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.
: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.
ValentinusSeptember 18, 2021 at 23:13#5970350 likes
Just a passing thought; but, if intelligence is what Plato called nous, then is its modern assessment defined by psychometrics testing, as IQ?
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?
ApollodorusSeptember 18, 2021 at 23:48#5970610 likes
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.
Reply to Apollodorus I don’t believe that is correct. The root ‘gn-‘ is found in ‘gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘Jñ?na’ 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.
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
I don’t believe that is correct. The root ‘gn-‘ is found in ‘gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘Jñ?na’ but according to etymology online ‘nous’ is a separate root meaning ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’.
Well, etymology is not an exact science and, ultimately, we have no hard evidence for any of this.
Reply to Apollodorus 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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 02:11#5971270 likes
The LSJ link I posted above does derive it from "gno", to know:
Étymologie: R. ??? connaître ; cf. ????????.
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, ???? has been linked with ?????? and ?????? (to return, the return) and derived ultimately from the Indo-European root *nes, meaning 'a return from death and darkness'. On this view, ???? arises out of the religious conception of the return to conscious life.
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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 12:52#5974170 likes
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.
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 (????) and intellect (???????); 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” ? ???? ??????, seeming to say that she is a ? ?????? … he may have called her Theonoe because she has unequalled knowledge of divine things (?? ???? ??????) … Perhaps, too, he may have wished to identify the goddess with wisdom of character (?? ???? ???????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.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 14:42#5974550 likes
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 (?? ???? ???????by calling her Ethonoe (Crat. 407a-c).
Perhaps he is saying "wisdom of character' = ethos.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 16:01#5974890 likes
"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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 17:22#5975260 likes
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:
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.
Deleted UserSeptember 19, 2021 at 18:45#5975860 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserSeptember 19, 2021 at 19:09#5975890 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 20:08#5975990 likes
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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 20:25#5976060 likes
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 ….
Gus LamarchSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:10#5976260 likes
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.
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.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:24#5976340 likes
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.
Gus LamarchSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:28#5976410 likes
Socrates here seems to equate nous with knowledge and wisdom. Elsewhere he says that the nous remembers, etc.
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".
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:36#5976450 likes
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.
Gus LamarchSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:37#5976460 likes
In other words, for a thousand years the terms in question were discussed in Latin as Latin terms, not Greek at all.
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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:38#5976470 likes
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".
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.
Deleted UserSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:47#5976520 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:50#5976550 likes
The task, then, is archeological. But underestimating English is a mugs game.
Not reading Greek, I am left with translations, but I have my Loebs (with the original text on the facing page) and multiple other translations to compare. 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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 21:55#5976590 likes
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.
Correct. "Prudence" is a rather odd translation that makes little sense to modern ears (to the younger generations in any case).
And yes, sophia does appear to have been used in the sense of "practical wisdom", "skillfulness" or "cleverness". However, the point Socrates is making is that God alone is wise (sophos) and that the philosopher (philosophos) is not one who is wise but one who aspires to be wise:
I think, Phaedrus, that the epithet “wise” is too great and befits God alone; but the name “philosopher,” that is, “lover of wisdom,” or something of the sort would be more fitting and modest for such a man (Phaedrus 278d).
In other words, the philosopher is sufficiently wise to realize his own ignorance and to consciously start on the journey from ignorance to wisdom (sophia). This would make sophia the highest goal.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:08#5976630 likes
I beg to differ, with the world if necessary. Socrates uses divinity aspirationally, not in reference to some eternal authority. His whole career is an effort to spur his interlocutors to higher abilities to interrogate their own prejudices, not so much to higher states of being. Is it hard to be, or merely to become, good? (Protagoras)
Gary M WashburnSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:20#5976670 likes
Socrates knows he doesn't know, he does not know he doesn't know. He asks in hopes his interlocutor does know, and is genuinely surprised when he finds it necessary to prove to them they do not, and distressed when they show irritation or rancor. If you know you do not know, this is not a state of ignorance. It is emancipation from bad habits of thought, like expecting to establish opinions that need no explanation or defense. Like, for instance, that words can be written down without loss of the immediacy of meaning only dialectic affords.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:21#5976680 likes
As with everything else, there are different levels or degrees of goodness.
The highest level is attained through knowledge or experience of the Good (to Agathon) which is the source of everything that is good. Only when acting in complete harmony with the Good does man become perfectly good (and divine).
Gus LamarchSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:27#5976710 likes
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.
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... -.
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 -"
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:33#5976760 likes
You are right about techne. If anything, it would be more like an art or skill.
As to nous, if we can't decide what it actually means, I can see no advantage in creating a new word for it. But I do not wish to prevent anyone from doing so. :smile:
Gus LamarchSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:45#5976810 likes
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.
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.
Gus LamarchSeptember 19, 2021 at 22:49#5976820 likes
As to nous, if we can't decide what it actually means, I can see no advantage in creating a new word for it.
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.
ApollodorusSeptember 19, 2021 at 23:32#5976930 likes
Sure. 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?
By the way, where would you say nous is used in the sense of "tradition" by Plato?
Gus LamarchSeptember 20, 2021 at 00:22#5977040 likes
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?
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?
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".
ApollodorusSeptember 20, 2021 at 00:33#5977090 likes
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.
Plotinus was not only opposed but dedicated to the task of discrediting the Gnostics, root and branch. The following does not include important references and context but does convey some of the passion of the argument:
Ennead II 9, section 8. Translated by Joeseph Katz:No one has the right to find fault with the constitution of the world for it reveals the greatness of intelligible nature.
Gus LamarchSeptember 20, 2021 at 01:30#5977230 likes
Would it be possible to know which of those attributes nous is claimed to be?
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 "????"- 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.
if intelligence is what Plato called nous, then is its modern assessment defined by psychometrics testing, as IQ?
I would venture that most disagreements in philosophy originate from vagueness of the topic or from ambiguity of usage in the language employed by the discussants. Here both are present.
The mind can be viewed as a general wide-ranging concept or it can be drastically narrowed down to a hardly useful statistic depending on the whim of the speaker. This range of meaning was paralleled by classical philosophical positions where the Sophists favored a flexible, sensing, feeling, intuitive mind, whereas the Eleatics pushed for what they thought was a manageable knowing reduction.
The meaning of nous likewise was not as fixed as the lexicons would have it. Aristotle should have had the strictest conception, Protagoras and Gorgias the broadest, with Plato somewhere in between but leaning towards knowledge by intuition.
Plotinus was not only opposed but dedicated to the task of discrediting the Gnostics,
That's why I was leery of Apollodorus' linkage of 'nous' with the root 'gno-' (knowledge), which I thought suggested a form of gnostic insight. I think there's a distinction to be made between 'gnostic' and 'noetic' (the latter being more associated with the Platonic tradition.)
But I'm not at all convinced that nous is derived from 'tradition' either. I can't see how an ancient philosopher could have held that 'tradition' was a natural cause, insofar as it's a purely social activity.
ApollodorusSeptember 20, 2021 at 10:47#5978480 likes
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".
Certainly interesting as a working hypothesis, but given the paucity of supporting evidence it seems like an uphill task.
What if the Greeks started with psyche and then developed the notion of nous as an attribute or faculty of it?
ApollodorusSeptember 20, 2021 at 11:24#5978530 likes
That's why I was leery of Apollodorus' linkage of 'nous' with the root 'gno-' (knowledge), which I thought suggested a form of gnostic insight. I think there's a distinction to be made between 'gnostic' and 'noetic' (the latter being more associated with the Platonic tradition.)
My linkage of nous with gno was due to Bailly's Greek-French Dictionary where he has:
I am aware that the etymology of nous is currently held to be "unknown" or "uncertain". But a derivation from "to know" seemed more plausible to me than one from "to swim", "to sniff" and other suggested alternatives .... :smile:
Of course nous changes its meaning according to context so that on a higher level it is closer to English "intuition" and on other levels closer to "knowledge" or, again, to "reason", "sense", "wit", and so on.
At any rate, both "intuition" and "knowledge" seem to be functions of the same immaterial, living, intelligent or conscious psyche or "soul".
Gary M WashburnSeptember 20, 2021 at 13:31#5978860 likes
I was not relying on Plato's "authority", nor what you call his interpretation of the idea, but on his supplying ample human interactions on the idea to situate all its nuances, as understood by the participants.
Foucault would find plenty to dig around in, even if you think not. I meant archeology in that sense. I've confessed I am no scholar, 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.
The question is meant as a joke, by Socrates. He's pulling the wool over on Protagoras, because he doesn't grasp what ideas really are at all. It's neither subjective nor objective, but dramatic. Not what we conceive, but how we respond to our differing conceptions. The ideas don't have a life of their own, they just serve as a measure of our character.
Gus LamarchSeptember 20, 2021 at 23:17#5980530 likes
What if the Greeks started with psyche and then developed the notion of nous as an attribute or faculty of it?
But then we should investigate what "????"- psyche - meant to them:
"The basic meaning of the Greek word "????" - psyche - was "life""
(Henry George Liddell and Ridley Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)
Which, in turn, descends from the Hebrew etymological term "???????" - 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".
I am aware that the etymology of nous is currently held to be "unknown" or "uncertain". But a derivation from "to know" seemed more plausible to me than one from "to swim", "to sniff" and other suggested alternatives .
Sure! But as I pointed out, my response was to trying to connect 'nous' with 'gnostic'. The proper adjectival form of nous is 'noetic'. Both 'gnosis' and 'noesis' are forms of 'higher knowledge' but culturally they're associated with very different milieu.
A related term is the adjective gnostikos, "cognitive",[8] a reasonably common adjective in Classical Greek.[9] Plato uses the plural adjective "?????????" – gnostikoi and the singular feminine adjective "???????? ????????" – gnostike episteme in his Politikos where Gnostike episteme was also used to indicate one's aptitude.[citation needed] The terms do not appear to indicate any mystic, esoteric or hidden meaning in the works of Plato, but instead expressed a sort of higher intelligence and ability analogous to talent.[10]
Gus LamarchSeptember 20, 2021 at 23:29#5980570 likes
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.
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".
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:
Reply to Gus Lamarch My knowledge of ancient languages is mostly confined to my dimly-remembered studies of Max Mueller's 'linguistic archeology' back in the 1970's (I think in anthropology, or it might have been comparative religion.) I found it a fascinating subject, and I also came to admire Mueller's scholarly achievements. 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.
Gus LamarchSeptember 21, 2021 at 00:02#5980840 likes
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.
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...
there is a great similarity between the Sanskrit alphabets of "Vedic India" with the only Greek alphabet not yet deciphered
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.
Gus LamarchSeptember 21, 2021 at 00:57#5981230 likes
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.
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... - -.
Reply to Gus Lamarch it's a rather specialised area of archeology. I'm certainly open to the possibility that it is subject to revision, but I don't know if it's completely wrong.
That is a strange grouping. The 'Arya' were originally the Indo-European speaking peoples who swept down from the vast Russian steppes into ancient India, Persia - you know 'Iran' is actually a version of 'Aryan', right? - but I thought the Egyptian culture was of a different provenance altogether. (The 'Aryan myth' was of course appropriated by Nazism for it's own vile purposes.)
But, interested in any references you have on current research on this topic (provided it's not too specialised).
ApollodorusSeptember 21, 2021 at 01:29#5981420 likes
Perhaps to decipher the "Linear B" script, we should use the ancient Vedic and/or Iranian (?) alphabets.
"Vedic alphabet"? Do you mean Brahmi or Indus script (that no one knows what it is)?
ValentinusSeptember 21, 2021 at 01:30#5981430 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
I figure we have read many of the same texts. The "Gnostic" language is different from the opposition against it. What is the best way to represent the difference?
Reply to Valentinus I will just refer back to those two links I provided the page before, about the definitions of 'noetic' and 'gnostic'.
As you already noted, Plotinus saw himself in opposition to the Gnostics, although in all fairness, from the perspective of today's world, the kinds of differences that they argued about are practically unintelligible in modern terms. (It's rather like many of the arcane arguments between Advaitins and Buddhists, who seem very similar to each other from a modern Western perspective, but who, in their own culture, saw themselves as worlds apart. There are many such arcane distinctions in these matters.)
ValentinusSeptember 21, 2021 at 11:49#5983380 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
In regards to the "constitution of the world", the argument Plotinus makes against the Gnostics can fairly be applied to Christianity, as it has come to be in its various expressions. Is this the best of all possible worlds or is it and us in in need of salvation?
Augustine may have appropriated the language of Plotinus to support a Monist view of nature but Plotinus would never have accepted the view that a City of God was struggling against the City of Man. In that respect, the term "Christian Platonist" is an oxymoron.
Gary M WashburnSeptember 21, 2021 at 23:15#5985560 likes
There was no "metaphysical world" at the time, that was an invention of Aristotle. For a man not 'for the people' he was remarkably loyal to them. Have you read Crito?
Comments (64)
I mean, over time the Greek nous, has come to mean, at least philosophically, as mind or intellect.
Quoting tim wood
As, I said, over time some sort of reification occured and is modernly associated with intelligence, no?
: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.
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.
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
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 *?neh3- in Sanskrit, Latin and Greek
And:
???? – LSJ
If noos is unrelated to gno, "to know", then where does it come from?
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:
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”:
James H. Lesher: The Meaning of ???? 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.
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.
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:
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.
Perhaps he is saying "wisdom of character' = ethos.
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. 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.
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 ….
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.
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.
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.
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.
The task, then, is archeological. But underestimating English is a mugs game.
Not reading Greek, I am left with translations, but I have my Loebs (with the original text on the facing page) and multiple other translations to compare. 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.
Correct. "Prudence" is a rather odd translation that makes little sense to modern ears (to the younger generations in any case).
And yes, sophia does appear to have been used in the sense of "practical wisdom", "skillfulness" or "cleverness". However, the point Socrates is making is that God alone is wise (sophos) and that the philosopher (philosophos) is not one who is wise but one who aspires to be wise:
In other words, the philosopher is sufficiently wise to realize his own ignorance and to consciously start on the journey from ignorance to wisdom (sophia). This would make sophia the highest goal.
I beg to differ, with the world if necessary. Socrates uses divinity aspirationally, not in reference to some eternal authority. His whole career is an effort to spur his interlocutors to higher abilities to interrogate their own prejudices, not so much to higher states of being. Is it hard to be, or merely to become, good? (Protagoras)
As with everything else, there are different levels or degrees of goodness.
The highest level is attained through knowledge or experience of the Good (to Agathon) which is the source of everything that is good. Only when acting in complete harmony with the Good does man become perfectly good (and divine).
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.
Quoting 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 -"
You are right about techne. If anything, it would be more like an art or skill.
As to nous, if we can't decide what it actually means, I can see no advantage in creating a new word for it. But I do not wish to prevent anyone from doing so. :smile:
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".
Quoting 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.
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.
Sure. 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?
By the way, where would you say nous is used in the sense of "tradition" by Plato?
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.
Quoting 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".
Would it be possible to know which of those attributes nous is claimed to be? And what is it an attribute of?
Plotinus was not only opposed but dedicated to the task of discrediting the Gnostics, root and branch. The following does not include important references and context but does convey some of the passion of the argument:
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 "????" - 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.
I would venture that most disagreements in philosophy originate from vagueness of the topic or from ambiguity of usage in the language employed by the discussants. Here both are present.
The mind can be viewed as a general wide-ranging concept or it can be drastically narrowed down to a hardly useful statistic depending on the whim of the speaker. This range of meaning was paralleled by classical philosophical positions where the Sophists favored a flexible, sensing, feeling, intuitive mind, whereas the Eleatics pushed for what they thought was a manageable knowing reduction.
The meaning of nous likewise was not as fixed as the lexicons would have it. Aristotle should have had the strictest conception, Protagoras and Gorgias the broadest, with Plato somewhere in between but leaning towards knowledge by intuition.
That's why I was leery of Apollodorus' linkage of 'nous' with the root 'gno-' (knowledge), which I thought suggested a form of gnostic insight. I think there's a distinction to be made between 'gnostic' and 'noetic' (the latter being more associated with the Platonic tradition.)
But I'm not at all convinced that nous is derived from 'tradition' either. I can't see how an ancient philosopher could have held that 'tradition' was a natural cause, insofar as it's a purely social activity.
Certainly interesting as a working hypothesis, but given the paucity of supporting evidence it seems like an uphill task.
What if the Greeks started with psyche and then developed the notion of nous as an attribute or faculty of it?
My linkage of nous with gno was due to Bailly's Greek-French Dictionary where he has:
- Anatole Bailly, Le Grand Bailly: Dictionnaire grec-français, p. 1333
I am aware that the etymology of nous is currently held to be "unknown" or "uncertain". But a derivation from "to know" seemed more plausible to me than one from "to swim", "to sniff" and other suggested alternatives .... :smile:
Of course nous changes its meaning according to context so that on a higher level it is closer to English "intuition" and on other levels closer to "knowledge" or, again, to "reason", "sense", "wit", and so on.
At any rate, both "intuition" and "knowledge" seem to be functions of the same immaterial, living, intelligent or conscious psyche or "soul".
I was not relying on Plato's "authority", nor what you call his interpretation of the idea, but on his supplying ample human interactions on the idea to situate all its nuances, as understood by the participants.
Foucault would find plenty to dig around in, even if you think not. I meant archeology in that sense. I've confessed I am no scholar, 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.
The question is meant as a joke, by Socrates. He's pulling the wool over on Protagoras, because he doesn't grasp what ideas really are at all. It's neither subjective nor objective, but dramatic. Not what we conceive, but how we respond to our differing conceptions. The ideas don't have a life of their own, they just serve as a measure of our character.
But then we should investigate what "????" - psyche - meant to them:
"The basic meaning of the Greek word "????" - psyche - was "life""
(Henry George Liddell and Ridley Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)
Which, in turn, descends from the Hebrew etymological term "???????" - 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 - ???? - tradition - ???? - arises."
Did Greek descend from Hebrew? I had the idea it was of Indo-European origin.
Quoting Apollodorus
Sure! But as I pointed out, my response was to trying to connect 'nous' with 'gnostic'. The proper adjectival form of nous is 'noetic'. Both 'gnosis' and 'noesis' are forms of 'higher knowledge' but culturally they're associated with very different milieu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis
Note from the second:
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".
Quoting Wayfarer
No.
"Descend" had been used to mean "to assimilate" in my last passage.
"???????" - Nephesh - was assimilated by ancient Greek, which in turn became "????" - psyche -
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.
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...
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.
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... - -.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
That is a strange grouping. The 'Arya' were originally the Indo-European speaking peoples who swept down from the vast Russian steppes into ancient India, Persia - you know 'Iran' is actually a version of 'Aryan', right? - but I thought the Egyptian culture was of a different provenance altogether. (The 'Aryan myth' was of course appropriated by Nazism for it's own vile purposes.)
But, interested in any references you have on current research on this topic (provided it's not too specialised).
"Vedic alphabet"? Do you mean Brahmi or Indus script (that no one knows what it is)?
I figure we have read many of the same texts. The "Gnostic" language is different from the opposition against it. What is the best way to represent the difference?
As you already noted, Plotinus saw himself in opposition to the Gnostics, although in all fairness, from the perspective of today's world, the kinds of differences that they argued about are practically unintelligible in modern terms. (It's rather like many of the arcane arguments between Advaitins and Buddhists, who seem very similar to each other from a modern Western perspective, but who, in their own culture, saw themselves as worlds apart. There are many such arcane distinctions in these matters.)
In regards to the "constitution of the world", the argument Plotinus makes against the Gnostics can fairly be applied to Christianity, as it has come to be in its various expressions. Is this the best of all possible worlds or is it and us in in need of salvation?
Augustine may have appropriated the language of Plotinus to support a Monist view of nature but Plotinus would never have accepted the view that a City of God was struggling against the City of Man. In that respect, the term "Christian Platonist" is an oxymoron.
There was no "metaphysical world" at the time, that was an invention of Aristotle. For a man not 'for the people' he was remarkably loyal to them. Have you read Crito?