Ancient Greeks: Monotheistic?

Carcano:

ACcording to my interpretation, and I do believe the standard one, Socrates was offering a cock in thanksgiving to the God of healing for healing him of material life.

To Socrates, physical life was in some sense a sickness of the soul. Because physical life impaired the soul's perceptual and rational principles, death was a release back to a state of freedom and power.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought it came from the Egyptian Osiris cult.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Platonic philosophy doesn't share much in the way of Orphic themes. It is not strongly religious and the myths are unique to Plato. Furthermore, no Egyptian cult is likely, owing to the fact that this is not the Roman period, where Egyptian cults become more popular.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

by the dog of egypt! that appears to be a brazen strawman. how on earth would that follow?

 

Gustav:

The likelyhood that an Egyptian cult unknown to the Athenians should influence Platonic doctrine is exceedingly slim. The Roman period was when the syncretic elements of Egyptian religion mixed in with the Greco-Roman and influenced culture, philosophy, et cetera.

Orphic beliefs do go back to the Platonic period.

 

again a strawman. why do athenians enter the equation? was'nt plato one of the many greek expats living in egypt for a decade or so? heliopolis to be exact? would that not be a prominent point of influence if any?

 

Gustav:

Plato himself never recounts having stayed in Egypt, nor mentions Egypt in more than passing once or twice in his entire corpus. Stabo, living 500 years later, makes mention of him briefly going to Heliopolis, but there is nothing to suggest this is more of an extrapolation of later ages. After all, Plato was later held to hold the same views as Moses - an absurd belief if ever there was one.

Furthermore, I do not think you understand the meaning of the term "strawman". The term means "an argument directed at an easier to refute variation of one's opponent's belief". I have not taken anyone's argument and made an easier version to refute.

The Moses comment, by the way, goes like this from Justin Martyr:

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers--we mean the account given through the prophets--that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so."

So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

 

that, imo, are more appropriate and fitting responses to refute the alleged egyptian influence on plato's body of work

this....

... is a presumption of the premises in the first two quotes ...

as is that.
you offer up an argument by way of the alleged egyptian influenced roman period which does absolutely nothing to address the point of contention which originally, was quite specific, (orphic influence) but subsequently broadened in scope (egyptian influence) during athenian period

alleged events in plato's time cannot possibly occur because the instances were only present during the roman period

------------------------------------------------

A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.(wiki)

it seems to work. i agree tho my usage is a misapplication. the red herring fallacy is a better fit

perhaps you wonder what all this nitpicking is about
well lemme tell ya bout mah thesis

greeks are nappy heads

 

Gustav:

Nothing about this argument fits the category of "strawman". I may be wrong (though I am not) but it is not a strawman.

Here's the inductive argument:

1. Roman influences on Greco-Romantic philosophy, culture, and religion were minimal until the late Hellenistic/Roman period.

2. Plato lived in c. 500, BC, in the Hellenic period.

3. Therefore, it is unlikely that Egyptian influences are to be found in the Platonic corpus.

Let's hear the argument for this extreme contention. Specifically bearing in mind, that Egyptians were not themselves "nappy heads".

 

I believe there was some Egyptian influence on Greek learning from the get go:

http://www.arcytech.org/java/pythagoras/history.html

"Thales had visited Egypt and recommended that Pythagoras go to Egypt. Pythagoras arrived in Egypt around 547 BC when he was 23 years old. He stayed in Egypt for 21 years learning a variety of things including geometry from Egyptian priests . It was probably in Egypt where he learned the theorem that is now called by his name.

By the time he was about 55 years old he returned to his native land and started a school on the island of Samos. However, because of the lack of students he decided to move to Croton in the south of Italy."

 

Yes there were Greek monotheists.

Aristotle is credited with being the Greek monotheist.

See Book VIII of Physics and also Metaphysics.

The First Cause, The Uncaused Cause, The First Mover, The Prime Mover, The Unmoved Mover, Being Thinking Itself, etc.

 

But notice how abstract it all is...light years from Hebrew conceptions of an anthropomorphic deity.

 

It's definitely not anthropomorphic (except insofar as Being can think itself) but I don't think all Jews would argue that God is either.

 

Yahweh creates man in his image...and goes for a walk in the Garden of Eden.

 

Carcano:

I did not say a complete lack, mind you. Just minimal. Pythagoras (and the contention that A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is Egyptian in origin...without proof) learning mathematics from other cultures who had developed mathematics is not surprising. But this is far and away different from adopting Egyptian religious belief into Platonic philosophy, as was being claimed.

 

As for the anthromorphic nature of the Jewish God:

Any objective reading of the Hebrew Bible will find a God which is essentially "paganistic" in its limitations. God walks around the Garden, he must pass through the clouds because he can't see through them, he wrestles with Jacob and has to cheat to win, et cetera, et cetera. The Greeks were the first to introduce the concept of God as we know him and the God we speak about in philosophy is the Greek God. The Jewish God was simply a Hebrew Zeus.

 

Except Zeus was ashamed of clothes.

 

Well put. Although I know some Jews and Christians who consider the Bible to be allegorical and not literal or else allow for the possibility that God can anthropomorphize at will and back into something more mysterious again.

 

I'm not sure we know what the Egyptian intellectuals had in terms of philosophy...as they were very secretive. There was a popular religion for the common people, and undoubtedly something more sophisticated lying below the surface.

Its possible that we would only know of it through the Greek influence???

 

Actually, the Dionysus cult came from Egypt. Direct analogues with Osiris. Greek architecture is heavily influenced by Egypt. You've got to remember that the Greeks were filthy, heathen swine when they first started exporting and discovered the near east. They were in awe of the ancient and well developed civilization and borrowed heavily.