The perfection of the gods
Plato argued : the gods are morally perfect: therefore , myths depicting them as acting immorally are false. Where did he get the premise? The fact that he merely assumes it, rather than ( as far as I know) arguing for it, makes me think that he did not make it up. Is it a Pythagorean idea?
Comments (13)
The Greek Gods were far from morally perfect and are often depicted in the Greek myths as subject to all manner of passions and flaws. Socrates, recall, was executed for encouraging atheism amongst the youth of Athens, 'atheism' being scepticism about the pantheon of Gods.
Plato's 'demiurge' was a very different conception to the Gods of civil religion, but again, it would help the OP a lot if you could provide either some references or a passage or two in support of these distinctions.
I don't know the facts but will take a reasonable guess at Plato's rationale. Implicitly, we all understand the word God to mean 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' (later explicitly stated by St. Anselm). This definition implies perfection, which includes moral perfection.
I know that the greek gods were not seen as perfect, but I think Plato, just like Socrates, was referring to a different concept of the word god, much closer to our modern definition.
The opposition between the philosophers and the mythmakers precedes Plato. But we must note that Plato (and Aristotle too) would later find a middle ground that allowed them to give to myths their proper value, at least as precursors of philosophy. Indeed, Plato is the greatest mythmaker, precisely because he understood the value of myths and the limits of human discourse.
This seems like an oxymoron. How can ''myths'' ever be true.
The truths become myths as their truth is denied. "These stories of sinful, ridiculous gods are lies! The truth is that gods are morally perfect. "
How shall I say this now? Plato needn't dismiss the accounts of god(s) as lies in the first place. Perhaps he wasn't familiar with the notion of crazy wisdom. Indeed, God could be morally perfect and still engage the world in human-like fashion - jealous, greedy, vengeful, etc. This being done to convey divine wisdom to humans who are, quite obviously, limited in their capacity to comprehend it. Think of it like God, to make things easier for humans, ''translating'' godly wisdom to man-speak.
Strangely enough, the idea that myths cannot be true is a... myth.
By which I don't mean it is false; I mean it is a foundational story for many groups.
This reply is a beginning (as good as many others) of the answer to an inquiry about the relationship between myth and truth.
Personally I think there are elements of truth in all myths, religious or otherwise. It only takes a bit of exaggeration to change truth into a myth. So, to devalue myths would be mistake, running the serious risk of losing valuable information.
Knowing logic, this is not relevant.
Whether or not I want myths to be true is not relevant. And whether I want to justify my beliefs is also not relevant.
Take a look at the wiki entry for "myth". Or at Joseph Campbell. Or at Carl Jung. Or at René Girard. Etc.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you are saying that a myth is an account that became untrue because of exaggeration, you are going against scholarship on the subject.