In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates contrasts the value of spoken words with those that are written. Written words are like paintings, he says, because although they may seem "alive," they can't answer any questions and will only say the same thing to everyone they encounter, indiscriminately. Anyone not understanding the words, or who has questions or alternate ideas, is out of luck. In Socrates' view, since written screeds are incapable of defending themselves, they are not able to teach the truth adequately.

By contrast, spoken words have a living speaker that can a) answer questions and b) choose how best to explain an idea to a particular person. Spoken words can also be answered with another idea which could even lead to a third that reconciles both points of view. This verbal give-and-take learning process is the dialectic.

A segment explaining one way of looking at the dialectic was shown on the powerpoint presentation I embedded in the blog a while back. It described how a thesis and antithesis (two differing ideas) can create a synthesis (a third idea that transcends both). This was certainly going on in the ancient world and can be seen in the syncretization of religions in later times. The powerpoint is correct in its questioning whether this process necessarily leads to "progress." When religions are syncretized, isn't something from each original religion lost in the process? Some modern people whose religions are now being co-opted seem to think so. What's your view?

Back to writing vs. the dialectic. Socrates believed that the best use of writing is to remind people of things they already know, whereas the dialectic should be used to investigate truth. "Truth springs from argument amongst friends," David Hume once said. It's thought that this is why Plato wrote dialogues: the conversations between various speakers in his books demonstrate how the dialectic works. Using this method, Plato could present a number of different arguments in a way that lets the reader take sides and consider which argument is more convincing. In fact, some arguments Plato makes are not convincing at all. The "ideal city" he describes in the Republic is a place most people wouldn't want to live in, for example. Because this form of writing helps us to take sides and disagree, it performs at least part of the service that true dialogue with another person can provide.

How has engaging in dialogue and/or reading a dialogue between others helped you?

The Delphic Oracle is probably the most famous oracle of all time. Situated in Apollo's sanctuary at Delphi, its mysteries have been shrouded for centuries. What gave the famous Pythias their powers of foresight? Within the past decade, a groundbreaking study concluded that volcanic vapors could well have inebriated the oracular priestesses, but would this alone explain the accuracy of the oracle's predictions?

Though how Apollo's priestesses could know the future remains a mystery, one thing is certain: the oracles given at this temple were highly enigmatic and their interpretation often stirred great debate until historical events revealed their truth.

Imagine this scenario: You're in Athens, which is about to be attacked by Xerxes of Persia. (Remember the bad guy from the movie 300? That guy.) Your city sends someone to ask the Oracle of Delphi what to do. The first answer is:

Now your statues are standing and pouring sweat. They shiver with dread. The black blood drips from the highest rooftops. They have seen the necessity of evil. Get out, get out of my sanctum and drown your spirits in woe.

which obviously amounts to "Flee. You're doomed." Oh boy. You send someone back to ask again, to see if there is anything at all that can save you. The answer:

...a wall of wood alone shall be uncaptured, a boon to you and your children.

Now, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Some people thought it meant that a literal wooden wall would magically protect the city. But think about it... wouldn't Xerxes just set it on fire and sack the city when it burned down? How could a literal wooden wall protect them? Did it mean something else?

This is the kind of deliberation that often had to occur after receiving an oracle. They were riddles that had to be figured out. Robert Temple, in his paper on Fables, Riddles and Mysteries of Delphi, argues that Delphi became "a centre of new thinking" by provoking the tradition-bound people of Greece to think in novel and creative ways. In fact, when they didn't, the more enigmatic oracles could be interpreted wrong, leading to disaster. Take the instance of Croesus, king of Lydia, who, after asking whether he should attack the Persians or not, was told that if he did, "a mighty empire shall be brought down." Thinking this meant he would be successful, he attacked and in the end was captured by the enemy. It was his own mighty empire which was destroyed.

Back to the Athenians facing Xerxes. What did they finally decide the "wooden walls" referred to? Those who did interpret the phrase literally decided to barricade themselves inside the Acropolis with a wooden wall. As can be expected, this wooden wall was destroyed, those people were killed, and the Acropolis with its temples sacked and burned. (Incidentally, the temple artifacts desecrated by the Persians were ceremonially buried after the Athenians returned, and thus were preserved for thousands of years until they were uncovered in an archaeological dig.)

Themistocles, a leader in the Athenian democracy, thought instead that the "wooden walls" referred to their ships. Many Athenians who agreed with him evacuated their women and children in the ships and then manned their triremes (warships) in preparation for the battle with the foe. This interpretation of the oracle proved correct, and the naval battle at Salamis was the turning point of the Persian war. The riddle of the oracle had been solved, and with it, Persia was vanquished.

Another oracle given by Delphi, one which was not so hard to figure out, was an answer given to a Roman statesman and lawyer named Cicero. His question was how he could find the greatest fame. Apollo, through the Pythia, replied:

make your own nature, not the advice of others, your guide in life.

Cicero did so, studying both philosophy and persuasive speaking, which served him well in the Senate and for which he is now famous. His books on Divination and On the Nature of the Gods are stimulating reading for Pagans even today. You may not agree with everything he says, but that's one of the main points of philosophy... thinking for yourself.

Do you see any similarities between how these oracles were interpreted and how modern Pagans perform divination now?

In the spirit of thinking and riddles, here is a question for you:

Some Neoplatonist philosophers argued that people should pray in the following way:

Wherefore we should pray to God for that which is worthy of Him, and we should pray for what we could attain from none other... Neither ask of God what you will not hold fast when you have attained it, since God's gifts cannot be taken from you, and He will not give what you will not hold fast.

Although the term "God" is used here, philosophers like Porphyry are Pagan. The term God can be thought of as a personal God that one communicated with, or a high God among many.

So what is it that he's referring to here? What is it that could only be given by a God, and that once it is given, can never be lost? It's not things like money or objects, because those can obviously be taken away. It might not even be something like strength, because bodily strength can also be lost or taken away.

Any ideas?

(P.S. You don't have to agree with this idea to speculate about what it might mean.)

I want to share with everyone this fun and informative powerpoint presentation that I ran across recently.

I don't know who created it, but I imagine that the lecture that probably accompanied this was similarly engaging.

Some things I like about it is that it spells out the different branches of philosophy, and it also brings up the importance of the dialectic in philosophy. Dialectic, debate, dialogue, [insert other D-word here] is something very useful in philosophy and will come up again, I'm sure. :)

What I don't agree with in this lecture is the portrayal of Chaos towards the end (or as it looks in ancient Greek, Xaos). To the modern mind, those might be fitting images of chaos in the modern sense, but to the ancient Greeks, Xaos was simply a void, or a gap. It was a space of potentiality where nothing existed and nothing had occurred... YET. Xaos was the first primordial Divinity, the "Prime Mover", in Hesiod's creation myth. This void of pure space held infinite possibility for the future, and is regarded as such even today by some modern Chaotes.

The slides in the presentation depicting "Xaos" might have been better attributed to "Enyo", the city-sacking Goddess of war and female counterpart of Ares Enyalios. Destructive Perses might also fit the bill.

What helpful, provoking, interesting, or even maddening things stood out for you in the powerpoint?

Coming soon: a philosophical riddle.......

When people today think of Greek philosophy, most think of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Yet when ancient Athenians educated their children, they'd teach them Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. These were the national poems of the culture, and were not only used for education, but also for divination and protection (a spell in the PGM entails writing a certain verse on a tiny scroll and concealing it in an amulet).

These philosophers, however, may not have agreed with that. Plato's Republic describes his version of an ideal city in which children are raised to be ideal citizens and philosopher-kings. In this "ideal city," however, he bans poetry because, in his view, poets have the power to distort reality with their words.

Would Plato have banned the Illiad and Odyssey, two epics so important to the Athenian culture? Hard to say, but one thing that's clear is that Homer and Plato had some pretty different ideas about what the Gods were like. Plato also goes further and articulates what he believes to be a "quarrel between poetry and philosophy," which is a much wider disagreement than whether the Gods have feelings or not. His argument cuts to the heart of how people determine truth. In a nutshell, he believes that only philosophy in all its rigor can deliver Truth with a capital T, and poetry such as Homer writes are dangerous fantasies that are too often mistaken for truth.

Oh, dear. That's a heavy charge, and one worth considering. If Plato were to come to a modern Pagan circle and listen to our modern, poetic invocations and stories of the Gods, would he scoff? Would he accuse modern Pagans of believing too much in fantasy?

In Homer's defense, though, Sannion made a blog post a few weeks ago in which he provided samples of helpful teaching quotes from these great epics.

What do you think? Have you read the Illiad, the Odyssey, or another Pagan epic? Can poetry such as this be trusted to contain truth?

I'm starting this series on the ancient philosophers with the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. This philosopher-emperor was one of the most important Stoic philosophers, and his book of Meditations is relevant and well-regarded today.

The Stoics agreed with Aristotle that the goal of human life was to be happy. Unlike some other philosophers, they believed that the greatest happiness could be found in possessing human virtue. It didn't matter what happened to you, in their view, you could still be happy simply by having the virtuous qualities of self-control, wisdom, courage, justice, and so on. They thought things like wealth, health, and prestige, though nice, weren't necessary to achieve the finest human goal in life.

What do you think about this? Is it possible to live a happy life simply by possessing virtue? Is it possible to be happy without health or wealth?

Here is one of my favorite quotes from this Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. It's found in Book 5, meditation 9.

Do not be disgusted, nor discouraged, nor dissatisfied, if you do not succeed in doing everything according to right principles; but when you have failed, return back again, and be content if the greater part of what you do is consistent with human nature, and love that to which you return.

And do not return to philosophy as if she were a master, but act like those who have sore eyes and apply a bit of sponge and egg, or as another applies a plaster, or drenching with water. For thus you will not fail to obey reason, and you will repose in it.

And remember that philosophy requires only the things which human nature requires; but you would have something else which is not according to nature. -- It may be objected, Why what is more agreeable than this which I am doing?-- But is not this the very reason why pleasure deceives us?

And consider if magnanimity, freedom, simplicity, equanimity, piety, are not more agreeable. For what is more agreeable than wisdom itself, when you think of the security and the happy course of all things which depend on the faculty of understanding and knowledge?