I can't do justice to McEvilly's book, it is about 700 densely-footnoted pages, all based on primary texts, but worth knowing about. — Wayfarer

Yes, McEvilly seems to be an interesting author. I don’t know if he is a historian, but he does make some valid points about Socratic and Platonic asceticism, and in particular, about parallels between Vasubandhu and Platonism:

Vasubandhu was writing about individual psychology, not about the universe at large, but since his view is that the mind creates the world, the effect is the same. Each level of being is described as a level of consciousness. As in Plotinus, the overlap between ontology and epistemology is virtually complete. Each realm of being is created by the next higher one through what Plotinus would call a poiesis/theoria, a making through contemplating (p. 572)

There is no doubt that in the Ancient Greek worldview going back to Homer and probably before, language calls things into being by naming them. The poets craft images of things by calling or naming them into existence. Poetry, poiesis comes from the verb poieo, “make”, “produce”, “cause”. Hence Plato calls the Maker or Creator of the Cosmos ho Poion (Timaeus 76c).

This suggests that consciousness generates or “calls into being” things by producing “name” (onoma) and “form” (eidos) or “sound” and “sight”. Eidos, translated as “Form”, literally means “the seen”, “that which is seen”. The image that a poet creates by naming things into existence is called eidolon which is nothing but the diminutive of eidos.

The poet is a creator who creates things at human level by bringing into existence entities that are heard as names and visualized as forms. The name (onoma) and the form (eidos) of a thing do not signify a preconceived or pre-existent entity, they literally make or impart being to the thing signified. The thing owes its very existence to having a name and a form.

And what human consciousness creates at individual level, the Universal Intelligence which is the source of the Forms (and their Names) creates at cosmic level.

There is no doubt that in the Ancient Greek worldview going back to Homer and probably before, language calls things into being by naming them. The poets craft images of things by calling or naming them into existence. Poetry, poiesis comes from the verb poieo, “make”, “produce”, “cause”. Hence Plato calls the Maker or Creator of the Cosmos ho Poion (Timaeus 76c). — Apollodorus

The dialogue of Cratylus specifically addresses the matter. Unlike the presentation of the Timaeus, Socrates offers an opinion upon it.

Interestingly, McEvilly also says:

… the Persian employment of Greek mercenary soldiers continued in the fourth century, as Xenophon’s story makes clear; and trade also seems to have continued through the fifth and into the fourth century by a route that went from Central Asia by a series of waterways and portages – Oxus River, Caspian Sea, Kyros River, Black Sea. There is some reason to believe that Indian ascetics traveled this route and interacted with Black Sea shamans, ultimately influencing Greek philosophy through Diogenes of Sinope, who seems to have brought Indian-derived ascetic practices into the Athenian philosophical milieu. It is perhaps through this route that an Indian yogi came to Athens to talk to Socrates, according to a story told by Aristoxenus and thus extant at least as early as the fourth century B.C., (ap. Eusebius, Prep. Ev., XI.3.8).

- The Shape of Ancient Thought, p. 10.

In the Preparatio Evangelica, Eusebius writes:

… and man, he said, was a part of the world; and good was of two kinds, our own good and that of the whole, and the good of the whole was more important, because the other was for its sake.
‘Now Aristoxenus the Musician says that this argument comes from the Indians: for a certain man of that nation fell in with Socrates at Athens, and presently asked him, what he was doing in philosophy: and when he said, that he was studying human life, the Indian laughed at him, and said that no one could comprehend things human, if he were ignorant of things divine.
‘Whether this, however, is true no one could assert positively: but Plato at all events distinguished the philosophy of the universe, and that of civil polity, and also that of dialectic.’

That there was contact between Greece and India seems indisputable. More difficult to discern is the direction in which influence flowed and I think it is safe to assume that the interchange was far from one-way. In addition, there were other influences such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and India was just as receptive to outside influence as Greece IMO.

Be that as it may, the parallels are undeniable.

As a follow up Popper credited Xenophanes as the origin of his position. The fellow went around criticizing his teachers work; so I recall. — Cheshire

Why couldn't my parents name me Xenophanes? Greek names give one the impression that whoever the name belongs to is going to either say/do something awesome!

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. — Shakespeare

Naaah!

Why couldn't my parents name me Xenophanes? Greek names give one the impression that whoever the name belongs to is going to either say/do something awesome! — TheMadFool

Could make for some awkward juxtapositions depending on the kid; "Look, Spartacus got picked last for kickball again."

Could make for some awkward juxtapositions depending on the kid; "Look, Spartacus got picked last for kickball again." — Cheshire

Hmmm. Never say never, Never say always but Spartacus wasn't Greek was he? He was Thracian. No need to answer that question.

— Apollodorus

As a follow up Popper credited Xenophanes as the origin of his position. The fellow went around criticizing his teachers work; so I recall. — Cheshire

Thats why "Sir" Popper's philosophy is as a monstrously one-sided one, like the monstrous one and only god of Xenophanes.


Xenophanes, dinner's ready. Xenophanes isnt moved. Hes the one and only.

Thats why "Sir" Popper's philosophy is as a monstrously one-sided one, like the monstrous one and only god of Xenophanes. — Prishon

Which side would that be? Not saying I disagree, but what's the other side?

There ARE no other sides.

We're on a European administered website. They have a functioning public education system, so the esoteric water coloring doesn't do as much lifting 'round these parts. Do you have a thought on the matter?

We're drifting of now. So put on your safetybelt. The going is gonna be rough and bumpy. The esoteric coloring is perceived by the esoteric class. Only for those into it. But where one member of the esoteric class sees violet the other sees green ( metaphorically). The website might be European administered but still offers a way to make a difference in lifting it up. Or puting it under pressure. Making not earlier perceived colors visible can be accomodated. The educational public system is there for the public. Who knows what the public knows or is interested in? Which color esoteric water have drunk? They all can do say or make belief. They can drink new colors. Learn new colors. The administration just administers colorblindly. I might hope. What matters is the coloring oof and the being colored. In growing evolving forms on the verging brink of a Dadaist painting. As long as the administration lets colors be administered properly we wont fell into the hands of that single-sided Xenophanesian god. That sees color nor sounds. Only the objective existence of a hard solid black space. In fact with no sides at all.

I was under the impression Xenophanes criticized the local religion. Which is a bit opposite of the single side of things approach being suggested. In all fairness I can tolerate your prose better than the Wittgenstein impersonators. I question the shelf life of the content, but from a purely having to wonder if I'm missing something point of view; I'd say it's preferable.