The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEnXHTytX3s

The article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm

What Plato wrote in The Phaedrus:

Socrates: "At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth [Thoth]; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters.

Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts.

But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality."

What do you think? Has a reliance on writing been partially responsible for a deterioration of the human memory? Do you think people had better memories in ancient times than they do today?

Can our memories be improved now, or are we stuck with the memory capacities we were born with? Has anybody tried any memory-enhancing exercises? Did it work?

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?

This blog now has a mirror site over on LiveJournal. I did this because I have some friends over there who requested it, but also, LiveJournal's format allows people to comment on other people's comments, which is a nice feature for a blog about philosophy.

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.......