Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Xenophanes]

I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think your statement is a good illustration of the point he's trying to make. His 'consciousness stretched towards the ether' is a metaphor; but to get any sense out of a metaphorical statement like 'the camel is the ship of the desert', we need to be aware of certain aspects of camels, ships, and deserts, otherwise it seems like nonsense - as his expression would also, if we have no conception of what he means by 'the ether'.

Do you have a conception of what he means by "the ether?"  If so, please explicate. I am only too well aware it is meant as a metaphor, but it is not a metaphor which makes a great deal of sense to me as it presupposes worldviews which I and many others in the modern world, do not share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

If you know what point he was "trying to make," please tell us what it is.

[Elgarian]

If you know what point he was "trying to make," please tell us what it is.

Actually, that isn't the point that I was trying to make. I'd prefer him to answer for himself, but I think he's trying to describe a certain kind of experience - an extension of consciousness/awareness, which he can only express metaphorically as 'stretched towards the ether'; and he's acknowledging that this won't make sense unless you do have a certain kind of world view: the implication may be that one needs to experience this 'extension into the ether' rather than be persuaded by argument.

[Xenophanes]

Actually, that isn't the point that I was trying to make. I'd prefer him to answer for himself, but I think he's trying to describe a certain kind of experience - an extension of consciousness/awareness, which he can only express metaphorically as 'stretched towards the ether'; and he's acknowledging that this won't make sense unless you do have a certain kind of world view: the implication may be that one needs to experience this 'extension into the ether' rather than be persuaded by argument.

He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?

[Catison]

We must all invoke the metaphysical at some point to survive.  Science doesn't equal Truth for free, you know...

Anyways, have you seen Polythene Pam?

[Elgarian]

He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?

No. I don't think he expects anything at all - and that's the point he's making. I think it's the same kind of situation Blake is talking about in his famous bit of dialogue:

"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somehwat like a guinea?"
"Oh no, no, I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying 'Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty'"

It's no use the questioner asking for further clarification in terms of his own world view. It isn't to be had. The only way to 'understand' what Blake is saying is to try somehow to enter his world view. We may of course not wish to do that - but in making that decision we exclude any possibility of understanding what he's saying.

I think something of that sort is what Josquin de Pres is getting at. But it would be much better coming from him, than me. I'm just trying to explain how I see it.

[Xenophanes]

No. I don't think he expects anything at all - and that's the point he's making. I think it's the same kind of situation Blake is talking about in his famous bit of dialogue:

"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somehwat like a guinea?"
"Oh no, no, I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying 'Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty'"

It's no use the questioner asking for further clarification in terms of his own world view. It isn't to be had. The only way to 'understand' what Blake is saying is to try somehow to enter his world view. We may of course not wish to do that - but in making that decision we exclude any possibility of understanding what he's saying.

I think something of that sort is what Josquin de Pres is getting at. But it would be much better coming from him, than me. I'm just trying to explain how I see it.

Well, at least Blake was speaking in an idiom still used. An acquaintance of mine is a retired English professor, something of an expert on Blake.  I heard him give a talk on him, but aside from snatches, Blake has never much appealed to me.  He has a whole system makes little sense to me. But "Holy, Holy, Holy" is from the liturgy, the Sanctus, which is taken roughly from Isaiah 6:3.  So Blake is explaining his reaction to the sun in terms of images he has learned from his tradition, and some of this tradition is still alive today.  Actually, he notes two ways of looking at the rising sun, one in terms of sensible awareness and another in terms of his faith and perhaps vision. We also have different ways of looking at the sun and other things, through our senses, through our sciences, through poetry and art, through our faith. But ether?

[Xenophanes]

First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.

On the other hand I can't reject belief in supernatural beings and do find the idea of polytheism to be rational... At least a better overall reflection of the real world.

I recently came across this interesting piece and found a lot to agree with:

http://www.ethnikoi.org/lefkowitz.htm

Here are some of her statements:

1. The poison is  not  religion; it's monotheism.

2. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities.

3. Humans were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing them to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.

4. In the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created.

5. The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death.

6. The existence of many different gods also offers a  more  plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.

7. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end.

*******

Do you agree with some of these viewpoints and/or see advantages to them ?

There has been some criticism of Lefkowitz's article, and I found this one on the net.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-capetz10nov10,0,2789423.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I fail to see that the history shows polytheism has been notably peaceful and tolerant.  The empires of the ancient Middle East encouraged the worship of their own high gods.  Of course, they assimilated the gods and traditions of others and changed them (but then, the scholars say the ancient Hebrews did, also).  I once read J. B. Bury's History of Greece, and that history was not notably peaceful, even though they shared the Olympian pantheon.  There were many wars in East Indian history, too.

The Greek gods did not stand up very well to criticism from my own good self (modest blush) and other even greater philosophers and poets.

1) I have already dealt with this one.

2) Female gods or no, the ancient societies were pretty much male dominated. The ancient Hebrews did attribute a number of femine traits to God and Yahweh (ask Phyllis Trible!).

3) There is something to this.  According to one major interpretation (Cornford), Greek philosophy did originate in attempts to come to a rational interpretation of religion.  But we also have to remember that John Burnet thought the early Greek philosophers (presocratics) were basically natural scientists.  But there are other ways of looking at them, too, and I don't regard them as mutually exclusive.

However, anyone who thinks the ancient Hebrews did not ask questions simply hasn't looked into the matter seriously.  There are a number of different viewpoints expressed in the Bible and other ancient Jewish literature, and some of them come under strong criticism in Job and Ecclesiastes, as prime examples.

Moreover, Jewish and Christian traditions did assimilate philosophy as well, and it is in Christian Europe that a good deal of science developed.

4) It is true that many people find evil difficult to reconcile with a good God, and as mentioned, but it is not necessary to say that human beings are responsible for everything that goes wrong.  Some have maintained this, but others have not. And as I suggested, the authors of Job and  Ecclesiastes seem well aware that they do not know how to explain this.

5) The Greek view does seem pretty hopeless to us, so stated. On the other hand, the ancient Hebrews did not have a hope of life after death.  (You might read C. Lewis's book on the Psalms, or any standard reference work.)  However, the Greeks also had traditions (notably the Mysteries) which offered hope of happiness after death, and this much influenced some of the Greek philosophers, notably the Platonists.  Indeed, this strain seems to have influenced later Judaism.

6) Certainly many people do find great evils difficult to reconcile with their own concepts of God.  As I have pointed out, this is already in Judaeo-Christian tradition.  Divergent powers and aims can result in evil, but one need not go to the gods to find an explanation.  Polytheism is, after all, is speculatively unsatisfactory. 

One could arrive at a different conception of God, for example, in which God is not all powerful but limited in power and function, as is the god in Plato's Timaeus.  Process philosophy and theology tend to such a view.

On the other hand, it could be that God's ways are not our ways, and cannot be held to human standards. 

7)  A typical Greek view is to keep your head down, don't stand out.  That's hybris and the Greek gods frown on that. I'm not sure that leads to improvements in life.

[karlhenning]

I fail to see that the history shows polytheism has been notably peaceful and tolerant.

Quoted for truth.

[DavidRoss]

I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.

There's something pathological in your persistent belief that statements like this are about objective reality rather than about the limits of your own intellect and imagination.

[karlhenning]

Word.

[Elgarian]

He [Blake] has a whole system makes little sense to me.

That's why I chose Blake as my example; because there's a reasonably close parallel there, and Blake is a great artist, so I thought maybe there was a better chance of getting to the root of the business. In this case you have knowledge of a tradition that you can use to rationalise what he's saying, but Blake would call that 'single vision' (the first step towards what he calls 'fourfold vision'). He's not interested in that; he's interested in seeing beyond it. To the rationalist there is no 'beyond it' - and therein lies the problem.

But ether?

Well, I don't agree that it's completely unintelligible. The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well.

[Florestan]

it is in Christian Europe that a good deal of science developed.

It is in Christian Europe that the main deal of science developed; this is a fact that no amount of intellectual acrobacy will ever be able to circumvent.

[Florestan]

Ho good grief, NOT anus.com.

Oh, but it's very appropriate for all that BS. 

[karlhenning]

[ no sniff zone ]

[Florestan]

[ no sniff zone ]

  ;D

[ChamberNut]

[ no sniff zone ]

For most......I hope! 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Don,

An admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland. 

This past Sunday there was an article in The Guardian that gave an excellent perspective now and which shows why I often find it depressing and sometimes deluded.

Many Jews no longer believe that the Zionist concept of entitlement, based first upon Biblical history, and latterly upon the Holocaust, suffices to justify perpetuating historic injustice upon the Arabs of Palestine. Benny Morris's excellent recent history of the events of 1948 shows that even a respected Israeli historian is today ready to acknowledge the scale of Israeli ethnic cleansing at the time, and of the deceits employed since to conceal what took place. The Israeli myth, that the Palestinians displaced in 1948 voluntarily abandoned their homes and property, is unsustainable in the face of such evidence.

The paradox of Israel's pursuit of might

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/israel-middle-east-max-hastings

[Homo Aestheticus]

Karl and Don,

Just a note, friends Sara & Ray:  that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).

I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is.  More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused

Excuse me but what is wrong with questioning my Judao-Christian heritage ? And how are my opening and subsequent posts 'Catholic-bashing' ?

"First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis."

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky believed in God. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Yes, of course and they were awesome writers but they were also second-rate intellects compared to Plato, Spinoza and Hume.

Have you ever read Plato? I mean, not newspaper commentaries about Plato, but his own work.

I have 3 books on Plato on my bookshelf: A Introduction to The Republic by Julia Annas (Oxford University Press), The Laws, and  Philebus. How much was I able to comprehend ? Not a lot....    But for some reason I still get a warm and fuzzy feeling when reading him. The lack of dogmatism and his always setting out to follow wherever the argument may lead is so appealing. 

[Homo Aestheticus]

There's something pathological in your persistent belief that statements like this are about objective reality rather than about the limits of your own intellect and imagination.

Why pathological ?

Are you really able to accept the 4 attributes of the Judao-Christian God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence - without any problems ?