But also, in some ways this may reflect gender-- male approaches to the world tend to lean on logic and intellect more, and female approaches toward relationship. With anything so gendered, perhaps it's a case of: the world needs both, working in tandem :) Whether this is the case or not, I certainly incline more to the mystical approach than the intellectual.
Maybe, but I think that talking that way lets men off the hook. Besides, there have been a great many male mystics, of which we might name Nicholas of Cusa, Bernard of Clairvaux, Francis of Assisi. One thing they have in common is that they and the traditions they inspired lean toward the Platonic and away from the Aristotelean modes of thinking.
This is part of why Aristotle's works are considered the "Outer Mysteries," of which Plato's works constitute the Inner. Aristotle is obsessed with dissecting things, but if you read his logical treatises, for example, you'll learn a solid method of reasoning, and if you read his Ethics, you'll find a very practical guide to good behavior. For Plato and the Platonic tradition generally, though, real knowledge transcends logical reasoning. To leave Plato's Cave isn't to learn to think about stuff really well; it's to experience real being in a very different and, yes, relational, way.
But Proclus also isn't taking the approach of starting with a theory and then imposing it on the world. Proclus was a mystic and a very devout worshiper of the old gods. His entry into the world of Philosophy didn't begin with a semester in college, but with a theophany in which Athena appeared to him in a dream. Philosophy itself, then and later, wasn't an intellectual exercise. Pierre Hadot discussed this in detail in "Philosophy as a Way of Life." Every philosophical school was more akin to an order of monks than a modern undergraduate seminar; each had its own set of spiritual exercises, designed to elevate the soul from mundane concerns and slavery to the passions, toward the higher life of the divine. That even includes the Epicureans.
Even with Aristotle, part of the issue may simply be that we don't have all of his works. What we have are his lecture notes. He also wrote dialogues, but these haven't survived except in fragmentary form. And it's likely enough that he had his secret teachings; they all did. And so we have Aristotle's lectures but none of his dialogues; Plato's dialogues but none of his lectures. What are we missing? We don't know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2024-07-07 06:47 pm (UTC)Maybe, but I think that talking that way lets men off the hook. Besides, there have been a great many male mystics, of which we might name Nicholas of Cusa, Bernard of Clairvaux, Francis of Assisi. One thing they have in common is that they and the traditions they inspired lean toward the Platonic and away from the Aristotelean modes of thinking.
This is part of why Aristotle's works are considered the "Outer Mysteries," of which Plato's works constitute the Inner. Aristotle is obsessed with dissecting things, but if you read his logical treatises, for example, you'll learn a solid method of reasoning, and if you read his Ethics, you'll find a very practical guide to good behavior. For Plato and the Platonic tradition generally, though, real knowledge transcends logical reasoning. To leave Plato's Cave isn't to learn to think about stuff really well; it's to experience real being in a very different and, yes, relational, way.
But Proclus also isn't taking the approach of starting with a theory and then imposing it on the world. Proclus was a mystic and a very devout worshiper of the old gods. His entry into the world of Philosophy didn't begin with a semester in college, but with a theophany in which Athena appeared to him in a dream. Philosophy itself, then and later, wasn't an intellectual exercise. Pierre Hadot discussed this in detail in "Philosophy as a Way of Life." Every philosophical school was more akin to an order of monks than a modern undergraduate seminar; each had its own set of spiritual exercises, designed to elevate the soul from mundane concerns and slavery to the passions, toward the higher life of the divine. That even includes the Epicureans.
Even with Aristotle, part of the issue may simply be that we don't have all of his works. What we have are his lecture notes. He also wrote dialogues, but these haven't survived except in fragmentary form. And it's likely enough that he had his secret teachings; they all did. And so we have Aristotle's lectures but none of his dialogues; Plato's dialogues but none of his lectures. What are we missing? We don't know.