Poets' gods vs Philosphers' gods

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

Or donate directly via Paypal

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

[Valex]

I ran into something interesting while doing some reading on how Plato regarded ancient Greek religion.

Plato and Socrates view the stories of poets as untrue and corrupts the young's view of the gods. To them, the gods were perfect and pious beings. Going from that assumption, Plato argues against myths that have gods changing forms. "No being willingly makes itself worse. To take on an inferior outward form is to worsen oneself. The gods do nothing unwillingly and their forms are perfect. Therefore the gods do not take on other forms. Thus, the story of Leda and the Swan alias Zeus must be false."

There are other instances where Plato and Socrates argue against the myths of the poets (ancient and of their time). Apparently, this got Socrates executed because he was accused of preaching "new" gods. (I believe he was not.)

All I have known of the Olympic gods are from ancient poems (The Theogony, The Iliad, etc) so this comes to me as a shaky piece of information. Plato and Socrates make very good arguments against the poets' stories of the gods.  Basically, I want to ask a few things:

• Do you think the gods are perfect beings according to the poets?
• Were the poets wrong in portraying the gods as beings with human qualities (bad) considering they weren't human but gods?
• Was Socrates trying to redefine the gods?

I had some other questions but I forgot them as I started typing... >_<

My answer to my first question would be that, no. The gods aren't portrayed as perfect in the poets' stories if I base my answer on human morals. But then, they are gods. Who am I, as a mortal, to pass judgment on them and to use my set of morals and values on them. As gods, I believe that human norms do not apply to them. Instead, they have their own rules and norms that apply to them.

I don't think the poets were wrong in portraying the gods with human qualities. But I don't think that makes them imperfect as Socrates says the stories say they are. I agree with Plato and Socrates that the gods are perfect but because our ideas of what good and bad are do not apply to the gods.

I don't think that Socrates was. I think he was just trying to point out that the gods were perfect, contrary to how the poets thought the gods are.

I know the poems are just myths, much like how stories in other religious works are and should, thus, be not believed word for word to be true. I just think it's odd that we put the poems as reliable resources when back then, the wisest men (I think they were) thought that they weren't reliable at all.

Anway, here's the link to where I found the quotes. http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/pgods.htm
There are also some others about the topic as well.

[homers_child]

All I have known of the Olympic gods are from ancient poems (The Theogony, The Iliad, etc) so this comes to me as a shaky piece of information. Plato and Socrates make very good arguments against the poets' stories of the gods.  Basically, I want to ask a few things:

• Do you think the gods are perfect beings according to the poets?
• Were the poets wrong in portraying the gods as beings with human qualities (bad) considering they weren't human but gods?
• Was Socrates trying to redefine the gods?

I don't know that much about Socrates and Plato (excuse my ignorance, but I haven't gotten around to studying them.) I've been mainly busy with reading the works of the poets, Homer, Ovid etc. So, my opinion is going to be overwhelming on the side of the poets. BUT, based on what you've said, I may agree a little bit with the philosophers on some things.

First question, the poets never exactly expressed their opinion on whether or not the gods were perfect or not. There seemed to be a bias based on HUMAN morals and what is deemed acceptable or not. But we must remember, that we are biased. Different cultures have different morals. Take for example Zeus' numerous love affairs with humans. Different cultures and mindsets will take this differently. Was Zeus being immoral and thus "not" perfect? Or is this something inherent in the gods, love being such a free emotion, that it only makes Zeus all the more perfect with his ability to fall in love so easily with mortals? Or Hera, is her jealousy a fault? Or does it simply express the need for fidelity in the gods? Perhaps her jealousy makes her perfect. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it can interpreted either way. One can see the gods as imperfect or perfect based on one's mindset. I think we just need to remember when trying to answer this question, that there is a human bias towards this traits.

My personal belief is that the gods are perfect. When humans and other creatures were created, I believe that the gods transfered some of their perfect traits onto us. BUT, we don't have the understanding of the gods, so thus, human bias is created. I say other creatures, because animals have these traits as well. Ever seen a jealous pet rat? I certainly have. 

I have no idea if Socrates was trying to redefine the gods, since I don't know enough about him and what he was trying to teach. I'd be glad to see others' responses on that.

This is a very interesting topic, I can't wait to see everyone's responses. I hope no one rips apart my post, I'm rather subdued when it comes to debate. I just wanted to share my opinion because its a very thought-provoking topic.

[Mesquite]

Plato argues against myths that have gods changing forms. "No being willingly makes itself worse. To take on an inferior outward form is to worsen oneself. The gods do nothing unwillingly and their forms are perfect. Therefore the gods do not take on other forms. Thus, the story of Leda and the Swan alias Zeus must be false."

Just off the top of my head:  I wouldn't say a swan is a lesser form.  Really, Plato?

[homers_child]

Just off the top of my head:  I wouldn't say a swan is a lesser form.  Really, Plato?

Yeah, that bothered me too. How is taking on the form of a swan any different than the form of a human? And how does he know that the swan wasn't "perfect" and without flaws because it was really Zeus?

[WhiteSong]

Yeah, that bothered me too. How is taking on the form of a swan any different than the form of a human? And how does he know that the swan wasn't "perfect" and without flaws because it was really Zeus?

I think Plato also argued that humans were a lesser form than gods. Maybe what Plato was asking was, "can a perfect god ever make himself imperfect?" The logical answer would be no--by definition, he could not.  It would be illogical. Since logic is so close to math (in my opinion) it would be like saying, "can 2+2 ever = 5?" No, because perfect is perfect by definition--and the Greeks probably viewed man and animals as imperfect compared to gods. It's like that medieval question, "If God is omni-powerful, can he ever create a rock that is too big to lift (for God)?" Logic says no, because it violates logic for that to happen. But it isn't sacrilegious--it simply means that it is impossible for that rock to exist--ever. Just like it is impossible for Zeus to be imperfect, because he is perfect.

From my memory, Plato believed that logic was one of the "forms" that couldn't be created and destroyed. This is part of what got Socrates and Plato in trouble, because they seemed to argue that Zeus could not create morality, because morality, like logic, couldn't be destroyed or created.  In my opinion, Socrates and Plato were trying to re-define the gods, and to define them philosophically.

I think Socrates and Plato did care about humanity--but they were philosophers, and I think the poets are better references for the gods and their stories.

[WhiteSong]

First question, the poets never exactly expressed their opinion on whether or not the gods were perfect or not. There seemed to be a bias based on HUMAN morals and what is deemed acceptable or not. But we must remember, that we are biased. Different cultures have different morals. Take for example Zeus' numerous love affairs with humans. Different cultures and mindsets will take this differently. Was Zeus being immoral and thus "not" perfect? Or is this something inherent in the gods, love being such a free emotion, that it only makes Zeus all the more perfect with his ability to fall in love so easily with mortals? Or Hera, is her jealousy a fault? Or does it simply express the need for fidelity in the gods? Perhaps her jealousy makes her perfect. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it can interpreted either way. One can see the gods as imperfect or perfect based on one's mindset. I think we just need to remember when trying to answer this question, that there is a human bias towards this traits.

I like your argument here.
 I think that Plato actually believed that morality was objective--that it actually existed in another realm--as an object. Kind of far out...
It sounds like you think perfection is subjective, and I agree with you. But Plato probably wouldn't.

[Nomad of Nowhere]

I like your argument here.
 I think that Plato actually believed that morality was objective--that it actually existed in another realm--as an object. Kind of far out...
It sounds like you think perfection is subjective, and I agree with you. But Plato probably wouldn't.

Yes, you could argue that his idea of "the good" was a precursor to the religious ideas that would later dismantle the Hellenic tradition, not to mention many others. I actually had a self-professed "Neoplatonist Christian" hit me with this argument not long ago. On one hand, I do not think that poets are to be treated as prophets; these tales are not straight from the mouths of the Gods themselves, they are at best glimpses at the nature of the Gods. At the same time, Plato's argument is not particularly impressive to me. I have the potential to "change" my shape just by moving, be it crouching, reaching, or standing on the tips of my toes. Changing your shape is by definition versatility, and a perfect body should be versatile. Also, I don't think Zeus was literally intended to be an ordinary swan. Who's to say he wasn't a God swan?

[savatage]

I ran into something interesting while doing some reading on how Plato regarded ancient Greek religion.

something i just want to mention, Plato/Socrates are only a few of the many contemporary philosophers, and not all agreed with them. Socrates also loved to use syllogism and irony in his arguments to make those he was arguing with put holes in their own argument.

In regards to the questions though, from my reading of Plato's Euthyphro there is a conversation regarding holiness, "so for any action, or person, if it is 'divinely approved' it is holy, and if it's 'divinely disapproved' it is unholy; and they are not the same, but exact opposites"(Euthyphro, 7a) The conversation(between Socrates and Euthyphro) then continues with them debating what they(Socrates and Euthyphro) could dispute and fail to find a solution for, they settle that it must be such things as what is just and unjust, or fine and despicable, or good and bad. Socrates then applies these concepts to the Gods saying that if they disagreed with themselves would it not be over matters such as these. And so that different parties(or gods) think different things are fine or just etc.

The point of the above is that one could argue if the Gods have their own views on what is just, fine and fair etc, it would stand to reason that they have their own opinion on many ranges of things as they are subjective. And so Perfection in the gods would be imperfect because they are not always in agreement with each other.

In regards to Whitesong, are you thinking of the forms? If you want good reading on morality in this era though, i recommended reading "the last days of Socrates" and then Aristotle's "ethics" as the latter addresses Plato's views and then his own in regards to it.
     


     

[Valex]

First question, the poets never exactly expressed their opinion on whether or not the gods were perfect or not. There seemed to be a bias based on HUMAN morals and what is deemed acceptable or not. But we must remember, that we are biased. Different cultures have different morals. Take for example Zeus' numerous love affairs with humans. Different cultures and mindsets will take this differently. Was Zeus being immoral and thus "not" perfect? Or is this something inherent in the gods, love being such a free emotion, that it only makes Zeus all the more perfect with his ability to fall in love so easily with mortals? Or Hera, is her jealousy a fault? Or does it simply express the need for fidelity in the gods? Perhaps her jealousy makes her perfect. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it can interpreted either way. One can see the gods as imperfect or perfect based on one's mindset. I think we just need to remember when trying to answer this question, that there is a human bias towards this traits.

Never really thought of love being a free emotion among gods, my ignorance on that part. I do like how you basically said that perfection relies on someone's perception which is based on their bias because that's what I thought while reading the website.

Yeah, that bothered me too. How is taking on the form of a swan any different than the form of a human? And how does he know that the swan wasn't "perfect" and without flaws because it was really Zeus?

I think Plato thought that anything but gods were perfect. His entire logic is dependent on that claim I believe.

something i just want to mention, Plato/Socrates are only a few of the many contemporary philosophers, and not all agreed with them. Socrates also loved to use syllogism and irony in his arguments to make those he was arguing with put holes in their own argument.

I didn't know that. That's very interesting to learn then. Could you tell me some more philosophers of that time? I would like to see their opinions too.

The point of the above is that one could argue if the Gods have their own views on what is just, fine and fair etc, it would stand to reason that they have their own opinion on many ranges of things as they are subjective. And so Perfection in the gods would be imperfect because they are not always in agreement with each other.

I especially like that last statement because it sums up a very good counterargument to Plato.

[RandallS]

Plato and Socrates view the stories of poets as untrue and corrupts the young's view of the gods. To them, the gods were perfect and pious beings. Going from that assumption, Plato argues against myths that have gods changing forms. "No being willingly makes itself worse. To take on an inferior outward form is to worsen oneself. The gods do nothing unwillingly and their forms are perfect. Therefore the gods do not take on other forms. Thus, the story of Leda and the Swan alias Zeus must be false."

The problem with perfect beings is that they can't DO much, as just about anything they do -- especially if you take Plato's view as expressed here to its logical conclusion -- leads to imperfection. Once you start assuming the Gods are truly perfect beings, you quickly end up with Gods that cannot actually do much except be examples of perfection.

A more specific problem with Plato's argument is that just because humans see a Swan would not necessarily mean that Zeus had taken the form of a Swan, he could have just projected an illusion into human minds s that when they look at him, they saw a swan. In such a cases, to the humans, Zeus was a swan, but Zeus himself had not changed form.

[BGMarc]

My reading of the philosophy of the era (together with later works, such as Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods) left me with the impression that for the philosophers the gods really didn't act in the idiosyncratic ways described by the poets. They acted, but simply by being what they were. Ares was war and the reality of war was his direct manifestation.

Some of them talk of the gods having physical form and that that form is the planets named for them. The planets were understood to be spherical, which was seen as being a perfect form. One of the common arguments of philosophers against the poets  seems to have been that they poets misleaad the common people by making claims that were purely metaphorical and that lead the people to mistakenly believe that the deities were literally as portrayed in the plays and poems. The philosophers seem not to have a great deal of time for, or understanding/appreciation of, metaphoric/mythic truth.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- About The Cauldron ----------------------------- => Rules and Regulations => Cauldron Announcements ===> Volunteers Needed: Site Assistants and Projects => Introductions => Board Questions, Suggestions, and Feedback => Chat and CauldronMUX Support => Test Board ----------------------------- Religion and Philosophy ----------------------------- => Paganism For Beginners => Books and Other Resources => Pagan Religions => Pagan Spirituality => Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology => Worship and Ritual => Holidays and Festivals => History and Religion => Faith in Everyday Life => Philosophy and Metaphysics => Non-Pagan Religions and Interfaith Discussions => Miscellaneous Religious Discussions ----------------------------- Magic and the Occult ----------------------------- => Magic and the Occult for Beginners => Witchcraft, Hoodoo, and Folk Magic => The Western Magical Tradition => Chaos Magic => Lodges and Other Magic Organizations => Miscellaneous Magical Discussions ----------------------------- Special Interest Groups & Special Discussions ----------------------------- => Special Topic Discussions => Chavi Memorial Chronic Illness SIG => General SIGS ===> College Pagans SIG ===> Cooking SIG ===> Divination SIG ===> Home and Garden SIG ===> Pagan Parents SIG ===> Teen Pagans SIG => Religious SIGS ===> Asatru and Heathenry SIG ===> Cauldron Cill ===> FlameKeeping SIG ===> Hazel and Oak: A Celtic Polytheism SIG ===> Neo-Druidry SIG ===> Reformed Kemeticism SIG ===> Ta Hiera Hellenic Polytheism SIG => Book/Media Discussion Boards ===> Academic Book Discussions ===> Pagan Religion Book Discussions ===> Magick Book Discussions ===> Fiction Book Discussions ===> DVD/Video Discussions ----------------------------- Life, the Universe, and Everything Else ----------------------------- => Pagan Announcements => Prayer and Energy Requests => News and Politics ===> Religious News ===> Non-Religious News ===> Political Discussions => Social Discussion Boards ===> Art, Poetry and Writing ===> Books ===> Computers and the Internet ===> Crafts and Hobbies ===> Family Life ===> Gaming ===> Health and Medicine ===> Humor and Quizzes ===> Music, Television, and Film ===> Pets ===> Science and Technology ===> Sports and Recreation