To Jud Evans
11th November 2002.
The CRATYLUS section I have attached, {see
Letter two - Ed.} was heading in the same
direction that Peter Durigon was pointing
out in his paper, i. e., that some sort of
compromise was necessary between the reality
of abstractions and the reality of experience
that constantly changes with time. Durigon's
essay can be read at: http://geocities.com/peterdurigon/
I have quoted much of the end of the CRATYLUS
because it seems to really bring to a head
the “What if . . . ?” or “I don’t know where
I’m going till I get there” type of thinking
of Plato himself versus the deliberately
dogmatic thinking of Proclus. The distinction
has finally taken on some clarity in my mind
once I understood the terribly different
political differences in their situations.
It goes back to the fundamentally different
kinds of “faith” to make it extremely over
simplistic. Faith, to Plato, is a social
form (or norm). It involves no ‘truth value’
whatsoever as we think of it. The whole prosecution
of Socrates revolves around the issue of
whether he is following the norm or bringing
in untraditional rites, whether he is replacing
old gods with new gods. What should be morally
is ‘the old way.’ What is evil is any ‘new
way.’ Everyone at the trial realizes that
the accusers base their charge on purely
subjective grounds. The issue is whether
this “subjectivity,” this ‘feeling’ of blasphemy,
is shared by others. The court does not even
expect logic from Socrates’ accusers. If
you told them they were politically manipulating
peoples’ emotions, they would reply unabashedly,
“So? What’s your point?”
Plato does use logic in his dialogues but
uses it as a tool for an explorer. His point
of view, compared to ours, is actually quite
fresh, naïve, with far fewer hung over assumptions
obscuring his view. His basic premise of
operation? “Don’t screw with politicians.
Don’t get people mad at you.”
In other words, his whole program is determined
by leaving the social norm of proper religion
alone. Outside that area, he is free to play,
and makes it known what he is doing IS playing.
That way, also, according to the norms of
the times, he can make up stories as myths
involving the traditional gods which is what
everybody else does and no one finds offense
in – A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE FROM JUDAISM
– that is, AS JUDAISM HAS COME DOWN TO US
THROUGH RABBINIC TRADITION BUT MAY VERY WELL
HAVE BEEN MUCH CLOSER TO GREEK POLYTHEISM
THAN WE REALIZE!
Aristotle violated Plato’s operating premise
by interfering in politics, not religion,
and had to flee Athens. One thing Plato does
NOT have, compared to me as a modern thinker,
is that I really have a vague idea of what
and where the TRUTH is but do not know how
to get there easily. It came with my language
and the culture tied to it. This shows a
fundamental difference between the American
philosophical school of Pragmatism – which
questions all premises on the basis of “Do
they work? Do they fit together? Do they
make sense in context?” – as opposed to “practical”
– “Pay attention only to necessary business
and leave everything else (religion) alone.”
Plato essentially acknowledges his way as
a premise in a sense TO BE EXAMINED, TO SEE
IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO IT, WHILE REALLY
FOR SURE KNOWING IT ALL MAY NOT BE TRUE.
Therefore, as in the PHAEDO, he questions,
benevolently of course, not only immortality,
but also the Ideas themselves (100d). He
can think open-endedly in a way I cannot
really do easily (after all, he questions
the existence of individual objects and the
truth of sense perception as we commonly
accept them without thinking, and, even when
thinking, really always assume that is the
end-goal we are ‘suppose’ to arrive at. PLATO
HAS NO SUCH PRESUPPOSITION!
That is one basic reason I have difficulty
with him. He understands the true way(s)
of thinking, which we can only think through
abstractions and that in our purpose these
abstractions take on important meanings for
our lives. He does not try to counter this
but takes it in hand as the way we live.
But, as in the CRATYLUS below, he shows there
are real problems with this way of thinking.
BUT THESE PROBLEMS ARE SEEN PURELY WITHIN
HIS WAY OF THINKING!
Plato acknowledges all the “proper” goals
and motivations of thinking, the reasons
WHY we really go to the effort of thinking
– we want something – and he even acknowledges
this “social norm” is “Good.” He just doesn’t
say any of these things are ABSOLUTELY true,
i. e,, the immortality of the Soul &
Ideas in the PHAEDO. There is no bedrock
reality presupposed in him as I have, i.
e., the “practical necessity of things,”
“real life,” etc. )
Now Proclus is formed by a wholly new set
of rules: the confrontation with dogmatic
and systematized Christianity which has largely
adopted Aristotle as ‘their’ philosopher.
Though this is terribly unfair to Aristotle,
this is what happened. Proclus not only had
to justify himself ‘logically’ but morally
and quality/quantity wise leading to many
difficulties and absurdities that, HOWEVER,
had already been accepted and swallowed down
by the Christians. He had to argue for converts
like a lawyer in court with lawyer-logic,
i. e., the point is not to be right but to
win! Or like a hawker in the market place:
“My product is better – and cheaper!”
He had to prove his way was more “authentic,”
– yes – more pure, more moral, more miraculous,
more salvific than Christianity by Christianity’s
standards, on Christianity’s gameboard, by
Christianity’s rules. One sure way he thought
that could be done, and the other Neoplatonics
share in this, is that he could firmly say
abstractions are real, which every is what
body wants to believe anyway and automatically
operate with as necessarily true and – “practical”
--, that Plato’s Ideas are the only way to
do this, that the plurality of divine Ideas
is the same thing as polytheism, and that
‘monotheistic’ Aristotle really doesn’t believe
in anything at all.
ATTEMPT TO FAST SUMMARIZE: People are naturally
polytheistic in their adoration of abstractions
– “God, mother, country” “But I never had
a mother . . .” POW right in the kisser.
“That’s what that damn atheist deserved.”
This applies not to just ‘undesirable’ abstractions
but to abstractions all the way down the
line. “Don’t you believe in the school system?
DON’T YOU BELIEVE IN EDUCATION?!!!” Abstraction
is ruled by the imaginary world of what should
be, not what is. It is self reinforcing.
If you attack the school system, you are
also attacking “God, mother, and country.”
The acknowledgement of polytheistic thinking
for what it really is would automatically
undermine all monotheistic thinking AND ALL
AUTHORITY!
Polytheism is not very good for politics.
It works purely on how you really feel. And
you worship the god you relate to. Well and
good. Dogma here is fast and loose and never
systematized into a code of law and can only
be used to hurt people on the vaguest and
most emotional of totally undefined issues.
Whereas in monotheism the issues are cut
and dried. Everything has its place and number
(“We’ve got your number!”). Everyone is on
trial constantly, not just on the political
occasion (and without the politics you couldn’t
even get overemotional people to do anything
with effect). Monotheism has to be this way
or it automatically must accept and even
engender a plurality of views which become
a plurality of basic principles which become
a number of different gods each valid in
its own proper sphere.
All that is ever needed to MAINTAIN monotheism
at any particular moment are “investigation”,
the appropriately drawn up “charges,” “evidence,”
the questioning, and the prosecutor’s summary.
If everything is displayed as neat and tidy,
then it is logical, and you’re guilty.
|
