[lit-ideas] Re: Wet Logos
- From: John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:04:49 -0500
Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx wrote:
Yes, I echo Ursula Stange that it translates 'logos'.
I think it's then the _Greek_ concept, and something for us Christians, but
not necessarily those who only abide by the _Old_ Testament.
There is a lot of Jewish meaning in "logos." In Genesis, when Adam
"names" the animals, it's an exercise in determining not just their
names, but their natures. Think "classification" as well as proper
names here. To give something its proper name is to be able to
see its place in creation, to have control and dominion over it. (This
still forms a lot of what is called "magical" thinking, or just plain
old-fashioned "magic." To cast a spell, one must know the right names.)
Oddly enough, this Lit-Ideas thread thus combines with the recent one
about "wet." We are trying to understand the "name" of water,
that is, to understand its primary "nature," its "essence."
I understand the idea of 'logos' here is the Christians paying a little
homage to the Greek tradition in philosophy.
R. Paul should edify us about it.
When I studied philosophy, or even Latin (my professor, Dissandro, has a
book written on "From mythos to logos") the idea was that _logos_ signified
the beginning of _philosophy_.
Thus, while Plato uses 'mythos' in his philosophical dia-LOGUES, he is
more into 'logos' than 'mythos'.
Ah, Plato again. He was, after all, a poet before Socrates seduced him
into philosophy. Plato still retains more of the poet than
that of the logician. In most of the dialogues, just when Plato is about
to reveal the "essence" (the "name") of the true form, he
gives up. Instead, he tells a story! He becomes a poet! Just when you
are expecting logos, you get mythos instead. The "allegory
of the cave" is the "solution" to the problem of justice. Ah, but it's
just a story, not itself the nature of justice.
----
So by saying what he does, the apostle is saying,
"In the beginning there was a Reason".
"Reason" here again means "essence" as much as it means "logic." It's
out of fashion now to think that
philosophers grasp the essential nature of things, but scientists still
haven't given up on it. To take the
currently discussed "pig" example: A "pig" is a pig because its nature
is to consume slop. We call something
a "pig" because it has that nature. A Sequoia tree is not a pig because
a Sequoia tree does
NOT consume slop.
(The "Logos" ideal is actually found in lots of strange places. The U.S.
Supreme Court seems to have made
an indirect appeal to it in Roe-v-Wade abortion decision. The fetus at
first has a "vegetative" nature (or "soul"
if you will), making it not yet human. At first the fetus consumes
nutrients and grows. It out-grows that early
vegetative soul and develops into what might be called "animal" soul
somewhere along the way, which is
capable of movement and response to the environment. Aquinas thought
this "quickening" was probably the
most likely place to begin to talk about the fetus being "human." But at
some point before birth, but after
the development of the animal soul, the "rational" soul develops, and at
birth we have a human being,
not a plant or a pig.)
Mike Geary wrote:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God." To me this first sentence of Scripture is the most astonishing and
most puzzling that I've ever encountered. I can't make any sense of it.
And yet I've lived with it for 65 years without reaching out for some
elucidation. What the hell does it mean? Any suggestions? What does "Word"
mean in this context?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
