I'm not sure this is the best translation or interpretation? Any thoughts? — Amity

Although I gave a link to: https://wyomingcatholic.edu/wp-content/uploads/Plato-Phaedrus.pdf
I can't see who the translator was.

Looking for easy-to-access online translations, this one seems good:

Soc: Do you know how best to please a god with speeches, either by performing them or discussing them?
Phae: Not at all. Do you?
Soc: 274C Anyway I can tell what I have heard from those who have gone before us, but they are the ones who know the truth. Yet if we were to discover it ourselves, would any of the preoccupations of humanity still concern us?
Phae: It is ridiculous to ask that question but do tell me what you say you have heard.
Soc: Well, I heard that at Naucratis in Egypt there was a certain ancient god of that place, whose sacred bird is the one they call the Ibis, while the name of the divine being himself was Theuth. He was first to discover number and calculation, geometry 274D and astronomy, and also draughts and dice, and of course writing. — Plato's Phaedrus - David Horan's translation

What follows is one fabulous story of 'a' god. Not 'god'.

Really? My question is specific to the writing of Plato in Phaedrus. The word/s and questions he places in the mouth of Socrates. I know the word 'god' can be ambiguous and have different interpretations, according to beliefs. What 'god' is being spoken of here? The Writing God/dess?
an hour ago — Amity

Fooloso4 could answer the for you specifically, but my reply would still apply. The word might be theos or daimon or some case of those words depending on context, however it's certainly not as settled a definition as that of modern analytical humans. Socrates had a goddess that spoke to him. I don't have a Greek copy of Phaedrus so I will leave that to Fooloso4.

Your reply very helpfully brought in other writers in different contexts concerning 'god' but that didn't apply to my specific question.

Socrates had a goddess that spoke to him — isomorph

Yes. I have previously read and understood that Socrates had a daimonion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimonion_(Socrates)
If that is who you are thinking of, it's not relevant here.

Fooloso4 could answer the for you specifically, but my reply would still apply. — isomorph

I know or hope that Fooloso4 (or @Paine and any others) will reply in their good time to both of us :cool: and yes, your reply was good too. Thanks :smile: .

I don't have a Greek copy of Phaedrus so I will leave that to Fooloso4. — isomorph

Greek copy of Phaedrus:
https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg012.perseus-grc2:247/

Greek copy of Phaedrus:
https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg012.perseus-grc2:247/ — Amity

Thank you for the link, but I have other rabbits I've been chasing for a while. thank you.

Ah. OK. I only provided the link because I thought you wanted a Greek copy. My mistake.
Who knows - perhaps some other readers might find it useful.

I'm puzzling over the word 'god'. — Amity

As well you should be! We should keep in mind that Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Much of what Plato has Socrates say in the dialogues reflects what was common opinion. We are not likely to find much that overtly goes against those beliefs.

Translators are not always careful to distinguish the terms 'gods', 'god' and 'a god'. Monotheistic assumptions seem to inform some translations as well as some readers' interpretation. The singular 'god' appears in a few places in the Phaedrus. One notable place:

... without seeing or properly understanding god, we do imagine some living creature possessing a soul and possessing a body which are conjoined for all time. Well, let these matters be arranged and described in whatever manner is pleasing to god ... (246c-d, Horan translation)

Why is the singular used here surrounded by multiple uses of the plural? Perhaps this can be addressed in terms of the famous Socratic "what is X?" questions. "Properly understanding" God means to be able to say what god is. Apparently, this is, according to this passage, something we are unable to do.

Added: As with other 'what is' questions he is looking for what all that is called 'god' has in common and distinguishes it from all else.

I'm puzzling over the word 'god'.
— Amity

As well you should be! We should keep in mind that Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Much of what Plato has Socrates say in the dialogues reflects what was common opinion. We are not likely to find much that overtly goes against those beliefs. — Fooloso4

So, when Socrates is talking with Phaedrus, he is appealing to 'god' from a shared perspective? Or is he pandering to him?

Monotheistic assumptions seem to inform some translations as well as some readers' interpretation — Fooloso4

Yes, I can appreciate that some who can't see or believe other than their own 'g/God' will think differently re the meaning of 'soul', for example. Hence, the never-ending philosophising over Plato's Dialogues.
I don't really want to head in that direction.

The singular 'god' appears in a few places in the Phaedrus. One notable place:

... without seeing or properly understanding god, we do imagine some living creature possessing a soul and possessing a body which are conjoined for all time. Well, let these matters be arranged and described in whatever manner is pleasing to god ... (246c-d, Horan translation) — Fooloso4

Thanks for this but I don't understand it. When I imagine any god, it is not in corporeal form but spirit.
Again, we have this whatever is 'pleasing (to) god' - so pick a god out of the many, and what do we get? A different result each time.

Re: writing to best please (a) god? Why is it important to please them and not ourselves?
Are they our masters and we their slaves? Are we not to master ourselves?
Live by learning...learn by living.

There are always questions. Easy to skip over. From one exchange alone:

Soc: 274C Anyway I can tell what I have heard from those who have gone before us, but they are the ones who know the truth. Yet if we were to discover it ourselves, would any of the preoccupations of humanity still concern us?
Phae: It is ridiculous to ask that question but do tell me what you say you have heard.

Thoughts:
Is Socrates suggesting that if we discovered the truth for ourselves we would be less concerned with the 'preoccupations of humanity' - whatever they might be...
So, is it the gods we should depend on for truth - accepting theirs so that we can relax and get on with daily living - Religious belief sets us free?

Is Phaedrus saying that it is impossible that we would never be concerned with human concerns even if we discovered the truth, whatever that is...

Why would the ones who have gone before us know the truth. Oh, the truth of what happens after death? The meaning of life!? But weren't we talking about writing...and there would be different truths depending on the god in question?

Socrates didn't want to write anything down because it would not be the 'truth' - only a perspective at a given time. He didn't want to be tied to a particular truth or belief - but to be free to explore and discover more...about human concerns. Yes? A dislike of stasis? Or concern about a theory taking over from the practice? The practice of dialogue...in the market place?

"Properly understanding" God means to be able to say what god is. Apparently, this is, according to this passage, something we are unable to do.

Added: As with other 'what is' questions he is looking for what all that is called 'god' has in common and distinguishes it from all else. — Fooloso4

Perhaps it is more to do with 'How' a god is, rather than 'What' he it is?
(Can't seem to get away from the image of a Christian God :roll: )
To individual minds and life experience. What is the essence of any spirit we might imagine? I tend to think in terms of 'goodness'.

The Greatest Music - thread title.
I can't help wondering about where music and poetry enter the picture when it comes to spirituality/god/
What makes music great?

In writing - some suffering from writer's block refer to missing their Muse.
So, a even atheist might consider creativity and imagination as 'god-like'? Relying on an external and internal voice?
We use the word 'muse' as someone's source of artistic inspiration. Where is the source? Is there any such thing? Is it helpful to blame a missing Muse? An excuse for mental laziness - a lack of self-mastery?

In ancient Greek religion and mythology, the Muses (Ancient Greek: Μοῦσαι, romanized: Moûsai, Greek: Μούσες, romanized: Múses) are the inspirational goddesses of literature, science, and the arts.
They were considered the source of the knowledge embodied in the poetry, lyric songs, and myths that were related orally for centuries in ancient Greek culture. — Muses - wiki

How many Muses? Are/were they all female?
So, spirituality/creativity (feminine?) v rationality/creativity (masculinity?) How long will it be before humans stop thinking that they are separate and one superior to the other?

Poems exploring the intersection of Music and God
1. The Music of the Spheres" by Ralph Waldo Emerson

This enchanting poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson captures the ethereal beauty of music and its connection to the divine. Through vivid imagery, Emerson describes how celestial beings create harmonious melodies that resonate throughout the universe. The poem expresses the belief that music is not only a product of human creativity but rather a divine language that connects us to God:

But far within the music rolled,
Like its own hollow sphere,
And a hover in the silver light
Some fowler's boat was near.

4. "Music" by Anne Brontë

In this introspective poem, Anne Brontë contemplates the transformative power of music and its connection to spirituality. She describes how melodies have the ability to transport the listener to a higher plane of existence, where they become one with the divine. Brontë's words resonate with the inherent spirituality found within music:

It whispers of a spirit free
That soars beyond the sky,
And tells of worlds that yet may be,
When we have ceased to die. — Poem Verse - a harmonious fusion of divine melodies

So, when Socrates is talking with Phaedrus, he is appealing to 'god' from a shared perspective? Or is he pandering to him? — Amity

I do not think it is from a shared perspective, but I don't think he was pandering. Socratic philosophy begins with an examination of opinions.

When I imagine any god, it is not in corporeal form but spirit. — Amity

Well, the gods are, according to the text, not corporeal. When you say they are 'spirit' I don't know what that means. Are you introducing ideas of your own? Perhaps the problem is that corporal beings do not know what it is to be an incorporeal being.

Why is it important to please them and not ourselves? — Amity

Oh the impiety! Drink the hemlock. If the gods are in charge then it would be best to please them. There are, of course, many problems with this. The Euthyphro addresses the question of what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates puts being just above pleasing the gods or ourselves.

So, is it the gods we should depend on for truth — Amity

Socrates claims that the gods are good in every way (274a), but the poets' myths of the gods does not match this description. If we look at the whole of this paragraph it begins with "likeness to the truth". It is the person who knows the truth who is best equipped in every respect to discover the likenesses. One who knows the truth of the gods who is best equipped to give a true likeness. Without seeing or properly understanding god, however, (246c) mortal man cannot give a true likeness of the gods. We cannot depend on the gods for the truth. Nor can we depend on the claim that the gods are good in every way.

Which likenesses are we to accept as the truth? Or, are we to accept that every likeness is merely a likeness and as such is to a greater or lesser degree unlike the thing it is said to be a likeness of?

Socratic philosophy begins with an examination of opinions. — Fooloso4

I suppose 'pander' was the wrong word, then! More of a stimulating mutual intercourse from different perspectives? One perhaps intellectually superior, a leader to the other but both learning?

When you say they are 'spirit' I don't know what that means. Are you introducing ideas of your own? Perhaps the problem is that corporal beings do not know what it is to be an incorporeal being. — Fooloso4

No. The idea of 'spirit' is out there already, you know that! The non-physical part of a person. Or how some might imagine a god. Immaterial magic. Yes, there is a difference in meaning there. And yes, we don't know what it is to be incorporeal but we have imagination and creativity. The problem is perhaps not in our knowing but in our wishing and seeking. Perhaps for some kind of harmony between body, mind and what some call 'spirit' or 'soul'.

Socrates puts being just above pleasing the gods or ourselves. — Fooloso4

Indeed. And so, he pleased himself by being just.

We cannot depend on the gods for the truth. Nor can we depend on the claim that the gods are good in every way. — Fooloso4

Exactly this. Actions speak louder than words.

Which likenesses are we to accept as the truth? Or, are we to accept that every likeness is merely a likeness and as such is to a greater or lesser degree unlike the thing it is said to be a likeness of? — Fooloso4

I don't know about accepting 'truth' from a likeness. I don't even know what that would entail.
If we accept your suggestion about 'accepting' then where does that leave us...?

The idea of 'spirit' is out there already, you know that! — Amity

I do know that, and that is why I don't know what you mean. It is not a term with a single agreed upon meaning. It is used with regard to various concepts and mythologies.

And yes, we don't know what it is to be incorporeal but we have imagination and creativity. — Amity

Right. That is, as I understand it, what Socrates talk of likenesses is about. On the one hand is the question of the relation between the original and proposed image, on the other is the power of the image, of where it might take us.

I don't know about accepting 'truth' from a likeness. — Amity

Many take some mythology of god or gods as the truth, in some cases with a god being the purported source. They might even object to it being called an mythology.

If we accept your suggestion about 'accepting' then where does that leave us...? — Amity

I am not suggesting we accept any likeness as more than a likeness. Without knowledge of the gods we are not able to say that any likeness is like the thing it is said to be a likeness of, but we can consider whether a likeness is a good likeness in so far as where that likeness might take us. Whether it inspires us to be good and do good, to be just, to love. I think Socrates has something like this in mind when he says that the gods are good.

OK. Thank you for your clarification. Plenty to consider and question. Too much sometimes...