The task, then, is archeological. But underestimating English is a mugs game.

Not reading Greek, I am left with translations, but I have my Loebs (with the original text on the facing page) and multiple other translations to compare. One thing about Plato, as opposed to other Greek authors, he knew how to develop a context in which terms are given extensive contextual keys to help us avoid these sorts of discussions, which some seem to think obviate reading him.

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.

I beg to differ, with the world if necessary. Socrates uses divinity aspirationally, not in reference to some eternal authority. His whole career is an effort to spur his interlocutors to higher abilities to interrogate their own prejudices, not so much to higher states of being. Is it hard to be, or merely to become, good? (Protagoras)

Socrates knows he doesn't know, he does not know he doesn't know. He asks in hopes his interlocutor does know, and is genuinely surprised when he finds it necessary to prove to them they do not, and distressed when they show irritation or rancor. If you know you do not know, this is not a state of ignorance. It is emancipation from bad habits of thought, like expecting to establish opinions that need no explanation or defense. Like, for instance, that words can be written down without loss of the immediacy of meaning only dialectic affords.

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).

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. — Apollodorus

I was also considering this option. The problem is that we do not know the real meaning of the term in Greek, so its use could cause more comprehension problems than facilitating the understanding of ancient Greek philosophy.

I don't discard the option, but if we are not able to even conclude what "Nous" means, I don't believe the word should be used as its modern "linguistic synthesis", as it would not mean an "objective concept" but a "subjective" one, and that is what "Nous" is to us already in its dozen of translations - Intelect, Mind, Soul, Tradition, Common Sense, Good Sense, Consciousness, etc... -.

We would be trading nothing for nothing.

τέχνη (technei)? — tim wood

Another case which I have already considered, however, seems to me that "Techne" is much closer to the natural - in the sense that it is essentially the "act" of Man, rather than his "decision concluded by his awareness of his context before the act" -.

"Techne" is:

"a term that refers to making or doing"

But it seems that "Nous" is:

"a term that refers to making or doing after having consciously decided what to do by the awareness of the sayings and doings of past people - aka tradition -"

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:

The task, then, is archeological. — Gary M Washburn

Only if it is the "archeology of language", but even so, I believe that unfortunately we will be unable to eventually really understand what the ancient Greeks meant by "Nous".

One thing about Plato, as opposed to other Greek authors, he knew how to develop a context in which terms are given extensive contextual keys to help us avoid these sorts of discussions, which some seem to think obviate reading him. — Gary M Washburn

Plato, even being one of the greatest authorities on interpretations of reading ancient Greek philosophy, is only that, an "authority" due to his extensive work in archiving Socrates's thought and also for his own philosophical works, however, during the lifetime of Plato, the term "Nous" was already more than 500 years old - and if it was also used by the Mycenaeans, more than 1,000 years old - for some reference, Plato studying the concept "Nous" and interpreting it, it's like we studying and interpreting Plotinus, but with less information than we have about him - - of existence - that we know - therefore I - and other philologists and philosophers - question the interpretation of Plato, since there were authors before him - such as Hermotimus and Anaxagoras - who must be taken into account when questioning the concept of "Nous".

I make it clear that I am not questioning Plato's authority, but rather his interpretation of the concept, as much as the post readings of his own interpretation of the concept, which ended up defining the concept as "Intelligence" or "Mind".

It is noticeable that, through the rendition of "Nous" as "Tradition", the comprehension of several texts about the concept seems to be much more easily digestible and understandable, therefore, the interpretation of "tradition" is an appropriate possibility.

As to nous, if we can't decide what it actually means, I can see no advantage in creating a new word for it. — Apollodorus

My point with "creating a new term for Nous", is that, if we created a new word that encompassed all the attributes put to it - like intellect, soul, intelligence, conscience, tradition, etc... - maybe - and only maybe - the objective understanding of what the term originally referred to would become more explicit and, consequently, the study of philosophy directed to the term by the ancient Greeks, would be more easily understood.

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?

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? — Apollodorus

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

However, I believe that every one of them could be comprehended in a new word for the concept.

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

As I had said in my penultimate answer, it was with Plato - through his archiving of Socrates' sayings - that "Nous" came to be affiliated with the concept of "Mind" and "Intelligence".

At no time does Plato refer to "Nous" as "Tradition".

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?

I think it's important to differentiate Plato from gnosticism generally. I don't know that much about it but I do know that Plotinus was opposed to the Gnostics. — Wayfarer

Plotinus was not only opposed but dedicated to the task of discrediting the Gnostics, root and branch. The following does not include important references and context but does convey some of the passion of the argument:

No one has the right to find fault with the constitution of the world for it reveals the greatness of intelligible nature. — Ennead II 9, section 8. Translated by Joeseph Katz

Would it be possible to know which of those attributes nous is claimed to be? — Apollodorus

This is a delicate question, as the concept in "essence" was developed (1) or in the Mycenaean period of Bronze Greece - c. 1500 BC to 1000 BC - and its alphabet - Linear B - is one of the few alphabets not yet unveiled by current archaeo-linguisticians, thanks to its completely "unique" construction and independence of any other alphabet developed contemporaneously and after it, (2) or during the "Greek Dark Ages" - c. 900 BC to 700 BC -, period where literacy was completely forgotten in the Greek peninsula for about 300 years.

In both scenarios, the possibility of the term "Nous" having been created is considerable, since both involve important periods for the intellectual development of a civilization, whether due to economic-material prosperity - mycenic - or the complete metaphysical need for "meaning" in a period of total social misery - dark ages -.

In both possibilities, it would be necessary to discover some text, be it literary or even of economics, which would in fact describe the true meaning of "Nous" - because, as I said before, what was passed on to us by Socrates, through Plato's writings, is the interpretation of the same, of a concept developed by a civilization, already then of a distant past, and that there was not so much information available; even for the highest castes of society - which Plato was part of - -. It is noticeable that between the two scenarios, Mycenaean Greece is the most likely to give us a favorable answer, because, even having its alphabet completely indecipherable, we - humanity - have more than 2000 writing tablets in Linear B, while in the period of the total collapse of Greek society between 900 BC and 700 BC, there is nothing contemporaneously, only records after 650 BC - and that still are quotes by more current writers, such as Aristotle, from about 400 BC -.

And, currently, there are no passages about philosophy and more specifically, about the concept of "Nous" of the periods in question.

The most likely theory currently - in my perception - is that "Nous" would practically mean "Tradition" by the etymological-linguistic evidence that "Nous" in Old English means "Good Sense", and that both "νοῦς" - ancient greek - and "Nous" - old english - arise from the same etymological root - which is tradition -, and if such "meaning" of the word is applied in the oldest Greek passage on the concept - by Hermotimus -, the saying ends up making much more sense than than any other attribute already hypothesized and theorized - such as intellect, mind, soul, etc... -.

I will quote again the passage from Hermotimus of Clazomenae with the current "canonical" meaning of "Mind" and then with the theorized meaning of "Tradition":

"Hermotimus of Clazomenae, was a philosopher who first proposed, before Anaxagoras, the idea of mind being fundamental in the cause of change."

"Hermotimus of Clazomenae, was a philosopher who first proposed, before Anaxagoras, the idea of tradition being fundamental in the cause of change."

In my perception, 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".

In conclusion:

- Is it possible to know the true meaning of "Nous"?

Without a literary source from the period in question, no. However, it is possible to theorize about, as long as only sources prior to Plato are taken into account.

if intelligence is what Plato called nous, then is its modern assessment defined by psychometrics testing, as IQ? — Shawn

I would venture that most disagreements in philosophy originate from vagueness of the topic or from ambiguity of usage in the language employed by the discussants. Here both are present.

The mind can be viewed as a general wide-ranging concept or it can be drastically narrowed down to a hardly useful statistic depending on the whim of the speaker. This range of meaning was paralleled by classical philosophical positions where the Sophists favored a flexible, sensing, feeling, intuitive mind, whereas the Eleatics pushed for what they thought was a manageable knowing reduction.

The meaning of nous likewise was not as fixed as the lexicons would have it. Aristotle should have had the strictest conception, Protagoras and Gorgias the broadest, with Plato somewhere in between but leaning towards knowledge by intuition.

Plotinus was not only opposed but dedicated to the task of discrediting the Gnostics, — Valentinus

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.)

But I'm not at all convinced that nous is derived from 'tradition' either. I can't see how an ancient philosopher could have held that 'tradition' was a natural cause, insofar as it's a purely social activity.

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?

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".

I was not relying on Plato's "authority", nor what you call his interpretation of the idea, but on his supplying ample human interactions on the idea to situate all its nuances, as understood by the participants.

Foucault would find plenty to dig around in, even if you think not. I meant archeology in that sense. I've confessed I am no scholar, but to my mind Plato is about people, not ideas at all. I think I read people better than words. And that Plato sets ideas before people as a stimulus for exhibiting their character, and potential for growth.



The question is meant as a joke, by Socrates. He's pulling the wool over on Protagoras, because he doesn't grasp what ideas really are at all. It's neither subjective nor objective, but dramatic. Not what we conceive, but how we respond to our differing conceptions. The ideas don't have a life of their own, they just serve as a measure of our character.

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

But then we should investigate what "ψυχή" - psyche - meant to them:

"The basic meaning of the Greek word "ψυχή" - psyche - was "life""

(Henry George Liddell and Ridley Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)

Which, in turn, descends from the Hebrew etymological term "נֶ֫פֶשׁ" - Nephesh -, which also means "life".

In an arqueo-linguistic analysis, it seems to me very likely that "Nous" arises from the intellectual and linguistic development of humanity, in which, in order to differentiate itself - Man - from the rest of the animal kingdom, "fragments" a general concept - life - so that its attributes - "Nous" being one - make explicit a differentiation.

"Nous" would, therefore, arise from "Psyche" as a characteristic of "awareness for differentiation based on the acts of past persons".

"From life - ψυχή - tradition - νοῦς - arises."

"The basic meaning of the Greek word "ψυχή" - psyche - was "life""

(Henry George Liddell and Ridley Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)

Which, in turn, descends from the Hebrew etymological term "נֶ֫פֶשׁ" - Nephesh -, which also means "life". — Gus Lamarch

Did Greek descend from Hebrew? I had the idea it was of Indo-European origin.

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 . — Apollodorus

Sure! But as I pointed out, my response was to trying to connect 'nous' with 'gnostic'. The proper adjectival form of nous is 'noetic'. Both 'gnosis' and 'noesis' are forms of 'higher knowledge' but culturally they're associated with very different milieu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

Note from the second:

A related term is the adjective gnostikos, "cognitive",[8] a reasonably common adjective in Classical Greek.[9] Plato uses the plural adjective "γνωστικοί" – gnostikoi and the singular feminine adjective "γνωστικὴ ἐπιστήμη" – gnostike episteme in his Politikos where Gnostike episteme was also used to indicate one's aptitude.[citation needed] The terms do not appear to indicate any mystic, esoteric or hidden meaning in the works of Plato, but instead expressed a sort of higher intelligence and ability analogous to talent.[10]

but to my mind Plato is about people, not ideas at all. I think I read people better than words. And that Plato sets ideas before people as a stimulus for exhibiting their character, and potential for growth. — Gary M Washburn

Unfortunately I will have to disagree with your position.

Plato was by no means philosopher "for the people".

His texts were mostly objects of study for the understanding of the metaphysical world, and also, of passages from his master - Socrates -.

In short, Plato wrote not "to facilitate people's understanding" of the world of ideas, but to "investigate it".

Did Greek descend from Hebrew? — Wayfarer

No.

"Descend" had been used to mean "to assimilate" in my last passage.

"נֶ֫פֶשׁ" - Nephesh - was assimilated by ancient Greek, which in turn became "ψυχή" - psyche -

:up: Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks for the clarification. — Wayfarer

No problem :smile:

And for further clarification, "Hebrew" is a "north-semitic" "afroasiatic" language.

In some sense, our modern alphabet descends from ancient Hebrew, as the precursor language for the modern "Latin" script, "Phoenician", used the Hebrew alphabet to create its own:

Hebrew -> Phoenician -> Greek -> Latin.

My knowledge of ancient languages is mostly confined to my dimly-remembered studies of Max Mueller's 'linguistic archeology' back in the 1970's (I think in anthropology, or it might have been comparative religion.) I found it a fascinating subject, and I also came to admire Mueller's scholarly achievements. I've actually passed exams in both Sanskrit and Pali (as I'm interested in Buddhism) although I barely remember any of it, and I've completely lost the ability to read devanagiri script.

I've actually passed exams in both Sanskrit and Pali (as I'm interested in Buddhism) although I barely remember any of it, and I've completely lost the ability to read devanagiri script. — Wayfarer

Do you, for some reason, know about the "Linear B" alphabet of Mycenean Greece? For there is a great similarity between the Sanskrit alphabets of "Vedic India" with the only Greek alphabet not yet deciphered - I believe that when some brilliant mind can unravel it, our knowledge of Bronze Age Europe will increase by an amount of 500 to a 1000 years - remember, the Celts never developed writing, and as the Mycenaean Greeks had daily contact with them, our only source about them is found in these 2000 tablets not yet deciphered - -, as not even the "Linear A" script of ancient greek appears to have any similarity to it - it appears to be a case of a "language isolate" -.

Perhaps we will eventually discover that Poseidon was nothing more than a king of Crete during the Minoan period - between 2000 BC and 3000 BC -. We never know...

there is a great similarity between the Sanskrit alphabets of "Vedic India" with the only Greek alphabet not yet deciphered — Gus Lamarch

Well, personally I hadn't encountered it, but the convergence between ancient European and Indian scripts and languages was the area that Müller was an expert in. I do know (actually it's common knowledge) that all the various pantheons of the ancient world had kinds of familial connections with one another - for example that the name 'Jupiter' is taken from Dyaus (sky) Pitar (father) - and is actually rather conceptually close to what a great many people still take 'God' to be.

Well, personally I hadn't encountered it, but the convergence between ancient European and Indian scripts and languages was the area that Müller was an expert in. I do know (actually it's common knowledge) that all the various pantheons of the ancient world had kinds of familial connections with one another - for example that the name 'Jupiter' is taken from Dyaus (sky) Pitar (father) - and is actually rather conceptually close to what a great many people still take 'God' to be. — Wayfarer

Indeed, the "Indo-European" society was the "cradle" of all the structural foundations of the societies that eventually developed within this cultural sphere.

The problem is that much of the "knowledge" that one has about this primitive society is taken from "hypotheses" which, in turn, are based on other "hypotheses", so it is very reasonable that a good portion of what we believe to know about such civilization is completely wrong.

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

For an explicit feature that unfortunately few recognize is the fact that Mycenaean and Minoan "Greeks" are culturally closer to the "afroasiatic" group - such as Egyptians, Assyrians, and Aryans - than the ethno-culture we currently recognize as "Greeks" - Indo-Europeans - Germans, Carpathians, etc... - -.

it's a rather specialised area of archeology. I'm certainly open to the possibility that it is subject to revision, but I don't know if it's completely wrong.

Egyptians, Assyrians, and Aryans... — Gus Lamarch

That is a strange grouping. The 'Arya' were originally the Indo-European speaking peoples who swept down from the vast Russian steppes into ancient India, Persia - you know 'Iran' is actually a version of 'Aryan', right? - but I thought the Egyptian culture was of a different provenance altogether. (The 'Aryan myth' was of course appropriated by Nazism for it's own vile purposes.)

But, interested in any references you have on current research on this topic (provided it's not too specialised).

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)?