Heraclitus, now I recall, does expound the notion of the logos. How stupid of me! Trust me to remember important stuff! :groan:

Anyway, what I'm worried about is that we could be mistaken as to what the word "logos" means. Perhaps it doesn't have a meaning and is more like ... a reminder, a knot in the handkerchief.

As per Witty, the meaning of "logos" is its use (re: context). "John of Patmos" and Heraclitus of Ephesus clearly used "logos" differently. :roll:

Anyway, what I'm worried about is that we could be mistaken as to what the word "logos" means. — Agent Smith

The New Advent Encyclopedia entry is a starting point.


https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

Danke, kind sir, for the link.

As per Witty, the meaning of "logos" is its use (re: context). "John of Patmos" and Heraclitus of Ephesus clearly used "logos" differently — 180 Proof

Yep, that's what I suspected, although in a much plainer and simpler way than the great Wittgenstein thought
That means we're all being taken to watch the same movie, but we each return home with very different ideas of what the movie is about. @Gnomon, sound familiar? Happens all the time in me tiny world.

Heraclitus, now I recall, does expound the notion of the logos. How stupid of me! Trust me to remember important stuff! — Agent Smith

No need to remember it. It is right there in the quote:

Having harkened not to me but to the Word (Logos) it is wise to agree that all things are one. (B50)

:up: Mercie beaucoup.

That means we're all being taken to watch the same movie, but we each return home with very different ideas of what the movie is about. — Agent Smith

That may be, but "meaning is use" means we must attend to how the word is being used. The etymology is helpful. The root 'leg -' means to collect or gather. When Heraclitus says:

Listen not to me but to the logos

this may be hard to understand, he is, after all, saying it. But if we think in terms of the root, he has gathered together in one place what he has heard from the logos itself. He is not speaking but allowing the logos to be heard.

the Greeks, for some reason, thought it necessary to find the arche. Quare? — Agent Smith

If by "the Greeks" you mean philosophical thinkers, the necessity for knowing the "arche" is inherent in the frame of reference. Typically, most people, are proximate thinkers, restricting their observations to what's directly in front of them. But philosophers seem to be, by nature, ultimate thinkers. They see, with physical eyes, the proximate reality, but then look up and seek, with metaphysical vision, the beginnings & endings of the presumed continuum of reality. Generally, they do it by extrapolation (inference) from the known to the unknown. Hence, if they notice that nature has produced the inborn talent for rational thinking in humans, they presume that the ability to "seek" logical patterns must have originated in the eternal Essence of Reality.

Therefore, having no notion of a Big Bang beginning (something from nothing) they reasoned that a logical principle must have existed eternally, beyond space & time. Ordinary concrete-thinking Greeks referred to that immortal Source of human-like reasoning*1 as "God" or "gods". But, the abstract-thinking philosophers preferred a pure Source beyond the reach of human deception. And they labelled that hypothetical ultimate origin as "Principle"*2. Those un-real imaginary concepts were idealized as straightforward and non-devious, hence trustworthy.

Likewise, Pythagoras seemed to imagine all eternal principles as Mathematical abstractions of real-world geometry, with crystalline purity. Mathematics (art ; information) was understood as the underlying immaterial cause & structure of reality. But some of his concrete-thinking followers began to worship those mysterious mystical non-things as-if they were humanoid gods. So, it seems that most people prefer to think of their Arche in familiar personal real forms, instead of alien impersonal ideals. Which view is correct may depend on the pre-conceptions of the thinkers. :smile:



*1. Reasoning :
Inference from sensory knowledge (percepts) to extra-sensory (imaginary) knowledge (concepts).
Note -- Since most animals seemed to lack such extra-sensory perception, the average person assumed that it was a magical ability. Hence, from a divine source. But, philosophical thinkers tended to be skeptical of shamanic trickery. So, they offered the abstract notion of natural-but-non-human Ultimate or Eternal Principles.

*2. Principle :
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Anyway, what I'm worried about is that we could be mistaken as to what the word "logos" means. Perhaps it doesn't have a meaning and is more like ... a reminder, a knot in the handkerchief. — Agent Smith

I guess this explains why you are disengaged from the various attempts made in this discussion to distinguish between different possible meanings. But I don't understand what you mean by likening it to a "reminder."

I feel like I am standing at the boundary of a private language.

I guess this explains why you are disengaged from the various attempts made in this discussion to distinguish between different possible meanings. But I don't understand what you mean by likening it to a "reminder."

I feel like I am standing at the boundary of a private language. — Paine

I don't have a private language, if that's what you're implying. It's a reminder in the sense of what's essential to philosophy.

So, more of a silence? Talking about logos won't help?

So, more of a silence? Talking about logos won't help? — Paine

Perhaps ... what is philosophy?

I was asking you that since you seemed to suggest the discussion was missing the mark.

I was asking you that since you seemed to suggest the discussion was missing the mark — Paine

I may have misspoken mon ami. Anyway, I'm going with what you hadta say about the arche.

↪Paine
Is it ironic then that the New Advent encyclopedia, in its entry on Logos, says
It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. — Wayfarer

I think the Author of John's gospel was trying to rationalize the death of the Christian Messiah/King before his mission was accomplished. So, he argued that the messianic prophecies referred to an eternal spirit being instead of a temporal physical person. In other words, an abstract principle, not a flesh & blood human leader, as the Jews assumed. Hence, today a leather-bound book can be called "The Word" of God.

The original Greek term referred not to a messianic personal savior, but to a universal timeless Potential for rational thinking (expressed in words), that was Actualized in homo sapiens. Hence, John deliberately changed the referent to suit his own rationale for the death of the son of God : the god-man may have died physically, but the revelation (message) is immortal.

Heraclitus -- who died 3 centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus -- obviously was not an actual Christian. But his philosophical notion of an eternal principle of Logic was Christianized by a Greco-Jew, probably under the influence of Paul's spiritualized Judaism. Ironically, John's appropriated "Word" is now better-known than Heraclitus' original "Logos". My 2cents worth. :smile:


Logos :
What is the definition of logos? The Lexham Bible Dictionary defines logos (λόγος) as “a concept word in the Bible symbolic of the nature and function of Jesus Christ. It is also used to refer to the revelation of God in the world.” Logos is a noun that occurs 330 times in the Greek New Testament. Of course, the word doesn’t always—in fact, it usually doesn’t—carry symbolic meaning. Its most basic and common meaning is simply “word,” “speech,” “utterance,” or “message.”
https://www.logos.com/grow/greek-word-logos-meaning/

I've very briefly perused something of the history of the synthesis of Greek and Hebrew thought which characterised the early Christian era. It is a deep and recondite topic! I have the impression that Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others of that genre were profound intellects (and note that Origen was anathematised for the 'monstrous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul').

The annointing of some of the Greek philosophers as 'Christians before Christ' was partially a recognition of Greek wisdom, and also a way of trying to harmonise Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation. This was a process of synthesis that took place over centuries or even millenia. But there were always deep tensions in that project, as foreshadowed by the Biblical exclamation, what has Athens to do with Jerusalem? and Jesus' wisdom as representing foolishness to the Greeks'. There nevertheless was a profound synthesis of the two in the early medieval period notably Eriugena and the mysterious 'pseudo-Dionysius'. But the tensions became truly manifest with Luther, I think, who excorciated Aristotle's influence on Aquinas.

Also don't overlook the ubiquitous presence of the word 'logos' in all of the disciplines with the suffix '-logy' (psychology, ecology, etc.)

Also interesting analysis of how Aquinas reconciled 'creation ex nihilo' with the Greek 'nothing comes from nothing' http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html

:up:

:up:

---

The logos has been hijacked by Christianity in which it's equated with Jesus; this proves how important the idea is, but unfortunately, not how true it is.

The annointing of some of the Greek philosophers as 'Christians before Christ' was partially a recognition of Greek wisdom, and also a way of trying to harmonise Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation. — Wayfarer

Most world religions are motivated by faith in a cultural worldview, and/or by obeisance to a politico-religious regime. Yet Christianity was unique in its adoption of critical Reason, in addition to compliant Faith : both mindless repetitious "works" (sacrifices ; rituals), and critical "faith" (justification of faith)*1.

The Jews of Jesus' era, with no central temple, had become characterized by argumentative critical faith, due in part to its decentralized local synagogues, and in part to the imperial influence of the analytical Greek culture. Early Christians merely built upon that foundation, even as they rejected the "primitive" origins of Hebraism/Judaism in idolatry.

So, yes. I think they were impressed by the superior "wisdom" of the Greco/Roman culture, that allowed it to dominate the known world militarily and culturally. Yet those who did not wish to "harmonize" with "barbarian" gentiles remained isolated as non-conforming Jews. And that "arrogant" independence has caused them to be persecuted outcasts, even among those who claimed to worship the God of Abraham. :smile:


*1. The fundamentalist religion of my youth was a "critical faith". We learned to defend our Faith with reasons, and to be skeptical of other people's Faith, that did not conform to our rationale. Ironically, I turned that outward skepticism inwardly toward my own bible-based-beliefs. The faithless result was a philosophical Agnostic.

The logos has been hijacked by Christianity in which it's equated with Jesus; this proves how important the idea is, but unfortunately, not how true it is. — Agent Smith

Well, I know you're gone but your spirit lives on....I think of Spinoza and Leibniz's usage of "the divine mind" or the "the divine intellect." That's the only legitimate sense in which we can seek to conceive of the possibility of God. Maybe you will apprehend this somehow still, in your nebulous anonymity...

Arche: Beginning, origin, first principle (a basic assumption/proposition that can't be deduced from any other proposition/assumption), substratum (Aristotle). — Agent Smith

In its most basic conclusion, one can argue that the concept of "Arche" is the basis from which fire, water, earth and air, which were so prevalent in ancient Greek conceptions, become substances - that is, they become unto existence -.

"Arche", as a metaphysical idea, is, therefore the "Arche".