Thread by @BanxyFamily

“Whence is it that you found the truth, o, Plato? … I know your teachers, although you seek to conceal them: you learned geometry from the Egyptians, astronomy from the Babylonians, you received pious invocations from the Thracians; the Assyrians taught you a great deal. > 1/2

>And, to the extent the laws [you expound] are true and glorify God, you have benefited yourself from the Jews.”

—Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 2/2

Klement adds that Plato took up the doctrine of the immortal soul from Pythagoras, who in turn had appropriated this from the Egyptians.

In general, ‘one can see that Plato always extols the barbarians, since he had in mind that he had learned most of his doctrines, indeed the most sublime of ones, from them.’

In all probability, Anaxagoras and Plato rendered what they understood out of their visits and contacts in the East. Aristotle expounded what he understood from both of them, as well as from all previous philosophy, along with the Jewish instruction he probably received.

There is no way to assess these philosophies vis-à-vis barbarian influences, quite simply because the latter are hardly known to us. If there is any measure at all, this is the progress of humanity ever since;

...and what we do know today, especially in the filed of modern #Physics, vindicates gloriously #Anaxagoras, and no other philosopher. #Cosmology #Biology

The Platonic Ideas are far too unlike the Anaxagorean principles.

For ‘Ideas’ are simply the human intelligible reproduction of the impact that the principles/logoi make upon the human intellectual function. They are only a ‘mirrored’, and subsequently ‘projected’, grasp of the activity of the logoi.

#MindfromWithout (θύραθεν νοῦς)

There is a profound difference, therefore: to Plato, things are mere shadows of the Ideas. In Anaxagorean context, the Ideas are a mirrored reflection of the impact caused by the activity of the principles.

✨ #TheoryofLogoi ✨#Cosmology✨#Evolution

The fundamental and indestructible reality is the principles/logoi. The Ideas are simply an abstract human construction (as both Stoics and Origen argued), following the impact made upon human intellect by the real activity of the real principles.

For the real and downright banishment of the Ideas was a Stoic doctrine: they did not go as upwards as the heaven or indeed as the Beyond: they just rejected actual subsistence of universals. #TheoryofLogoi

One man or one horse is a real being; to make many men or many horses universal notions or ‘ideas’, such as ‘man” or ‘horse’ is simply a fanciful extrapolation.

Right from the start of the Stoic school, Zeno taught that abstract notions or concepts or ‘ideas’ are ‘non-existent’ (ἰδέας … ἀνυπάρκτους εἶναι), they are ‘figments of the soul’ (φαντάσματα ψυχῆς).

This was indeed a Presocratic tenet:

1/3. "The only real beings that the natural philosophers [i. e. the Presocratic physicists] accepted were the natural [= empirical] ones, whereas they argued that universals are not natural realities. >

2/3. > "Following this, the debate was whether one should seek a general definition of the soul, as the Platonists maintain, >

3/3. > "...or [one should seek a definition] of this or that [kind of] soul, as the Physicists asserted, such as the soul of a horse, or that of a man, of that of God.
—Gennadius Scholarius, Translatio Commentarii Thomae Aquinae De Anima Aristotelis, 1.1.

The principles/logoi concur in order to make up specific things and #phenomena. The most faithful follower of Anaxagoras, namely, Origen, cited and implicitly endorsed the above doctrine of Zeno:

Origenis 1/2 👀 "And as certain Greeks say that the genus and species (τὰ γένη καὶ τὰ εἴδη), such as living being and man, belong to the category of ‘no things’ (τῶν οὔ τινων),>

2/2>"...so they have supposed that ‘nothing’ (οὐδὲν) is everything that has received its apparent constitution neither from God nor through the Logos. Let us see then if we can prove these things incontrovertibly from the scriptures. —Origen, commJohn, II.13.93. ✨

The example ‘living being and man’ is the same as that which Zeno used above and, quite evidently, it was Zeno that Origen had in mind;

Notwithstanding the fact that Origen set out to prove the truth of the proposition by means of scripture, it is plain that largely he endorsed the Stoic argument.
#Anaxagorean #Cosmology

Origen was a “modified” #Anaxagorean Christian Philosopher. He was most definitely antiPlatonist.

More on Plato’s potluck philosophizing… ~>

Why trust Plato?
Plato wrote about the soul, as well as about tens of thousands of other things, and the Timaeus, and other dialogues’ (περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἕτερα μύρια, καὶ Τίμαιον γεγράφηκε καὶ ἄλλους διαλόγους), after he took possession of the books of Philolaus. ~Tzetzes

In fact, not only the Timeaus, but also the Republic was allegedly a product of plagiarism from Egypt.

This allegation is not found in any Christian opponent, but in #Proclus reporting that ‘the first exegete of #Plato, namely,

Crantor’ said that Plato was laughed at because of the story about Atlantis, whereupon his contemporaries claimed that it was not #Plato himself who wrote the Republic, but, in reality, he had expounded Egyptian stories.

Crantor added that ‘the prophets of the Egyptians assured that all those things [that Plato wrote about Atlantis] were written in their stelae, which were still extant’ during the times of Crantor himself.

cf. #Proclus, commTim, v. 1, p. 76. Crantor was a philosopher of the Old Academy; he was probably born around the middle of the fourth century BC, at Soli in Cilicia. He died c. 276/5 BC.

Diogenes Laertius reports that Pythagoras was the first who taught the “doctrine of #transmigration”.

@behaviOrganisms
@DrRupertS @stevevai
(excerpts from…)

Following this statement, he recounts that the Pythagorean teaching remained secret until the time when Philolaus sold this for 100 μνᾶς, that is, 1000 drachmas, after Plato sent an epistle requesting for this purchase to take place.

Therefore, what came to be known as ‘Platonic’ doctrine of the soul is largely a Pythagorean one, no doubt originating in secret knowledge that Pythagoras himself received from the Egyptians during his sojourn in that country.
@RyanHaecker

(Origen most definitely wasn’t a Platonist.)

Let us continue 👀 to uncover Plato’s “source materials” from whence he conjured a plagiarized theory of transmigration …

In any event, when Origen speaks of ‘Plato’s transmigration of the soul’, or of other aspects of the doctrine about the soul, as being ‘Platonic’, even though at points he adds the name of Pythagoras, in effect, this was only a “compliment/reference” to Plato.

On the question of transmigration of souls, not only did Plato write after Pythagoras expounding his Egyptian experience, but also he cared to visit Egypt himself, which is why his originality was disputed not only by Christians, but also by Greeks. @RyanHaecker

Emperor Julian respectfully mentioned the piousness of Pythagoras, who ‘went to Egypt, he saw also the Persians, and experienced all of the divine mysteries in all places, and was present everywhere, officiating all kinds of rituals.’

St Klement of Alexandria also argued that…
‘most of the oldest Greek sages were of barbarian origin, and they were educated by barbarians.’
#AGAINSTJUSTINIAN

‘Pythagoras was said to be a native of Tyre, Antisthenes was from Phrygia, Orpheus was from either Odryssa or Thrace, and most people believe that Homer was an Egyptian’.—st Klement the Alexandrian

Clement concludes, the majority of authors report that he was of barbaric extraction. He adds that ‘Thales was also of Egyptian descent, and he was reported to have studied with the Egyptian prophets.>

So did Pythagoras, who met the same ones [i. e. Egyptian prophets], for the sake of whom he was circumcised: he went down to the innermost sanctuaries, in order to learn the most arcane philosophy of the Egyptians, and he met with the best teachers of the Chaldeans and the Magi.

In addition, Plato does not deny that [his] best doctrines of philosophy were imported from the barbarians.’ Besides, ‘Plato always bore in mind that Pythagoras had learned most of his doctrines, which were also the most sublime ones, during his sojourn with the barbarians.’

Clement also attests that, according to Leander and Herodotus, Thales was a Phoenician, ‘whereas some people took it that he was from Miletus.

Moreover, Thales appeared to be the only one who had access to the Egyptian prophets, and no person is reported to have been his teacher, which also happened with the Syrian Pherecydes, the teacher of Pythagoras.

(cf. Stromateis, 1.14.62.1‒1.14.63.1)

Likewise, Photios (Bibliotheca, Codex 241) reported that both Pythagoras and Democritus held conversations with the Magi, and Hippolytus advised that Democritus spent a lot of time with both the Egyptian priests and the Indian sages.,

Likewise, Hesychius of Miletus, the Greek chronicler and biographer, surnamed Illustrius, who flourished at Constantinople in the sixth century AD during the reign of Justinian, reported that Democritus conversed with the naked philosophers of India, and visited also Ethiopia.

According to Cyril of Alexandria, Pythagoras and Thales stayed in Egypt for a long time, and they fetched their knowledge from there.

The interesting report by Pseudo-Plutarch has it that Thales spent all of his life in Egypt and decamped to Miletus only when he was of old age.

Plutarch himself attests that both Homer and Thales held that “water is the ultimate principle of all things”, and that both of them received this doctrine from the Egyptians.

Then, #Iamblichus assured that Thales set sail for Memphis and Diospolis, where he held extensive conversations with the local priests; all of his knowledge, ‘for which the hoi polloi consider him as wise’ was derived thence.

Moreover, Clement attests that he read a book by Alexander of Miletus about the Pythagorean symbols, in which it was recounted that #Pythagoras spent some time as a pupil of Zaratus the Assyrian, and that he followed lessons by the Galatians and the Brahmans.

Plato himself suggested that there is a lot of wisdom outside the Greek world, of which one should avail oneself.

😂

Moreover, ‘the story has it that Pythagoras was a pupil of the Egyptian arch-prophet Sonchis; Plato was a pupil of Sechnouphis of Heliopolis, and Eudoxus was a pupil of the same Egyptian,…

…and the prophecy which Plato introduces in his dialogue on the soul’ is also one he had learned in Egypt.

In respect of this testimony, the fact that Clement was a Christian is immaterial. For #Porphyry also reported that ‘Pythagoras drew his knowledge when he visited the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Chaldeans, and the Hebrews, from whom he obtained an accurate knowledge about dreams.’

In a rhetorical apostrophe, Clement addresses Plato in second person: 🪡

“Whence is it that you found the truth, o, Plato? … I know your teachers, although you seek to conceal them: you learned geometry from the Egyptians, astronomy from the Babylonians, 1/3 🧵 edit

🧵 you received pious invocations from the Thracians; the Assyrians taught you a great deal. And, to the extent the laws [you expound] are true and glorify God, you have benefited yourself from the Jews.”
—clement,

2/2

Source: Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, 6.70.1. Cf. Stromateis, 6.7.57.3.
The teachers of Pythagoras, of Pherecydes, of Thales, and of other wise men of old, were Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Magi. 🧵 3/3

Clement adds that #Plato took up the doctrine of the immortal soul from Pythagoras, who in turn had appropriated this from the Egyptians.

#TheoryofLogoi
#AGAINSTJUSTINIAN

In general, ‘one can see that #Plato always extols the barbarians, since he had in mind that he had learned most of his doctrines, indeed the most sublime of ones, from them.’
—Clement, Stromateis, 1.15.68.

#AGAINSTJUSTINIAN

Strabo reported that Solon was anxious to learn about Atlantis from the Egyptian priests. Diodore of Sicily indicated that Lycurgus, #Plato, and Solon, included many things from Egyptian laws into their legislative expositions.

#Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians both his hallowed doctrines and those about geometry, as well as the doctrines concerning numbers, and the theory of #transmigration of souls into any kind of animal.

Likewise, Thales first learned geometry from the Egyptians, and then he introduced the Greeks to it. After Thales, Mamertius (the brother of poet Stesichorus) and Hippias of Elis did so, too;

#Pythagoras came after them, and engaged in research of incorporeal principles, and after him #Anaxagoras, and then Plato, and others.

According to Pamphila, Thales had learned geometry from the Egyptians’ (παρά τε Αἰγυπτίων γεωμετρεῖν μαθόντα); consequently, ‘he was the first to inscribe a right triangle in a circle, whereupon he sacrificed an ox.’

Origen added his own testimony about Plato having received much of his “knowledge@ from both the Egyptians and the Jews.

Although the doctrine of #transmigration of souls was generally associated with Plato and Pythagoras,

#TheoryofLogoi

In the turn of the fifth to sixth century, Zacharias of Mytilene (a native of Gaza, rhetor and bishop), while rebuking the doctrine [transmigration], noted that those Greeks philosophers received this from the Egyptians.

However, ‘long after the times of Caesar’, this was not a strong aspect of the Greek philosophical thought, >

> because Aristotle himself did not engage in those particular studies as much as did he so with other topics of philosophy; this is why this aspect of his writings is inferior to the rest of his work (τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἧττον ἔχων). >

—Theodore Metochites (thirteenth-fourteenth century), Γνωμικαὶ Σημειώσεις, 5.3

Plato visited Egypt and mixed up many things that he took up from Egyptian prophets and priests with words of his own.

The case with #Plato was like a painting which is ready in black and white, to which Plato only added some colours; this was what fascinated people, who mistook him as a very wise man.
—Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, 1.2.

Xenophanes is also attested by #Plutarch as one more Greek philosopher who spent some of his lifetime with the Egyptians.

Clement of Alexandria adduced a battery of information in order to confront those who despised Christian faith as a caricature of Greek doctrines.

Clement’s argument (taken up by a long series of subsequent Christian writers) was that “Hebrew wisdom was more ancient, and the Greek stars of philosophy actually rendered what they had understood (or misunderstood) by coming in touch with ancient civilizations.”

Clement explains…Democritus ‘visited Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and he was apprenticed with the Magi and the priests,’ in like a manner ‘Pythagoras was fascinated by Zoroaster the Magus.’
~Stromateis, 1.15.69.4‒6

Beyond Christian testimonies, there are also Greek ones, with Diogenes Laertius recording that Democritus, in his Little Decoration, wrote that he was a pupil of Anaxagoras when the latter was an old man; >

> also, that Democritus visited the Magi and the Chaldeans and heard their teaching; king Xerxes of Persia offered him hospitality; and it was from those ancient sages that, when he was still a boy, he learned the fundamentals of theology and astrology.

👀 We should recall that Democritus despised #Anaxagoras’ theories about the Mind [Nous] and cosmic decoration, and he felt animosity against his teacher because Anaxagoras did not accept his theories (ὅτι δὴ μὴ προσήκατο αὐτόν).”

#Anaxagorean #Cosmology

However, the real reasons were probably different, such as disagreement about a correct rendering of the Chaldean and Persian lore. In any case, we have no testimonies to how #Democritus himself explained the nature of his own ‘Necessity’ while dismissing #Anaxagoras’ Mind.

During the Late Antiquity, a fervent discussion went on, especially among Neoplatonists, concerning an assumed astral or pneumatic or aetheral body which the soul uses either as a ‘vehicle’ or as a ‘vessel’ containing the soul itself.

(👀Origen was #Anaxagorean; not Platonist!)

We should note that connoisseurs of oriental thought such as Michael Psellus and George Gemistus argued that the provenance of such ideas went back to the Persian Magi and to the Chaldean sages of Babylon.

Ready? The Platonic mindset maintained that a ‘man’ is identified with his ‘soul’, whereas the body (σῶμα) is only something the soul makes use of as an ‘organ’, actually this is a ‘tomb’ (σῆμα) of it.

#throwawaybodies?

The most explicit statement positing this appears in the dialogue Alcibiades i, which is now regarded as spurious, but the Late Antiquity treated it as a genuine work of Plato, and both Proclus and Olympiodorus of Alexandria wrote a commentary on this.

Nevertheless, the #Peripatetic tradition could employ such expressions, since the soul is the ἐντελέχεια* of the body, therefore, this was considered as the active principle, just like any other ‘form’ acting upon ‘formless matter.’

* ἐντελέχεια
(entelḗs, “complete, full, accomplished”) + ἔχειν (ékhein, “have, hold”).

Philo, also spoke of ‘the vessel of the soul, namely the body’ (τὸ ψυχῆς ἀγγεῖον τὸ σῶμα).

By the same token, Christians made use of this figurative expression conveniently without necessarily espousing Platonism. ❗️
@RyanHaecker

1/2 🪡 That aside, the idea that the soul is a ‘vehicle’ (not ‘organ’) of the soul appears in Plato speaking of the surrogates of the Demiurge who ‘imitated’ the Demiurge himself and created ‘another kind of soul’ (i. e. an individual one) from the cosmic and ‘immortal’ one,> 🪡

2/2 “…and he gave a body to those souls serving to them as a ‘vehicle.’

Concerning Origen, [Tzamalikos has] shown that, although he used this Platonic notion as ‘a metaphor’, indeed as a circulating truism, in fact he maintained that a human being is an inseparable unity.
(Because he’s #Anaxagorean)

Any human being is a tripartite entity, comprising body, soul, and nous or spirit, and the latter is the divine element granted man directly by God the Logos.
#SoulBecomingNous #MindfromWithout (θύραθεν νοῦς)

A human soul is different from man’s spirit,

and the precariousness of its condition lies in the fact that the soul can subject itself either to the body (whereby the soul is destroyed – and ‘dies’) or to the spirit, and thence the soul is transformed to spirit (i.e. this is no longer ‘soul’) and saved. #SoulBecomingNous

This is the sense in which a human can be ‘transformed’ (μεταμορφουμένους), ‘once the soul not only follows the spirit, but indeed becomes in the spirit, it casts off its being a soul and it becomes spiritual’ (ἡ ψυχὴ … ἀποτιθεμένη τὸ εἶναι ψυχὴ πνευματικὴ γίνεται).

Accordingly, the spiritual man receives this title in accordance with his predominate participation in the ‘spirit’. #SoulBecomingNous #CompletionofReason #MindfromWithout (θύραθεν νοῦς)

Origen always saw the soul (i.e. the psychic existential mode of logoi) as an inferior reality compared to the spiritual one, he could have seen the command which bid ‘hating one’s own soul’ in this light.

The struggle is about one’s soul transforming so as to cease to be soul, by causing the concurring principles that make it up to become ‘spiritual’, wherefore those logoi render this soul a ‘rational mind’. #SoulBecomingNous

This is the sense of the saying, ‘whoever yearns for saving his soul will lose it, and whoever will lose his soul for my sake will find it’,
#SoulBecomingNous

and Origen’s comment is revealing: losing one’s soul in the proper way (i.e. by opting for virtue) leads to receiving (indeed becoming) something which is superior to the soul (κρείττονα ψυχῆς).
#SoulBecomingNous

In other words, this is but a facet of his fundamental idea that Restoration pertains neither to the body nor to the soul, but only to the most sublime element of human constitution, namely, one’s ‘mind’ or ‘spirit’, which is bestowed by God alone.
#SoulBecomingNous

This is the only sense in which the soul stands ‘midway’ between the exalted incorporeal reality and the material one, on account of which he saw the soul ‘as a certain middle,
#SoulBecomingNous
#MidwayCreatures

[‘soul’] which is susceptible of either good or evil, whereas the spirit of man which is in him is impervious of mean things’, unless the body and soul cause this harm.

In letter, this appeared as akin to apparently similar Greek propositions about soul being a certain ‘middle’, a theory that appealed to Christian authors, such as Eusebius and Gregory Nyssen, who saw the soul as standing ‘middle’ (μέσην) between human body and human nous/mind.

Certainly, this does not mean that necessarily all of authors who saw the soul as a ‘middle’ had in mind the same theories, since they were drawn towards an incongruous platonic pandora’s box.

In any event, Origen’s outlook stemmed from an entirely different theory and context. If by all means attenuated Greek echoes should to be discovered in his propositions, those were definitely Aristotelian, not Platonic.

Philoponus was probably the intellectual who grasped this idea & wrote that the ‘soul is potentially mind’ (δυνάμει νοῦς), by which he was satisfied that he rendered Aristotle’s ideas, but since he wrote as a Christian, it would be plausible to assume he had in mind Origen, too.

Philoponus is the only Christian author who spoke about the soul being potentially mind, although he thought that he had read this in Aristotle.

However, all of those who considered Aristotle’s ‘potential mind’ (δυνάμει νοῦς), and notwithstanding their different interpretations of this, saw ‘potential mind’ as something that a soul has as part of it, or participates in it. #MindfromWithout (θύραθεν νοῦς)

Plato speaks of ‘both the soul and body together, which [“we”] call the living creature.’
Sort of a Russian Babushka doll that is “split” 50/50, 1:1.

The theory about a material, if fine, vehicle of the soul circulated in the third century, since Simplicius mentions the objections by Alexander of Aphrodisias criticizing those who sustained it and urged that it is possible for a body to permeate another body. 😆

Besides, to Alexander, the idea that a soul needs a certain ‘vehicle’ was weird. For he thought in exactly the opposite terms: “it is the soul itself that should be regarded as a vehicle, rather than being itself contained (and being in need) of a vehicle.”

Origen declared that the ‘spirit is the garment of soul’, since soul is an intermediary state.

When Origen conceded that ‘the soul is something standing in the middle’ (μέσον τι),his underlying theory was different:… ~>

> The soul is NOT [🪢] a tier of a Plotinian ontological pattern; instead, this is a manifestation of logoi operating in accordance with the reality of this material kosmos.

#TheoryofLogoi #GregoryNyssen #Anaxagorean #Cosmology

Their existential mode is superior to those that constitute the body, but inferior to those that make up one’s individual ‘mind’ or ‘spirit’. In that state, ‘soul’ (although part of the ‘rational essence’ 1/2

i.e. stemming from logoi that make up the Body of Logos) is not simply the fragmented human ‘essence’: it is a mere (and impermanent) manifestation of the fallen human essence. 2/2

The existential state of the soul is inherently involved with the struggle to become ‘mind / spirit’, which means that a soul is always bound to act one way or another.

#SoulBecomingNous

This is why Origen averred that ‘there is nothing between committing sin and not committing sin’, thus taking distances from Stoic notion of morally ‘indifferent’ actions (ἀδιάφορα).

#CompletionofReason #MindfromWithout (θύραθεν νοῦς)

A human being is a free rational creature, which, of its own free will, strives to render those logoi rational, that is, to cherish and render them to their highest mode of existence and operation.
#TheoryofLogoi

Parable of the Talents, #SONGofSONGS , etc

This is also why he dismissed the notion of souls living without a body: for in the context of his theory, such a notion could be only incongruous and meaningless.
@RyanHaecker

"The true happiness of man is life according to the spirit (θύραθεν νοῦς)." —St Theophan the Recluse

#SoulBecomingNous #CompletionofReason #CompletionofLogos #tripartiterationalbeing

Hierocles of Alexandria mentioned the vehicle of the soul as a Pythagorean doctrine that was ultimately a Chaldean one.

George Gemistus clearly explained that ‘the vessel of the soul’ was part of the Chaldean lore;

Gemistus reporting that the followers of both Pythagoras and Plato maintained that there are three kinds of forms: one, the ‘supra-celestial incorporeal minds’ (νοῦς δὴ τοὺς ὑπερουρανίους), which are exempt from any association with matter;

Secondly, those which are always associated with matter, they have not a self-existent substance of their own, but they are dependent upon matter which is dissolved according to the laws of nature (i. e. things of irrational nature);

Thirdly, between the foregoing ones, there is the ‘rational soul’, which differs from the supra-celestial incorporeal minds in being always associated with matter; it differs also from irrational nature in having an existence of its own, that is, it is self-subsistent.

#Aristotle had a lot of respect for the Egyptian civilization. The fact that he did not have equal respect for those Greeks that received Egyptian philosophical ideas and rendered them without proper assimilation is a different issue.

Gennadius Scholarius knew of a comment by Aristotle about ‘Egyptian priests who spent all of their time in temples studying the divine laws, some of which became patterns in pertinent fields, as Greeks themselves admit’.

Nevertheless, Aristotle was aware of the real origin of several of the doctrines of his predecessors that he considered, which is why he was sometimes sarcastic in his remarks.

When Aristotle set out to examine ‘the theories about motion and rest’ of the earth (περὶ κινήσεως καὶ μονῆς), he declared himself impressed at the absurd or senseless replies attempted by previous philosophers.

This question, then, has become, as one might expect, a subject of general enquiry. But one may well be surprised at the answers that have been put forward, which are more incomprehensible than the questions they set out to solve. —Aristotle, De Caelo 294a

In tune with Aristotle, when Simplicius came upon that point, his comment about previous philosophers was that ‘each one of them offered the improvised solution that came to their mind first’ (ἕκαστος τὸ προχείρως ἐπελθὸν ἀπεφήνατο).

Aristotle appeared to believe that certain views of philosophers involved insufficient argument,

Perhaps because #Aristotle thought that the reason for that to be so was that they expounded (each of them according to his own understanding) knowledge that they had received from some oriental quarter.

Aristotle, De Caelo: “Thus, we may say of these theorists that they pursued the difficulty up to a point, but not as far as they might have. This is a habit which we all share, namely, relating an inquiry not to the subject matter itself, but to our opponent in argument. 1/4 >

>A man will even pursue a question in his own mind only up to the point at which he finds nothing to say against his own arguments. 2/4 >

>Therefore, anyone who aspires to conducting good research should be able to find objections to the genus of his own considerations, which means that he must [consider theories of his opponents] only after 3/4 >

>[only after one] has taken into account all of the differences [between his own philosophy and those of his opponents in argument].—Aristotle, De Caelo 4/4

Aristotle was certainly aware of how much his predecessors, and indeed his own teacher Plato, owed to the Egyptians.

Probably this is why he [Aristotle] was so sarcastic about them having posited dogmatic propositions which fell short of solid ground once put on the trial of systematic process of demonstration.

#AGAINSTJUSTINIAN ! // #Anaxagorean #Cosmology

Besides, Aristotle did not care for traveling to the East: others retrieved the material for him to build on: he took this up selectively while criticizing the messengers relentlessly.

It was not only the Phoenician #Porphyry; it was also #Proclus who was fascinated by the Oriental lore.

According to Psellus, ‘although a sheer Greek, Proclus indulged into Chaldaism’ by taking sides with a certain Chaldean called Julian.

As I have discussed elsewhere, Julian the son (his father was called Julian, too) was a Chaldean miracle-worker who wrote books on issues of theurgy.

Once Proclus read Julian’s Sententiae (Λόγια), he was satisfied that he had found all wisdom into them, and then he pursued the truth partially(!) by means of theurgy.

Consequently, Proclus despised the Greek methodology of constructing the truth: indeed he styled the Greek method of logical demonstration and substantiation ‘hurricanes of words’ (λόγων καταιγίδας).

This is a testimony that Psellus says he read in Procopius of Gaza, but we have nothing from Procopius’ writings about Proclus, except for a short fragment from a refutation of Proclus’ theology.

There was a rivalry between Domninus and Proclus about how Plato’s work should be interpreted, and eventually it was Proclus’ rendering of Plato that prevailed in the Academy.

Psellus recounts also that ‘it was the Chaldeans that introduced the notion of supreme Creative Cause, which they posited as utterly ineffable’ (Χαλδαῖοι ἕν φασι τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον, ὃ δὴ καὶ ἀφθεγκτότατον λέγουσι).

Psellus respected the Chaldeans for many reasons.

For one thing, because they were ‘more ancient than the Egyptians’ (Περὶ δὲ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τούτοις πρεσβυτέρων Χαλδαίων); for another, which was more important, because they fascinated brilliant Greek minds who eventually sought the truth in that philosophy.

#Iamblichus did so par excellence, but so did ‘the really divine Proclus, who went and spent a great deal of time with the Chaldeans (as Iamblichus did) and finally he styled ‘the Greek methods concerning syllogism hurricanes.’

Psellus wrote as a pious Christian and had no intention of disproving his religion. However, he also wrote as a man of reason and ardent lover of truth, while definitely he justified his cognomen Πολυΐστωρ (Polymath) :)

Psellus had read himself the theology of the Chaldeans (written by Julian the Theurgist), he made several quotations from whose Λόγια, >

> whereas, at other points, Psellus says that he deliberately refrains from giving details lest he should harm his readers, who might indulge in those doctrines or attempt to imitate Chaldeans theurgic practices.

He nevertheless reports that the Chaldeans were those who first introduced the One as an ineffable supreme principle (οὗτοι καὶ τὸ πρὸ τῶν πάντων ἓν δογματίζουσι), as well as the notion of matter per se being evil.

They were also the first to introduce sacrifice of animals (καὶ ζῳοθυσίαν εἰσηνέγκαντο), and, in general, sacrifice as a ceremonial practice (καὶ τοιῶσδε ἢ τοιῶσδε θύειν ἐθέσπισαν).

Besides, they practiced magic spells, thaumaturgy, conjuration, invocation, and witchcraft.

Psellus gives vivid instances about the theurgist Julian who took part in Marcus Aurelius’ campaign against the Dacians and performed several miracles, which contributed to pushing Rome’s enemies beyond the borders of the empire.

Following this, and stunningly against the traditional Jewish and Christian argument, Psellus declares explicitly that ‘the wisdom of the Hebrews is posterior to the one of the Chaldeans’ (Ἡ δὲ τῶν Ἑβραίων σοφία μετὰ τούτους μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἴληφε),

!... and gives detailed historical information about Babylon (commonly translated ‘Confusion’) and names of kings, in order to assure that the story about ‘confusion of languages’ and the tower of Babel has to do with the city of Babylon and its people.

He mentions both Julians, who flourished during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and adds that they made abundant use of the names of male and female gods, angels, daemons, and heroes (θεοὺς καὶ θεαίνας, ἀγγέλους καὶ ἀγγελίδας, δαίμονας καὶ δαιμονίδας, ἥρωάς τε καὶ ἡρωίνας)

It was after the two Julians that Iamblichus, Proclus, and Porphyry made use of those names as symbols. Therefore, the admiration that those eminent ‘Greeks’ felt for the Chaldean wisdom was the reason why they embraced it and made those doctrines part of their philosophy. 👀

Michael Psellus was a man of profound knowledge and wisdom. Following his exposition of the Chaldeans and the Greek debts to them, he deservedly allows himself some boast about the account he offered:

Quote from... Michael Psellus, Orationes Forenses et Acta —>

And, ‘if I am to boast myself a little’ (ἵνα μικρόν τι κἀγὼ καυχήσωμαι), I am the first who offered an accurate account of this [i. e. Chaldean wisdom] during our times (μόνος ἐπὶ τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς χρόνων αὐτὴν ἠκρίβωσα).

He then concludes by using the language of Paul in 2 Cor. 11:17 once again: “Although ‘that which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord’, I spoke still, and let anyone who doubts what I said correct me” (λελάληκα δὲ ὅμως, καὶ ὁ ἀπιστῶν εὐθυνέτω).

The Platonic Ideas are far too unlike the Anaxagorean principles. // #Anaxagorean #Cosmology #TheoryofLogoi #evolution #bigbang #theosis

Keep working on the vocation of #SoulBecomingNous!

The Lord said: "I tell you, you most surely will not come out from there UNTIL you pay the very last pittance.〃

#apokatastasis #SoulBecomingNous #TheSpiritualLaw #Purgatory #Purgation #Theosis

Saddest part about Justinian/'his 553synod' "against Origen" is that Justinian personally accepted a "preexisting world of souls" (which Origen rejected, sinceAnaxagorean; not platonist) and codemned Origen for "transmigration of souls" (which Origen also rejected, outrightly! )