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".

What has philosophy answered for use in the previous 100 years? — TiredThinker

Contemporary philosophy has answered one of our biggest doubts:

- Are we, as humans, with or without God, morally good?

And the phenomenological answer that the synthesis of the last century gave us was:

- No.

We live, then, in an age of uncertainty and rediscovery, as metaphysical as physical.

In the end, only one thing is certain: - We will never stop questioning ourselves.

How comical it is to be able to read the biased opinions of self-proclaimed political critics and foreign pseudo-philosophers about my own country's elections.

These elections were not about the right or the left, but about freedom of expression or authoritarianism inspired by Stalinism.

While you entertain yourselves watching us fall, your politicians are destroying your economies, principles, values and liberties exactly as the left has tried to do here.

The moment your people elect a politician who has explicit agreements with the organized crime world, perhaps then, only then, you'll abandon the illusions that are preached upon you.

And for all those who worship the words of "legitimized" institutes - whatever "legitimized" means -, here are a few, very few sources about the many crimes committed by the politician you see as the "savior" of Brazil:

Lula é Condenado por Corrupção e Lavagem de Dinheiro

PT e sua Relação com o PCC

Lula é Condenado no Caso do Triplex

Lula é Apontado como o Mandante do Mensalão

[All sources are in Brazilian Portuguese precisely because if you all would like to give your opinion on the internal affairs of our nation, learn to read our language]

You can communally recognize the suffering — schopenhauer1

And that's Christianity for you people.

But going back to the "You can try" of Nietzsche..
If I was to force people into working for X reason (to keep my company going, profits, to keep humanity buzzing along), my greatest idea would be to make the people think that they are struggling for themselves in some magnificent Ubermensch sort of way.. All my workers trying to outdo themselves because they all think they are little ubermenschs :lol: :lol:.

See, his philosophy can be coopted so easy to manipulate and at the end, it is just a conceit of a (seemingly coked-up) 19th century philosopher. — schopenhauer1

Nietzsche's perception and his manuscripts reflect his reality in a 19th century Europe.

Opportunists, no matter what era they find themselves in, have always distorted people, their deeds, ideas and sayings. However, the intrinsic purpose of "trying" still replaces suffering indefinitely.

The concept of "Ubermensch" is utopian indeed, however, the "path" to it is not, for, with a purpose, suffering can disappear.

SO neoliberalism is a religion. — Banno

You could say that Communism, Socialism, Fascism, even some modern social movements are "religion-like" too.

Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

It's just a bland term that encompasses all the dogmas and rules that an intellectual minority superimposes on a civilization in order to remain in power indefinitely.

Of course, that is, if we are looking at the concept of "religion" with completely unbiased eyes.

Nietzsche was a dick. — schopenhauer1

This is no argument.

He was trying to be the anti-Schopenhauer. If Schopenhauer observed how the world was about striving after and we should thus retreat (for Schop asceticism and for Mainlander full on suicide of the self), then Nietzsche was going to come up with the Eternal Return.. That is live life over and over as if you were going to return and do it again.. In other words, try to embrace it enthusiastically (and in my spin on it, manically). Be the most gung-ho worker.. but even better be the gung-ho mountain climber or painter, or whatever.. He wanted you to try to be as much about doing in the world as possible. He wanted you to conquer, the world, and yourself by active participation. Opposite of this is Schopenhauer who wanted to retreat as the source of suffering was the eternal willing nature that must be controlled or perhaps denied altogether. — schopenhauer1

Even though both authors are in complete disagreement, I do not believe that Schopenhauer's ascetic philosophy is also an answer to the suffering of existence.

Nietzsche argues that "since life is only suffering, let us at least try not to regret witnessing this same constant suffering for the rest of eternity".

It is far more honorable to face the changeless and the indifferent than to simply surrender to the damnation of existence.

And the value that Nietzsche preaches in his argumentation of the conflict between the individual and the eternal - existence - is one that is made of pride for the individual itself.

In your last moments of suffering, just before death takes you, at least you can remember your attempts and your struggles with suffering, and then, only then, you can be proud of trying.

There it is: - Of trying...

Nietzsche does not theorize a victory over existence, for such a fact is incapable of being realized.

Existence IS; We were, are and will be - the human being is fleeting.

Until now we have talked through four scenarios:

You can give up - Mainländer -;
You can cry - Cioran -;
You can isolate yourself from the world - Schopenhauer -;
You can try - Nietzsche -.

While life is subjective, existence is not, so even if we try any of the above options, suffering will still remain being a thing of those who exist.

What do you mean by "eternalize collective suffering"? Resentful people would not like to make collective suffering permanent.. at least as a pessimistic therapy. — schopenhauer1

People who carry resentment end up being the most unsuccessful both individually and interpersonally in existence.

Indirectly - or, in worse cases, directly - people with this trait - resentment - end only developing more resentful people.

Nietzsche said about Christians:

“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

and I'm saying this of resentful people:

“The resentful's resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

And schopenhauer1, to communally recognize, and empathize about the situation. Collective understanding of tragedy. Consolation of shared understanding. Cioran was doing the same thing in a way because he published his work. He was sharing his thoughts.. having a dialogue with the public, held some interviews and discussed with friends. — schopenhauer1

Yet, I still believe that in a comparison of both scenarios - of an introspective or externalizing pessimism - it is noticeable that if taken as something to share with others, the possibility of a resentful community emerging grows tremendously.

And resentful people eternalize collective suffering.

Indeed, Mainlander seems pretty committed to promortalism, not just antinatalism. I understand where he's coming from. There is no escape from the constant dissatisfaction once it is set in motion for each individual. — schopenhauer1

Mainländer's philosophy is built on a Schopenhauerian basis, as his main question is "how to end any and all hostility to the Self", however, Mainlander not only sees all existence as suffering, but also the very concepts that make existence possible, as "Time" and "Entropy", for entropy in his perception is nothing more than the "decay" - aka death - of everything that was, is and will be, part of existence, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational, etc...

The final conclusion of the "Philosophy of Redemption" is that only death can free Man from suffering, so Mainländer argues that suicide is a real possibility and that it must be chosen - he took his own life after completing the publication of his work -.

Philipp does not fight pessimism, for it is the only answer to the grand question of the purpose of existence, and his answer to it is:

- You should give it up.

E.M. Cioran — schopenhauer1

Cioran is a pessimist who, unlike Mainlander, decided to prolong the suffering of existence in direct response to the very concept of suffering.

Both came to the same conclusion, however, Cioran, in a maniacal way, decided to laugh at the pain.

I’m guessing your preference is for modernist, realist philosophy. — Joshs

Indeed.

Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition. — schopenhauer1

And that's why the 19th century German philosopher Philipp Mainländer claimed that "non-existence" is better than "existence" because in a reductive analysis of both, in the case of "existence" you only have "suffering", or in your own words, "boredom", while in "non-existence", you simply have "nothing" - in his after-death perception -.

Between conscious suffering and not being conscious, which of the two options - in this scenario of pessimism - would be the most satisfying?

"But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!” - Philipp Mainländer, The Philosophy of Redemption

“ one must ask whether Nietzsche really thinks that
our animal origins are “shameful,” and whether humans are really “higher” than the primates. For when we compare the probity and rigor (as well as the surprising cohesiveness) of Nietzsche’s naturalism with his more traditional and anthropocentric remarks about apes, the
latter seem conceptually insubstantial and incoherent. As we have seen, Nietzsche’s naturalism questions the very speciesism that he himself occasionally falls back upon. But precisely because the tension between these two elements is so obvious and explicit, we should be
careful not to draw hasty conclusions about the consistency of Nietzsche’s thought. It seems unlikely that a thinker as nuanced—and as sensitive to the art of writing—as Nietzsche would have so quickly forgotten his own insights. Rather, when Nietzsche exhumes the traditional anthropocentric assumptions about primates, he is more probably exploiting his readers’ popular prejudices for rhetorical effect, while at the same time retaining an ironic distance from such conceits.”(Peter Groff, Who is Zarathustra’s Ape?) — Joshs

In fact, Nietzsche's perception is intrinsic to the time in which he lived, however, the vast majority of his literature still portrays and can be applied to an overwhelming part of our contemporary society.

I would argue that Nietzsche was a very good ontologist and a very bad anthropologist when both are applied to philosophy.

the idea of 'superman' or 'the last man' symbolizing the highest possible, the outcome of history and civilisation as a culmination of human potential. — Jack Cummins

In fact, Nietzsche believed that humanity - in his period - had immense potential, both for splendor and overcoming - Übermensch - and for destruction and resentment - Last Man -. However, with the privilege of being able to analyze the future of his era - the entire 20th century and, up to the present, the 21st century - it is clear that humanity has misunderstood his ideas, and, in search of transcendence, we ended up inprisoned in instincts and irrationality.

Quite the opposite , for Nietzsche our highest intellectual achievements are servants of our drives and instincts.


“Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren't we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn't enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well?

Assuming, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire life of drives as the organization and outgrowth of one basic form of will (namely, of the will to power, which is my claim); assuming we could trace all organic functions back to this will to power and find that it even solved the problem of procreation and nutrition (which is a single problem); then we will have earned the right to clearly designate all efficacious force as: will to power. The world seen from inside, the world determined and described with respect to its “intelligible character” – would be just this “will to power” and nothing else.” — Joshs

Nietzsche's relation to the instinctual-rational duality is a hierarchical one.

In fact, everything that is rational - in his perception - arises from the irrational - the will to power -, however, when arguing about the search for the Übermensch, Nietzsche makes explicit the incompatibility of the rational transcendental future of humanity, with the earthly future. species instinct:

"My brothers, why is there a need in the spirit for the lion? Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough? To create new values ​​-- that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred "No" even to duty -- for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values ​​-- that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved "thou shalt" as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey. But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes." For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred "Yes" is needed: the spirit now wills his own will dele, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world."

Humanity's instinctive and emotional base must be used as the initial purposeful engine of the journey to the Übermensch, however, after all its load has been used, it must be discarded completely by this new "Being".

In short, "Humanity" is only "Humanity" because it is a medium between an irrational animal and the theoretical Übermensch.

An Übermensch who lets himself be carried away by emotions is anything but an Übermensch.

But, of course, it can go the other way with people being cut off from emotions and Nietzsche himself did experience difficulties in his personal life. So, trying to take the idea forward it may be about not being swayed by the emotions and instincts, but the quest for transcendence is complicated. We cannot be machines and there is a danger that in the twentieth first century, with the interface between mind and machine people may end up going in that direction and become cut off from sensory pleasures. — Jack Cummins

After all my study of the literary works and the life that Nietzsche had, as well as of his own personal opinions, I can say with certainty that, had he saw the state of the contemporary world, he would commit suicide soon after, because everything and everyone, nowadays, can be described as Nietzsche's "The Last Man":

“There they stand; there they laugh: they don't understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears… They have something of which they are proud. What do they call it, that which makes them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguishes them from the goats. They dislike, therefore, to hear of “contempt” of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride. I will speak to them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the Last Man!”

But what is the "Last Man" you ask me, and again, Nietzsche can speak for himself:

“I tell you: one must still have chaos in oneself, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you have still chaos in yourselves. Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself. Bah! I show you the Last Man."

“What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” — so asks the Last Man, and blinks. The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.”

On our quest to Übermensch, we reached - Last Man!

The mind is a gift so that we may see clearly the reality of nature. — chiknsld

After seeing the true reality of nature, some would call "The Mind", simply "a curse"...

Was Nietzsche intending a literal goal of the posthuman condition as enhancement of the human condition, or was he pointing for greater freedom of thought? — Jack Cummins

Both.

When Nietzsche says:

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..."

He is incisively attacking any and all primitive characteristics of humanity that - in his perception - make it impossible for the species to transcend the animal kingdom.

The "Übermensch" is not a kind of "Superman" but something totally different that arises from Man himself.

In my interpretation, Nietzsche is correct in stating that it is the instincts and, consequently, the prevailance of the emotions, that delay the process of Man's transcendence.

We have over 4,000 years of history to prove it...

Nietzsche — Manuel

Nietzsche read "The Philosophy of Redemption" shortly after its publication, - and Mainlander's tragic suicide -, so is agreed upon that he was well versed on the philosophy and writings of the author, and in his passages - Nietzsches's -, he refers to both the nihilistic - something that Nietzsche was very concerned about - as well as Mainlander's ascetical perception - which you referred to when saying that "Nietzsche dissagreed with Mainlander" -.

Nietzsche greatly respected Mainlander's ability, even though he was aware of his condemnation of eternal emptiness, to use the very aspects of life to realize this "eternal void". In counterpoint, Nietzsche criticized the quasi-Schopenhauerian view of abstention from the world that Mainlander preached.

In short, while Nietzsche advocated an "overdose of sensations for the end of nihilism", Mainlander advocated an "eternal abstention from existence for nihilism".

His translation is coming out next year. There's one made by a an enthusiast in Mainlander's subreddit, which is pretty decent. — Manuel

Indeed, the translation is an amateur effort to be recognized. That it also serves, as a motivational example, for the extensive research of minimally renowned authors, but who present a perception and a philosophical argument that is very interesting.

He's a bit of a downer — Manuel

I would say that Mainlander's vision is one of accepting the futility of the struggle for life, because - in his philosophy - everything that becomes life is just prolonging "suffering", that which is completely non-existent and impotent if the concept of "death" is applied.

His argument does not defend "death" per se, but rather the cessation of all that potentially brings about "pain" or, in terms more metaphysical, "entropy".

but his arguments in metaphysics are extremely interesting. — Manuel

It is no accident that I had to revise some parts of my egoistic philosophy through a pessimistic reading, as many of the arguments presented by Mainlander directly relate to the concept of "individual purpose", something that is intrinsic to Egoism and the "Self".

Nietzsche, Stirner, and others, all applied his - Mainlander's - concept of "Wille zum Tode" - aka, "Will to Death" - in some way or capacity.

There is no downside to death — boagie

“Now we have the right to give this being the well-known name that always designates what no power of imagination, no flight of the boldest fantasy, no intently devout heart, no abstract thinking however profound, no enraptured and transported spirit has ever attained: God. But this basic unity is of the past; it no longer is. It has, by changing its being, totally and completely shattered itself. God has died and his death was the life of the world.

In this same life after death, you would think those who have endured unkindness would be kinder as a result, intent on sparing others the awful suffering they abhorred firsthand; indeed, entropy is not only the rule of the physical, but of the metaphysical: - Death IS, and only it can in turn, give life.”

- The Philosophy of Redemption, Philipp Mainlander.

Are you saying paradoxes only appear if we use different worlds? Like the ideal vs. the real? — ArisTootelEs

Yes.

For such misunderstandings only occur when "metaphysical" assumptions are applied to "physical" scenarios.

Well, personally I hadn't encountered it, but the convergence between ancient European and Indian scripts and languages was the area that Müller was an expert in. I do know (actually it's common knowledge) that all the various pantheons of the ancient world had kinds of familial connections with one another - for example that the name 'Jupiter' is taken from Dyaus (sky) Pitar (father) - and is actually rather conceptually close to what a great many people still take 'God' to be. — Wayfarer

Indeed, the "Indo-European" society was the "cradle" of all the structural foundations of the societies that eventually developed within this cultural sphere.

The problem is that much of the "knowledge" that one has about this primitive society is taken from "hypotheses" which, in turn, are based on other "hypotheses", so it is very reasonable that a good portion of what we believe to know about such civilization is completely wrong.

Perhaps to decipher the "Linear B" script, we should use the ancient Vedic and/or Iranian (?) alphabets.

For an explicit feature that unfortunately few recognize is the fact that Mycenaean and Minoan "Greeks" are culturally closer to the "afroasiatic" group - such as Egyptians, Assyrians, and Aryans - than the ethno-culture we currently recognize as "Greeks" - Indo-Europeans - Germans, Carpathians, etc... - -.

Does this mean that I, being weak and strong, are one? — ArisTootelEs

In Ideality? Yes

In Reality? No

Paradoxes can only occur in the metaphysical environment, because, when a concept becomes real, the options cancel each other out and conclude in just one.

A "paradoxical problem" only occurs when trying to apply ideas in the physical environment without the limiting projection of existence.

It is no accident that "theories" - ideal - never work as they should "in practice" - real -.

"One" is a concept, so in the fields of metaphysics, it can be:

(1) Weakness;
(2) Strength;
(3) Weakness and Strength.

Only after "becoming" through the human conception unto the world that it decides what the option will be.

Existence is "limitation".

Your paradox arises from the fact that you are applying the metaphysical perception to something that, in practice, can only be "One".

I've actually passed exams in both Sanskrit and Pali (as I'm interested in Buddhism) although I barely remember any of it, and I've completely lost the ability to read devanagiri script. — Wayfarer

Do you, for some reason, know about the "Linear B" alphabet of Mycenean Greece? For there is a great similarity between the Sanskrit alphabets of "Vedic India" with the only Greek alphabet not yet deciphered - I believe that when some brilliant mind can unravel it, our knowledge of Bronze Age Europe will increase by an amount of 500 to a 1000 years - remember, the Celts never developed writing, and as the Mycenaean Greeks had daily contact with them, our only source about them is found in these 2000 tablets not yet deciphered - -, as not even the "Linear A" script of ancient greek appears to have any similarity to it - it appears to be a case of a "language isolate" -.

Perhaps we will eventually discover that Poseidon was nothing more than a king of Crete during the Minoan period - between 2000 BC and 3000 BC -. We never know...

By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun — Apollodorus

Indeed...

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have. — Athena

I don't believe that in our lifetime an event as big as a "war" of the proportions you refer to - religious wars - will happen.

It is very likely that we will see the total distortion and degradation of our Western society by the end of the century - principally in Europe and in on the USA -.

It only remains for us to archive the knowledge that will eventually be lost again, and warn the blighted masses of their wrongdoings so that in the end, we can become the saints of a new era.

Thanks for the clarification. — Wayfarer

No problem :smile:

And for further clarification, "Hebrew" is a "north-semitic" "afroasiatic" language.

In some sense, our modern alphabet descends from ancient Hebrew, as the precursor language for the modern "Latin" script, "Phoenician", used the Hebrew alphabet to create its own:

Hebrew -> Phoenician -> Greek -> Latin.

but to my mind Plato is about people, not ideas at all. I think I read people better than words. And that Plato sets ideas before people as a stimulus for exhibiting their character, and potential for growth. — Gary M Washburn

Unfortunately I will have to disagree with your position.

Plato was by no means philosopher "for the people".

His texts were mostly objects of study for the understanding of the metaphysical world, and also, of passages from his master - Socrates -.

In short, Plato wrote not "to facilitate people's understanding" of the world of ideas, but to "investigate it".

Did Greek descend from Hebrew? — Wayfarer

No.

"Descend" had been used to mean "to assimilate" in my last passage.

"נֶ֫פֶשׁ" - Nephesh - was assimilated by ancient Greek, which in turn became "ψυχή" - psyche -

What if the Greeks started with psyche and then developed the notion of nous as an attribute or faculty of it? — Apollodorus

But then we should investigate what "ψυχή" - psyche - meant to them:

"The basic meaning of the Greek word "ψυχή" - psyche - was "life""

(Henry George Liddell and Ridley Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)

Which, in turn, descends from the Hebrew etymological term "נֶ֫פֶשׁ" - Nephesh -, which also means "life".

In an arqueo-linguistic analysis, it seems to me very likely that "Nous" arises from the intellectual and linguistic development of humanity, in which, in order to differentiate itself - Man - from the rest of the animal kingdom, "fragments" a general concept - life - so that its attributes - "Nous" being one - make explicit a differentiation.

"Nous" would, therefore, arise from "Psyche" as a characteristic of "awareness for differentiation based on the acts of past persons".

"From life - ψυχή - tradition - νοῦς - arises."

"You're selling everything you own
How's it feeling?
You never seemed to find a home
Nothing's real now
You're selling everything you own
How's it feeling?"

"They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being." - Epimenides

The first written case of a "Liar Paradox" - c. 600 BC -.

It's amazing how contemporary we are to the ancient Greeks.

As it would be an offense to compare them to our times.

Would it be possible to know which of those attributes nous is claimed to be? — Apollodorus

This is a delicate question, as the concept in "essence" was developed (1) or in the Mycenaean period of Bronze Greece - c. 1500 BC to 1000 BC - and its alphabet - Linear B - is one of the few alphabets not yet unveiled by current archaeo-linguisticians, thanks to its completely "unique" construction and independence of any other alphabet developed contemporaneously and after it, (2) or during the "Greek Dark Ages" - c. 900 BC to 700 BC -, period where literacy was completely forgotten in the Greek peninsula for about 300 years.

In both scenarios, the possibility of the term "Nous" having been created is considerable, since both involve important periods for the intellectual development of a civilization, whether due to economic-material prosperity - mycenic - or the complete metaphysical need for "meaning" in a period of total social misery - dark ages -.

In both possibilities, it would be necessary to discover some text, be it literary or even of economics, which would in fact describe the true meaning of "Nous" - because, as I said before, what was passed on to us by Socrates, through Plato's writings, is the interpretation of the same, of a concept developed by a civilization, already then of a distant past, and that there was not so much information available; even for the highest castes of society - which Plato was part of - -. It is noticeable that between the two scenarios, Mycenaean Greece is the most likely to give us a favorable answer, because, even having its alphabet completely indecipherable, we - humanity - have more than 2000 writing tablets in Linear B, while in the period of the total collapse of Greek society between 900 BC and 700 BC, there is nothing contemporaneously, only records after 650 BC - and that still are quotes by more current writers, such as Aristotle, from about 400 BC -.

And, currently, there are no passages about philosophy and more specifically, about the concept of "Nous" of the periods in question.

The most likely theory currently - in my perception - is that "Nous" would practically mean "Tradition" by the etymological-linguistic evidence that "Nous" in Old English means "Good Sense", and that both "νοῦς" - ancient greek - and "Nous" - old english - arise from the same etymological root - which is tradition -, and if such "meaning" of the word is applied in the oldest Greek passage on the concept - by Hermotimus -, the saying ends up making much more sense than than any other attribute already hypothesized and theorized - such as intellect, mind, soul, etc... -.

I will quote again the passage from Hermotimus of Clazomenae with the current "canonical" meaning of "Mind" and then with the theorized meaning of "Tradition":

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

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

In my perception, recognizing that the Greek mind of the period was one to which naturalism, that is, the natural world and its intrinsic conditions, was the absolute rule, "Tradition" makes much more sense to them contemporarily than "Mind".

In conclusion:

- Is it possible to know the true meaning of "Nous"?

Without a literary source from the period in question, no. However, it is possible to theorize about, as long as only sources prior to Plato are taken into account.

However, I would have thought that if nous is already known to mean awareness, consciousness, intelligence, etc., then it may be easier to simply add newly-found meanings to the existing list than to coin a new word? — Apollodorus

It is not claimed that "Nous" encompasses all these concepts. It is only said that "Nous" is one of those attributes.

However, I believe that every one of them could be comprehended in a new word for the concept.

By the way, where would you say nous is used in the sense of "tradition" by Plato? — Apollodorus

As I had said in my penultimate answer, it was with Plato - through his archiving of Socrates' sayings - that "Nous" came to be affiliated with the concept of "Mind" and "Intelligence".

At no time does Plato refer to "Nous" as "Tradition".

As to nous, if we can't decide what it actually means, I can see no advantage in creating a new word for it. — Apollodorus

My point with "creating a new term for Nous", is that, if we created a new word that encompassed all the attributes put to it - like intellect, soul, intelligence, conscience, tradition, etc... - maybe - and only maybe - the objective understanding of what the term originally referred to would become more explicit and, consequently, the study of philosophy directed to the term by the ancient Greeks, would be more easily understood.

The task, then, is archeological. — Gary M Washburn

Only if it is the "archeology of language", but even so, I believe that unfortunately we will be unable to eventually really understand what the ancient Greeks meant by "Nous".

One thing about Plato, as opposed to other Greek authors, he knew how to develop a context in which terms are given extensive contextual keys to help us avoid these sorts of discussions, which some seem to think obviate reading him. — Gary M Washburn

Plato, even being one of the greatest authorities on interpretations of reading ancient Greek philosophy, is only that, an "authority" due to his extensive work in archiving Socrates's thought and also for his own philosophical works, however, during the lifetime of Plato, the term "Nous" was already more than 500 years old - and if it was also used by the Mycenaeans, more than 1,000 years old - for some reference, Plato studying the concept "Nous" and interpreting it, it's like we studying and interpreting Plotinus, but with less information than we have about him - - of existence - that we know - therefore I - and other philologists and philosophers - question the interpretation of Plato, since there were authors before him - such as Hermotimus and Anaxagoras - who must be taken into account when questioning the concept of "Nous".

I make it clear that I am not questioning Plato's authority, but rather his interpretation of the concept, as much as the post readings of his own interpretation of the concept, which ended up defining the concept as "Intelligence" or "Mind".

It is noticeable that, through the rendition of "Nous" as "Tradition", the comprehension of several texts about the concept seems to be much more easily digestible and understandable, therefore, the interpretation of "tradition" is an appropriate possibility.

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. — Apollodorus

I was also considering this option. The problem is that we do not know the real meaning of the term in Greek, so its use could cause more comprehension problems than facilitating the understanding of ancient Greek philosophy.

I don't discard the option, but if we are not able to even conclude what "Nous" means, I don't believe the word should be used as its modern "linguistic synthesis", as it would not mean an "objective concept" but a "subjective" one, and that is what "Nous" is to us already in its dozen of translations - Intelect, Mind, Soul, Tradition, Common Sense, Good Sense, Consciousness, etc... -.

We would be trading nothing for nothing.

τέχνη (technei)? — tim wood

Another case which I have already considered, however, seems to me that "Techne" is much closer to the natural - in the sense that it is essentially the "act" of Man, rather than his "decision concluded by his awareness of his context before the act" -.

"Techne" is:

"a term that refers to making or doing"

But it seems that "Nous" is:

"a term that refers to making or doing after having consciously decided what to do by the awareness of the sayings and doings of past people - aka tradition -"

The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion. — Jack Cummins

The fact of the institutionalization and totalitarianism of structured religions are its socio-political foundations of the period; religions in which the leaders did not seek to reach a conclusion that would free Man from the shackles of the secular world, but that would enslave him to a false hope of salvation in the afterlife selected by the institution of such a religion, in all aspects of the population's life.

Meanwhile, the "tribal" "shamanistic" religions of a society established not by a state but by an organization based on the traditions of a common people, usually base themselves on the aspect of freedom and "good principles" objectively, by the fact of the necessity of such concepts for such a society to be maintained.

In any case, both are concepts created for the greater ease of structuring society; the only difference is that one needs its values to be forced on society - dogma - so that the power of those belonging to the state remains indefinitely, while the other needs its principles to be practiced by free will for the general good of society itself.

"Dogmatic religions need their society, while unstructured religions need their values for their society."

I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous. — Jack Cummins

This is an optimistic perception which in most cases does not occur, because - as Nietzsche would say - a population, whose values and principles were called into question, to effectively want to restructure itself with the same pillars to be questioned, needs a willpower only found in an "Übermensch", which, as we can see from studying history, and contemporary society itself, does not exist.

What happens with a society without metaphysical support, is that it, through its anguish caused by the need for "meaning", ends up being taken by the extremes of the worst aspects of the principles of other religions, ideologies, cultures, etc...

In my search for the total theorization of Egoism as a path to the "Übermensch", it became clear that humanity is not yet ready for the total annihilation of the belief in beings other than itself.

And the symptoms of this "re-culturation for lack of principles" can already be seen in the Western world. I'm sure that, in the next 200, 300 years, Islam will be the new foundation for the Western world.

Will this be harmful in the short term? Totally. Get ready for the new "Dark Ages" where the world won't make any sense.

But whether it will be harmful in the long run? No, because like Christianity itself, Islam will also eventually have its values and principles questioned, doubts that will change the world again.

As Hegel would say:

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis.

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.