This from Wiki:

"Under Peisistratos of Athens, the Eleusinian Mysteries became pan-Hellenic, and pilgrims flocked from Greece and beyond to participate. Around 300 BC, the state took over control of the mysteries; they were controlled by two families, the Eumolpidae and the Kerykes. This led to a vast increase in the number of initiates. The only requirements for membership were freedom from "blood guilt",[46] meaning never having committed murder, and not being a "barbarian" (being unable to speak Greek). Men, women, and even slaves were allowed initiation."

Can you develop your point a little more? What matter whether Aristotle "went through" the ceremonies?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies? — I like sushi

Participants in the rites were supposed to be rewarded with some form of eternal life or reincarnation. Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? As the note below indicates, Ari had an ambiguous attitude toward such spiritualistic beliefs. For him, the Soul was not a separate thing that could animate several bodies, or walk around as a ghost. As I understand, his "Soul" was more like our modern notion of "Life" : an activity, not a thing. :smile:


Aristotle did not believe in the reincarnation of the soul, but he did believe in the immortality of the soul. Aristotle's theory of the soul was that the soul was a capacity, not a substance, and that it animated the body, allowing a person to be alive and to perform activities. He believed that the soul did not exist independently of the body, and that a person was more closely identified with their body than their soul.
___Google AI overview

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon

Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies? — I like sushi

I think this is so far back in history that if you had some clear evidence you could publish a paper on it.

Well, I am not sure there is any clear evidence that Plato did either, but it is obvious enough to me he did (Cave Analogy).

Any hint at this either way is what I am interested in. It will be speculation either way.

Heh. Fair.

I'm not sure it's obvious Plato did due to the cave analogy. Would it be that hard for an aristocrat to hear the tales people tell and reforge them to demonstrate a point? He may have even been there, but the analogy -- especially given its literary form -- doesn't give clear evidence about Plato either way.

He could have heard it from someone else enough times to forge a myth that appealed to the people around him without attending.

Interesting to note that one of the etymologies for 'mystic' and 'mysticism' was precisely 'an initiate into the Mysteries.'

I think scholarly opinion favours the view that Plato was an initiate, although as is well known, speaking about them was forbidden, they're secret rites (like Masonic rites in today's culture.) But many of the themes in the more spiritual of the dialogues - Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Symposium - are at least strongly suggestive of the soteriological beliefs of the that cult.

It is really not difficult to interpret the Analogy of the Cave as an analogy from ignorance (avidya in the Indian texts) to philosophical enlightenment although as always Plato's dialogues contain a strong rationalistic element which was not so pronounced in Eastern wisdom teachings.

It would be unusual for someone to have NOT partaken in the Eleusinian Mysteries as a citizen of Athens. It was common place. I imagine it would likely have been mentioned if Aristotle had not, so I also speculated that he may have taken part but just that it had no real effect on him.

There were several other mystery cults too. Many mention the Mother of Gods ... am I starting to wonder if this may have been a reference to Mnemosyne in some cases. I am trying to work in my own views of what this was originally all about though.

Just fishing for info really.

Have a look for The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion, Mircea Eliade. He discusses the Mysteries and also (from memory) their relationship to the ancient proto-Indo-European mystery cults that spread across the ancient world with the original Aryan peoples.

Read it many MANY times already. I am familiar with Eliade's other work too - especially Shamanism.

What I read recently is a recent scholarly summation: Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. It focuses on Greco-Roman cults.

He discusses the Mysteries and also (from memory) their relationship to the ancient proto-Indo-European mystery cults that spread across the ancient world with the original Aryan peoples. — Wayfarer

I do not believe he covers this at all in The Sacred and The Profane. He certainly covers this kind of thing else where. Probably in A History of Religious Ideas?

Yes, that might have been it - been a long time! - but if you're familiar with him already, you probably know that!

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon
Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence. — I like sushi

I get the impression that you would prefer to find evidence that Aristotle was not a mystic. Is that because you think of him as the original empirical scientist? :smile:


Is Aristotle the father of science?
Aristotle was considered to be the father of modern science because he was the father of the scientific method. He was the pioneer of the development of the scientific method, which is the hallmark of the modern science. Aristotle was the first to conduct empirical studies, which is what modern science is based on.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-aristotle-considered-the-father-of-modern-science.html

Well, according to Wikipedia, authority on all knowledge :D --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

In Athens, he probably experienced the Eleusinian Mysteries as he wrote when describing the sights one viewed at the Mysteries, "to experience is to learn" (παθεĩν μαθεĩν

So seems others' agree with you based on reading his texts.

I was just thinking if you had something definitive like that it would likely be published or publishable. Ancient evidence is always sketchy and requires lots of interpretation from multiple experts. It's really interesting because of that, but it's definitely difficult to ascertain lots of specifics that one might ask.

↪I like sushi
Well, according to Wikipedia, authority on all knowledge :D --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle — Moliere

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says :

"Aristotle was influenced by the Eleusinian Mysteries, a secret religious festival that took place in ancient Greece and was central to the development of much of Western civilization"
___Google AI overview

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says — Gnomon

It is worth NOTHING.

The Road To Eleusis

If anyone wants to delve.

Have you?

Ah! It is the Ergot theory one.

I think this is a tad more up to date and not at all speculative:

Mystery Cults in the Ancient World

Review by me here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMXgb2EIi7o&t=2s

As is this:

The Immortality Key

Unfortunately, he gets mystical about it, instead of anthropological. But the synthesis is good. Appreciate you linking your review of your proferring too!

If it says "foreword by Graham Hancock" it is certainly not a stamp of approval!

That may be your opinion. Not mine. I disclaim that Graham is a personal friend, and has been for quite some time. That said, yeah - pretending that his name is somehow an indication of quality is erroneous at best, prejudiced at worst.

It is an old idea that has resurfaced due to more interest in psychedelics. Maybe they did or maybe they didn't take drugs. It does not matter a whole lot to me. Clearly they had access to psychedelics, but this doe snot define the purpose of the mysteries.

I am interested in what Aristotle thought about this and whether he took part.

As an aside I am intrigued by what part pomegranates had. Is that mentioned in the 'Immortality Key'?

That said, yeah - pretending that his name is somehow an indication of quality is erroneous at best, prejudiced at worst. — AmadeusD

I have strong reasons to believe it would be a waste of time reading that. I have heard him before and cannot imagine sifting through a couple of hundred pages is worthy of my time in the hope of finding one nugget of information.

By all means, tell me if he mentions Aristotle at all?

I am interested in what Aristotle thought about this and whether he took part. — I like sushi

Then my suggestion wasn't for you, was it friend? :)

but this doe snot define the purpose of the mysteries. — I like sushi

It may have been the entire purpose, form and execution of the Mysteries (though, not to box-tick drug taking). That's what explorations like Muraresku's are trying to sort through.

I have strong reasons to believe it would be a waste of time reading that. I have heard him before and cannot imagine sifting through a couple of hundred pages is worthy of my time in the hope of finding one nugget of information. — I like sushi

I can't but assume you really aren't coming into much contact with the substance of the work. Which is not Hancock's, btw.That's not meant to be disparaging - this is most people's position having not engaged particularly well. If any of your reasons have anything to do with racism, you should probably just stop and actually read his work - or admit you just don't know? Usually the way.

If you have any interest in Hancock's psychedelic work, Supernatural is probably the single-best-researched book o the topic which isn't specialised (i.e written by a worker, or focussed on one particular pet project). This coming from someone who has worked in academic psychedelic labs and lectured at several universities on the topic.

By all means, tell me if he mentions Aristotle at all? — I like sushi

Yes. But it sounds like you're not particularly apt to accept something from this writer. Which is fair.

Yes. But it sounds like you're not particularly apt to accept something from this writer. Which is fair. — AmadeusD

Where?

Only this:

Aristotle, Fragmenta, ed. Valentini Rose, fr. 15. See also Regis Laurent, An
Introduction to Aristotle’s Metaphysics of Time (Paris: Villegagnons-Plaisance
Editions, 2015), 122: “The initiatory rites push conceptual knowledge into the
background in favour of iconic visions that lead citizens to suspend their
judgments in favour of revelations that need no explanation."

Aristotle says nothing about the Eleusinian Mysteries in fragment 15. He just talks about the nature of divinity/God.

His references are off.

There has to be more to the Mysteries of Eleusis, the longest running and most prominent spiritual tradition in Ancient Greece.2 Unfortunately it was shrouded in secrecy from the very beginning, leaving nothing but hints and clues about what really took place within the holy precinct. Aristotle once said the initiates came to Eleusis not to learn something, but to experience something.

Third paragraph into the book. This is a HUGE misrepresentation. If by the third footnote there are alarm bells (the only one I checked btw) then this is the work of a poor "scholar". I could forgive this but the guy is apparently fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek - there is no excuse for this.

It is basically Wikipedia research.

Hence, Hancock giving foreword is a pretty good indicator that what is about to be read is poorly researched and likely misleading.

I see where you sit.