If frogs had wings.... Translating ancient Greek words should carry a warning label. νοῦς, or νοός, generally translates as mind - that is, translates. I have no idea what it meant to a then native speaker. In use it refers to or implies much of what a mind might do or contain.

I am unaware of any reference in Ancient Greek to anything like modern intelligence. And subject to correction, I don't think there are any.

I have no idea what it meant to a then native speaker. — tim wood

I mean, over time the Greek nous, has come to mean, at least philosophically, as mind or intellect.

In use it refers to or implies much of what a mind might do or contain.

I am unaware of any reference in Ancient Greek to anything like modern intelligence. And subject to correction, I don't think there are any. — tim wood

As, I said, over time some sort of reification occured and is modernly associated with intelligence, no?

I mean, over time the Greek nous, has come to mean, at least philosophically, as mind or intellect. — Shawn

If the point of the thread is between a Greek and a modern thought, you shall have to at least wear yourself out, and the patience of all readers, with carefully expressed understandings, with references, within which being done, likely all questions will either be answered or dissolved.

I think intellect in a modern sense is a modern invention; that is, an attempt to quantify, and in quantifying to think about different quantities and the possibilities of differing quantities. I opine here that the Greek mind was all about qualities, thus in a sense given as such, with a host of other qualities that men might have.

I opine here that the Greek mind was all about qualities, thus in a sense given as such, with a host of other qualities that men might have. — tim wood

:up: I know it is hackneyed to link to Wikipedia entries, but the entry on Nous is really pretty decent.

I think the key idea is that nous is the faculty which sees 'what truly is'. So 'intellect' is a fair translation, although the word does have qualitative overtones, as you suggest, which 'intellect' now lacks.

In the Aristotelian scheme, nous is the basic understanding or awareness that allows human beings to think rationally. For Aristotle, this was distinct from the processing of sensory perception, including the use of imagination and memory, which other animals can do. This therefore connects discussion of nous to discussion of how the human mind sets definitions in a consistent and communicable way, and whether people must be born with some innate potential to understand the same universal categories in the same logical ways. Deriving from this it was also sometimes argued, especially in classical and medieval philosophy, that the individual nous must require help of a spiritual and divine type. By this type of account, it came to be argued that the human understanding (nous) somehow stems from this cosmic nous, which is however not just a recipient of order, but a creator of it.

Just a passing thought; but, if intelligence is what Plato called nous, then is its modern assessment defined by psychometrics testing, as IQ? — Shawn

Testing for IQ does reveal ability to perform well in the controlled environment of the test itself. Some people who are capable in this sense are also able to do other things, others, not so much.

Is the idea of Nous an expectation to understand more than we do or an explanation for why we are so clueless despite strenuous efforts to be less ignorant?

The word nous comes from the root gno- from which gnoos > noos, and it signifies the knower, i.e., that within us that is aware, knows, and understands.

In Plato it refers to a higher form of intelligence that is aware of higher metaphysical realities, but it also is used in the more general sense of mind. In the latter sense it may well be assessed in modern IQ tests.

I don’t believe that is correct. The root ‘gn-‘ is found in ‘gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘Jñāna’ but according to etymology online ‘nous’ is a separate root meaning ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’.

Plato distinguishes between the visible and the intelligible, what can be seen with the eyes and what is seen by the intellect (nous) itself by itself. It has nothing to do with 'IQ' assessment.

Totally different things. (apples & oranges)

Interest in intelligence dates back thousands of years. But it wasn't until psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned to identify students who needed educational assistance that the first intelligent quotient (IQ) test was born. Although it has its limitations, and it has many lookalikes that use far less rigorous measurements, Binet's IQ test is well-known around the world as a way to compare intelligence. https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581

Late 17th century (in nous (sense 2)): from Greek, ‘mind, intelligence, intuitive apprehension’.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/nous

Here's a lecture about Nous. YouTube

I don’t believe that is correct. The root ‘gn-‘ is found in ‘gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘Jñāna’ but according to etymology online ‘nous’ is a separate root meaning ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’. — Wayfarer

Well, etymology is not an exact science and, ultimately, we have no hard evidence for any of this.

But, see for example:

Understanding the reflexes of PIE *ǵneh3- in Sanskrit, Latin and Greek

And:

νόος – LSJ

If noos is unrelated to gno, "to know", then where does it come from?

according to what I can find 'nous' an Attic Greek word of uncertain origin.

I think it's important to differentiate Plato from gnosticism generally. I don't know that much about it but I do know that Plotinus was opposed to the Gnostics.

The LSJ link I posted above does derive it from "gno", to know:

Étymologie: R. Γνω connaître ; cf. γιγνώσκω.

Nous has been derived from words or roots meaning "to swim", "to sniff", "to spin", etc. none of which is conclusive.

One interesting derivation is from neomai, “to return”:

More recently, νοῦς has been linked with νέομαι and νόστος (to return, the return) and derived ultimately from the Indo-European root *nes, meaning 'a return from death and darkness'. On this view, νοῦς arises out of the religious conception of the return to conscious life.

James H. Lesher: The Meaning of ΝΟΥΣ in the Posterior Analytics. In: Phronesis 18, 1973, S. 44–68, hier: 47f.

However, whatever the etymological origins, it does refer to that aspect of the soul that knows either directly or by means of sensory perception.

but, if intelligence is what Plato called nous — Shawn

Well, some philologists interpret "Nous" as a term much closer to the modern etymology of "Good Sense", which is made up of a much more accessible and easily understood meaning than some more complex terms like "Intellect", or "Consciousness", an interpretation that states that the ancient Greek "Nous" and the modern "Good Sense" still contain the same etymological essence, which would be "Tradition".

"Nous" would, therefore, be "the understanding, categorization, and decision made by one empowered by the knowledge of the Greek tradition".

For us, it only remains to theorize and interpret about their texts, since, for the true understanding of classical Greek metaphysics, one has to think like an ancient Greek, something that is no longer possible.

For us, it only remains to theorize and interpret about their texts, since, for the true understanding of classical Greek metaphysics, one has to think like an ancient Greek, something that is no longer possible. — Gus Lamarch

Another difficulty is that not all Greeks saw the nous in exactly the same way. But I think we can still get some idea as to what the nous means in Plato. In the Cratylus, Socrates says:

The ancients seem to have had the same belief about Athena as the interpreters of Homer have now; for most of these, in commenting on the poet, say that he represents Athena as mind (νοῦς) and intellect (διάνοια); and the maker of her name seems to have had a similar conception of her, but he gives her the still grander title of “mind of God” ἡ θεοῦ νόησις, seeming to say that she is a ἁ θεονόα … he may have called her Theonoe because she has unequalled knowledge of divine things (τὰ θεῖα νοοῦσα) … Perhaps, too, he may have wished to identify the goddess with wisdom of character (ἐν ἤθει νόησις）by calling her Ethonoe (Crat. 407a-c).

Socrates here seems to equate nous with knowledge and wisdom. Elsewhere he says that the nous remembers, etc. So, at least theoretically, it should be possible to measure some of the faculties of the nous by means of modern IQ tests. Though others probably are less measurable by scientific methods.

The main difference to the modern scientific view of intelligence is that Plato's nous exists independently of the physical body whose death it survives.

It's easy to forget that from about 300 CE to at least the seventeenth century education was explicitly ideological. In my youth I was taught to write in Latin syntax, or else. the idea of intelligence is very much a hangover of that tradition. It's tempting to cherry-pick Plato, but I think a more expansive reading will reveal that he frequently changes his terms, explicitly to prevent the kind of sclerotic view some express here. Please, never rely on a simplistic reading. Multiple contexts of a term need to be considered. And always keep in mind the more encompassing drama of the personalities involved.

Perhaps, too, he may have wished to identify the goddess with wisdom of character (ἐν ἤθει νόησις）by calling her Ethonoe (Crat. 407a-c).

Perhaps he is saying "wisdom of character' = ethos.

"ek pantos noou" : with all one's heart.

Just one sense cited in Liddel and Scott. But heart, ardent feeling, is hardly a repudiation of physical reality. "Mens", however, is a repudiation of Greek richness relative to Latin sterility.

Perhaps he is saying "wisdom of character' = ethos. — Gary M Washburn

Perhaps. But he literally says "noesis en ethei", "wisdom in ethos", which seems to differentiate noesis from ethos.

The true origins of Platonism make an interesting topic and Kingsley does make some good points. Unfortunately, his In the Dark Places of Wisdom was published by the Golden Sufi Center, which raises some questions as the Center tries to link Irina Tweedie and Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee with a "Sufi" chain going back to prophet Mohammad. :smile:

Golden Sufi Center

Worth reading though.

A. Uzdavinys takes a similar but more conventional stance in The Golden Chain.

Then what of sophia? Actually, it is fairly commonplace to associate the meaning of terms with the character of its people. The movie Tolkien has a scene where a philology professor waxes rapturously about the derivation of the word "oak". The life of a people, he extols. I beg to differ, and I think Plato, ultimately, does too. Words just mean what we discipline each other to bring to them. Conventional wisdom inhibits our ability to inspire that discipline in each other, and amounts to an evasion. That's why Socrates keeps his dialectic so personal and refuses to permit second hand views. All the world offers us is a venue within which to prove to each other it is not who we really are, and that proof is the genius of language, and the origin of terms by which we know ourselves and each other.

:100:

It occurs to me that English, or any modern language, is in itself a thing to be known, and a body of knowledge extant to tell you what it is, thus a generally agreed thing. And what makes it so is for the most part books, wide-spread and accessible media, technology, and a general need for comprehensive mutual understanding.

But not so for ancient languages. Greek, for example, is thought to have been letterless, without writing, from about 1250 - 750 BCE. And the Greek that became the Common (koine), that of Alexander, spread by his conquests from Mid-Mediterranean to Afghanistan, and without satellites, cell-phones, TV, or the internet, must have at all points retained a strong local flavor, grammar, syntax, and meanings. One thinks of the dockworkers of Malta, and the landlocked merchants near the borders of Afghanistan. From that it seems reasonable to think of Greek not as meanings that speakers accessed to communicate, although to be sure that must have a been a part of it. But rather as meanings - intentions - in the speakers that they attempted to find expression for in language. Thus, not what did a word mean, but what was a speaker trying to say.

Which makes translation almost automatically an exercise in anachronism, and of the egos of translators trying to make a living.

The written word was invented to depersonalize language. Monumentalism and rent tallies. Only the Greeks became literate without some imperial suppression of popular will. The first appearance of Greek (linear B) are ribald wisecracks on a bit of pottery. Other writing lays down the law, Greek is born in flippancy.

Then what of sophia? — Gary M Washburn

Good question.

Philosophy was in its infancy. There were no exact technical terms in the modern sense. And even in modern usage the same word can have different meanings, depending on the context.

We also need to remember that Plato was a Greek who wrote for Greek speakers. Even in the Roman Empire those who wanted to learn philosophy started by learning Greek. In fact, the higher classes in the Roman Empire would have learned Greek as part of their education.

The real problem starts when we insist on reading Ancient Greek authors in English or other modern languages. This is why, personally, I would leave key terms like nous untranslated.

Having said that, Socrates/Plato does make a clear distinction between body (soma) and “soul” (psyche). And nous is associated with psyche.

“Wisdom”, “knowledge”, etc, are the various modern translations of Greek words like phronesis and gnosis.

Socrates says that strictly speaking the epithet “wise” (sophos) befits God alone (Phaedrus 278d).

It may be inferred from this that sophia is a higher, if not highest, form of wisdom. But this doesn’t exclude the possibility of humans having some degree of sophia in certain matters. So, again, it would depend on the context ….

It's easy to forget that from about 300 CE to at least the seventeenth century education was explicitly ideological. In my youth I was taught to write in Latin syntax, or else. the idea of intelligence is very much a hangover of that tradition. — Gary M Washburn

Fact, for over 1000 years, "intelligence" was synonymous with "ideology" and "dogma", both of which are supported by the traditions of its cultures.

It is not by chance that, when philologists who defend the theory that "Nous" has its foundation in the etymological concept of "tradition", they quote Aristotle's passage on Hermotimus of Clazomenae and his hypothesis on the concept of "Nous"; with the interpretation that such a concept is synonymous with "tradition", the understanding of classical Greek thought of the period becomes much more easily digestible:

"Hermotimus of Clazomenae, was a philosopher who first proposed, before Anaxagoras, the idea of ​​mind being fundamental in the cause of change." - The Metaphysics, Aristotle

- Standard translation of Aristotle's passage on the thought of Hermotimus. Note that with the term "Nous" translated to "Mind", the passage becomes much more complex and needlessly requiring knowledge that perhaps even the intellectuals of the era could not find an easily digestible answer. -

"Hermotimus of Clazomenae, was a philosopher who first proposed, before Anaxagoras, the idea of ​​tradition being fundamental in the cause of change."

- If translated as "tradition", the passage becomes much more objective than subjective, as it is based on the foundations of the Greek civilization of the period - values ​​and morals - which were extensively studied and theorized about, and which, were already known - even if subconsciously - by the overwhelming majority of the population -

Therefore, it is concluded that the meaning of the term "Nous" went through a gradual and complete "misunderstanding" due to the prestige directed to the thinkers of the Greek period by later scholars, who - by no longer having an objective "natural" basis of the world, but one based on the subjectivity of transcendental metaphysics - moved the concept away from its practical-real substantiation, and turned it into something different, which is debated, without any conclusion, to this day.

Odd remarks, considering that most sources claim Greek was lost to Western Europe for the duration in question. More accurately it was censored, not lost. But some Greek scholars still persisted, and Constantinople lasted until the fifteenth century, when it finally fell to the Turks, with a little help from crusaders. In other words, for a thousand years the terms in question were discussed in Latin as Latin terms, not Greek at all.

Socrates here seems to equate nous with knowledge and wisdom. Elsewhere he says that the nous remembers, etc. — Apollodorus

Another situation where if replaced by "Tradition", the meaning of the passage would become more easily understandable.

It is unanimous that the classical Greeks - if not even the Mycenaeans - understood reality through a dichotomy between the natural and what makes "Man" distinct from all reality - the concept of Nous -, and therefore, it seems to me that their conception was that "what distinguishes Man from nature is his ability to choose the consciousness of following the values and principles that make him a Man".

In any case, "Nous" would most likely be better synthesized contemporarily by the creation of a new term that encompasses "mind/intellect/reason" and "tradition/common sense".

I was under the impression phronesis and sophrosune were synonyms, usually (incorrectly) translated as "prudence". Sophia appears as a root in many words, bringing it a bit more down to earth than divine wisdom. I've gotten the impression, from reading Plato specifically (I am not a Greek scholar and read other Greek authors sparingly and with not a lot of interest, and I still need a list of the Greek alphabet to navigate my Liddell and Scott) that his sense of sophrosune is 'wisdom of moment'. or catching the situation perfectly, always setting just the right tone.

In other words, for a thousand years the terms in question were discussed in Latin as Latin terms, not Greek at all. — Gary M Washburn

The point to which I refer also encompasses the medieval Latin Christian world, which contributed more to erasing the objective foundation of the term - Nous - than to clarifying and definitively concluding the meaning itself.

These biased translations for the Latin Christian world, and for the Islamic Arabic world, only made modern and contemporary investigations into the "literality" of the writings of the Greeks even more difficult.

Anyway, I believe that the most correct way to define a "literal" translation of "Nous" would be through the use of the Latin-Greek language, because even if we could not develop a term capable of comprehending completely what "Nous" was for the ancients, it would be our greatest possibility of understanding more of such a term.

In any case, "Nous" would most likely be better synthesized contemporarily by the creation of a new term that encompasses "mind/intellect/reason" and "tradition/common sense". — Gus Lamarch

However, considering that there is a tradition to use Greek or Latin when creating new words, we may simplify matters by keeping the original nous.

In any case, "Nous" would most likely be better synthesized contemporarily by the creation of a new term that encompasses "mind/intellect/reason" and "tradition/common sense". — Gus Lamarch

τέχνη (technei)?