prāṇa is your inner Self. He who performs the function of expiration is your own Self that is working in the form of this outward breath, the Apāna. That which pervades your whole body, known as Vyāna, again, is the operation of your own Self. That which works as Udāna, whose activity consists of lifting the body at the time of death and performing certain other functions of that nature, that which is called Udāna in ordinary language, is really your own Self that is working. There is no such thing as Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna. They are only names that we give to the functions of the inner Self that is yours. So, Uṣasta, I tell you that this is really the inner Self of yours which appears as the various functions."
"Oh, you should not speak like this to me. You must explain it in a greater detail" says Uṣasta. He tells Yājñavalkya:
[Sanskrit - passage ommited]
This passage has two meanings. It may mean: "Tell me directly – 'this is the ātman' – just as you say 'this is a cow, this is a horse'. Do not give an indirect definition of it as you have just done."
Or, it may mean: "You have only told me, this is your inner Self in the same way as people would say, 'this is a cow, this is a horse', etc. That is not a real definition. Merely saying, 'this is that' is not a definition. I want an actual description of what this internal Self is. Please give that description and do not simply say, 'this is that".
Yājñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the ātman."
Nobody can know the ātman inasmuch as the ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ātman can be put, such as "What is the ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ātman because the Shower is the ātman; the Experiencer is the ātman; the Seer is the ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.
"Everything other than the ātman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this ātman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense.
Then Uṣasta Cākrāyana, the questioner kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further.
I also am ambivalent in respect of the word 'spiritual'. The terms I'm familiar with are psyche, nous, and logos. — Wayfarer
Why the spiritual in addition to the intellectual? What is the spiritual? Is it like an attitude, or a receptiveness? And to what? Spirit, as in the holy ghost? As you probably know the German term 'geist' means ghost, mind, and spirit. — Fooloso4
No one escapes history and culture, but an awareness of it can help us not be trapped by our cultural assumptions and prejudices. Identifying how terms were used is an important part of it. If the term spiritual was not used then it becomes suspicious and needs further examination. — Fooloso4
I think both Plato and Aristotle are Socratics in that they do not know the noble and good, but have opinions about them. — Fooloso4
I don't much like 'spiritual' as a word but what are the alternatives?
— Wayfarer
Good question. I don't find it in any of Plato's descriptions of the soul. — Fooloso4
The Republic also puts forward a new theory of soul, which involves the claim that the embodied human soul has (at least) three parts or aspects, namely reason, spirit and appetite. ....Taking himself to have identified reason and appetite as distinct parts of the soul, Socrates draws attention to other kinds of conflict between desires, which are meant to bring to light spirit, the third part of the soul. ...Socrates takes spirit to be a natural ally of reason, at least part of its function being to support reason in such conflicts as may arise between it and appetite (440ef, 442ab)
I wonder what Greek term it is a translation from - 'pneuma', perhaps? (That is mentioned later in the article in relation to the Stoics.) — Wayfarer
The spirited part of the tripartite soul in the Republic, for example, is not spiritual in the sense I think you are using the term. — Fooloso4
All perfectly sound, but note that your definition of it is given in a specific context, or domain of discourse, rather than an attempt to define the term 'spirit' in a general sense. — Wayfarer
The reason I don't like 'spiritual' is because of its many different uses, and also the different and sometimes conficting meanings of 'spirit' — Wayfarer
It is what the education in music is supposed to moderate. — Fooloso4
The issue I see, as soon as you say 'it', then you're near to committing the fallacy of reification. To say 'it' is 'something' - life-giving or whatever - is to set yourself apart from 'it', to make of 'it' a something, a 'this' as distinct from 'that', an object, or potential object, of perception. — Wayfarer
I think what Apollodorus was referring to is the position of "spirit", sometimes translated as "passion" (which I prefer), in Plato's tripartite soul. — Metaphysician Undercover
Also, it is the same word used to describe the "Passion" of Christ, referring to the very strong will of Jesus, to proceed and continue in his course of action intended to deliver us from a corrupted spirituality. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think the "Passion" of Christ refers in the first place to the suffering of Christ from late Latin passio "suffering, experience of pain". Though, I guess you can use it in the sense of "strong will" if you want to. — Apollodorus
"Will" did not even exist as a philosophical concept at Plato's time — Metaphysician Undercover
This is what will power is all about, to endure suffering for the sake of a higher good. — Metaphysician Undercover
I tend to think that since the soul is immortal, non-physical, and the life-source in a living being, it wouldn't be wrong to refer to it as "spiritual". Or can we think of a better word? — Apollodorus
Vedanta teaches that to 'know the Self' is not a matter of objective but of non-dual knowledge, jñāna, which is attained through meditation not discursive analysis. (Which, of course, sounds 'religious' to our ears.) — Wayfarer
I'm curious where you came across this. I've only seen it once, from Eva Brann, but don't recall if she cited any supporting evidence. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.