posted
The below is humbly dedicated to our good friend Blattella Germanica aka Arrow
Genesis
Ten years ago if you had looked up the words "black" and "classicists" on the internet, you would have been directed to Martin Bernal (Sinologist at Cornell University) or Mary Lefkowitz (Hellenist at Wellesley College), and the polarized, aporetic debate over Bernal's book Black Athena. Today such a search will take you in another direction to the juncture of these words. It will point you to "black classicists" as a phrase and as a concept.
This is a direct result of my effort to turn the attention of academicians and the public at large to thinking about the very considerable influence that the culture of ancient Greece and Rome has had upon the creative and professional lives of people of African descent. Early last spring (2003), funds from the James Loeb Classical Library Foundation (LCLF) in the Department of Classics at Harvard University gave me the wherewithal to make one aspect of this research agenda a reality, i.e. to demonstrate visually and in a public way that black professors of classical languages with professional affiliations actually existed in 19th century America. With money from the LCLF, and sage advice from William Peck, Curator of Ancient Art at the Detroit Institute of Arts, my collection of photos and documents became "12 Black Classicists." In September the installation made its debut at the Detroit Public Library and was displayed in the vitrines of Adam Strohm Hall. The dozen panels have been on the move ever since. The reactions I have received from the audience face-to-face, by e-mail or through comment left inside the guest books placed at various installations have made the Sturm und Drang of the process worthwhile.
The work, however, is by no means complete. This is just the beginning, a veritable tip of the iceberg. Opportunities for original research which will transform our current perceptions abound. Here is an overview:
1) The history of classical studies covering the professoriate, the curriculum and its students at our historically black colleges and universities needs both codification and analysis. A comprehensive study has not yet been written. Certain individual black classicists deserve book length study as well. William Henry Crogman, co-founder of the American Negro Academy and professor of Greek at Clark University for over 40 years, is one striking example. The mandate springs from my own research into the life of William Sanders Scarborough and from the 567 page dissertation on Richard Theodore Greener written by Michael Mounter at the University of South Carolina (2002).
2) Similar study needs to be made of the classical curricula taught at secondary schools across the country. This is where many women of African descent, who were excluded from the male dominated structures of the university made valuable contributions. Examples include Lucy Craft Laney, Anna Julia Cooper, Charlotte Hawkins Brown and Helen Maria Chesnutt.
3) Equally important and equally unexamined is the study of the classical ideas and imagery that have been percolating through African American arts and letters for generations. This can be traced from Phillis Wheately and Jupiter Hammon in the 18th century to the present day through the creative work of artists such as Robert Hayden, Romare Bearden, Rita Dove and Toni Morrison.
I invite you to examine these pages whose cost was defrayed by a grant from the Wright-Hayre Foundation in Philadelphia. And I encourage you to begin your own investigation of the history of black classicism. If we are to speak of classical humanism without the countenance of hypocrites, then we must put these men and women back in the record. Somewhere the African born playwright and former slave Terence will be smiling as we give his oft-quoted maxim, nihil humani alienum a me (nothing human is foreign to me, Heauton Timorumenos, line 77) a brand new spin.
posted
Hopefully we will continue to see the rise of Black classicists in the realm of academia. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats great, the more educated people we get the better, regardless of their race. That said, just because someone is black does not mean they subscribe to all these nutty theories concerning Greece and the rest of the world.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please let it go. I'd really hate to see the same inanities repeated in this thread that this poor fellow always brings up always without supporting documentation of any kind.
Can we please just keep this thread on topic -- the topic of blacks who are classicists.
posted
i do not know what is worse Takruri, lack of supporting evidence or supporting evidence that is pure nonsense.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you admit that Takruri has supporting evidence and that you DO NOT have evidence for your claims??????????
The fact is that knowledge is not in the hands of one group of people. Plenty of knowledge, from the beginning of humanity, has been spread abroad to different people groups. Hence, I think it is important that we study ancient Greek civilization and learn from it. It is interesting, in my own personal studies, how "metaphysical" Plato appears to be. In one of his dialogues, he speaks of Socrates as a "seer". Hence, it is interesting to define what exactly "philosophy" was according to the ancient Greek mind. It is certainly different than how we define "philosophy" today.
Concerning where the Greeks got their knowledge, well..........As I said before, knowledge is not the property of one particular group of people. Knowledge is everywhere. It must be spread around.............Hence, the knowledge that the Ancient Egyptians possessed, the Greeks acquired some of it.
This is a fact Arrow. Did you know that the so-called theorm of Pythagorus was already existent in Egypt before Pythagorus existed? Did you know that many, if not most, Greek philosophers sought to connect themselves with Ancient Egypt in any way they could, including TRAVEL! Thales of Miletus, Plato, Pythagorus, Herodotus, and others, traveled to Egypt and were initiated into the secret knowledge of the Ancient Egyptians. Read the book, "Black Athena" and read on how many Greek authors referenced Egypt in their writings. Also, read "Civilization or Barbarism" by Sheikh Anta Diop to find out about how Greek philsophy had its roots in Egyptian thought. Egyptian mythology, if interpreted philosophically, shows in plain view the ancient philsophical doctrines that are attributed alone to the Greeks. The Greeks made their original contribution to the study of "wisdom" by being atheistic.
If your not sure about the two books above, you can cop the book, "African Philosophy" were a professor of philosophy(apparently not Afrocentric) critiques Sheikh Anta Diop's thesis concerning the genesis of Greek philosophy........
There you have it. I have given you a few books to look at. It would be good if you read a little and opened your mind. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel, You make some excellent points. That said, you continued to use some of the same types of subjective ploys I mentioned above. Example, "read a lttle and open your mind." What you are really saying is that people who disagree with you have a closed mind." Again, its a way of saying I will win the argument by demeaning the other person. I'm sure the books you mentioned are excellent and have good information BUT you must know that the overwhelming weignt of classicalist thought is that Greek philosophy was home grown. Thats a view point that will not change.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Israel, You make some excellent points. That said, you continued to use some of the same types of subjective ploys I mentioned above. Example, "read a lttle and open your mind." What you are really saying is that people who disagree with you have a closed mind." Again, its a way of saying I will win the argument by demeaning the other person. I'm sure the books you mentioned are excellent and have good information BUT you must know that the overwhelming weignt of classicalist thought is that Greek philosophy was home grown. Thats a view point that will not change.
Well suffice to say that attitude is innacurate. First off there are many ideas of which the Greeks are said to be the first. However, if you go on a case by case basis, there is much that is not new or original in Greek thought. For example, Socrates is known for his approach to knowledge based on questioning. There is nothing new about dialog and debate and certainly Greece is not the first place where people engaged in debates about the nature of knowledge and wisdom. Socrates himself even admits to this when he uses the story about the Egyptian king and Thoth:
quote:
Edit This Page In the Phaedrus (274c), Plato dramatizes many of the issues that concern us in this paper, including memory, truth, technology, authenticity, and identity. Socrates tells a story about the invention of arts and technologies, including writing. In the story Egyptian King Ammon disputes the claim made by a god named Theuth that, writing “is a branch of learning that will make the people of Egypt wiser and improve their memories.”
From this you see that Socrates is making a complex statement. On one hand he is using allegory about the nature of knowledge and learing. On the other hand he is making a statement about learning and the role of tradition. Tradition is a very important aspect of learning or wisdom, in that the stories and tales of a people can be said to hold great truths that are tools for teaching. Socrates himself was such a tradition as later Greeks wrote many books about Socrates and his life, which became to tradition that eventually developed into Western Philosophy. But that does not make the Greeks unique or different, it just makes the Greek tradition one followed in the West and use to teach ways of thinking and understanding in "Western" culture. But other cultures and traditions have just as much "philosophical" knowledge about the nature of the life and the universe as that of the Greeks. Socrates and other Greek philosophers themselves even attest to this from their quotes and usages of stories handed down from the Egyptian tradition. This does not make the Greeks plagiarists, rather it really expresses the true nature of knowledge and learning and how tradition is an important vehicle for passing on the accumulated "wisdom" of a particular culture for use as an example that others can use when examining or developing their own traditions. In fact I would argue that the Greek tradition is one in which traditions and learning were sought after all over the known world and provided a framwork where other beliefs, traditions and knowledge could be analyzed and dissected and incorporated into the growing body of Greek thought. This framework of learning does not imply that all knowledge is new or unique to Greece, but allows for older ideas and concepts to be examined, modified or discarded as part of a process of learning. It represents a continuity of knowledge as opposed to the source of all knowledge, which is what modern scholars would like us to think of ancient Greece. Ancient Greece is not the source of all knowledge, intellect or anything related thereto. They werent the first to recognize thought and speech as keys to knowledge and wisdom and they weren't the first to put pen to paper or use oratory in order to record thoughts for others to understand as part of a tradition for passing on knowledge and wisdom.
Western Scholarship tends to oversimplify the discusson on Philosophy and what we call "Western" philosophy, by trying to imply that the Greek tradition concerning approaching knowledge and existence is the first and superior to all others. However, the Greeks themselves never said this. They acknowledged that tradition is indeed important and that other cultures had traditions more ancient that were important to understand as well as that of the Greeks themselves. Nothing exists in a vacuum and knowledge is accumulated and passed down from one place to another and one person to another via writing and dialog. This is the crux of what Socrates was saying and the quote itself attests to the antiquity of such simple concepts in places outside of Greece.
In fact, Socrates himself was executed because his way of thinking and dialog went against the established traditions of Athens at the time. Therefore, it is important to understand how tradition is an important factor of how knowledge is transmitted in a culture and that all traditions are not good and do not support all forms of inquiry into the nature of things for the purpose of finding truth.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats all well and good but until the classical scholars and Greek historians come around to your way of thinking, which will not happen, these ideas will never get off the ground.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only in your dreams do 'classical' scholars determine which ideas do and do not get off the ground.
Ironically, Martin Bernal 'who is not technically a classicist' is probably the most famous and best read current scholar associated with ancient Greece.
Lefkowitz would be 2nd, and she exists in the public forum only as and ineffectual attack dog set against Bernal.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernal is an idiot, an old worn out communist political scientist who is not even educated in the field. You cannot have it both ways by demanding proper credentials when discussing Egypt on the one hand and accepting every hairy dog that stumbles down the road when it comes to Greece. Fact is that Greek history will not be written by the likes of Bernal, it will be written by classical scholars.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That being true, please take your own advice seriously by setting the example and bowing out of this forum.
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: You cannot have it both ways by demanding proper credentials when discussing Egypt on the one hand and accepting every hairy dog that stumbles down the road when it comes to Greece.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember my mentor telling me a story. He had just received his degree, and I guess he felt real smart. His mother looked him straight in the eye and said, "The first teacher never had a degree"...................
The moral of the story is that you do not need a degree to be knowledgable about something. Afrocentric scholars for years went against the academic grain and spoke alot of truth concerning how the Greek civilization was influenced by Egypt. Many of these scholars weren't as rigorously trained as regular scholars of the field would be. Yet and still, now much of what the Afrocentric scholars pointed out, many within the fields of academia now agree with it.
It is kinda like the Roman empire. During the early days of the new sect that we now call "Christianity", the Romans persected this sect. Yet and still, in the fullness of time, this sect became the major religion of the empire. History repeats itself again. The Jewish religious leaders, and later the Romans, felt that these followers of Jesus were a bunch of ignorant people. They didn't go to school to learn religious knowledge. Yet and still, int he fullness of time, the learned men of the day humbled themselves to the religion of Christianity.
I'm not advocating about anything in the above. I am simply making the point that history repeats itself. What Bernal says in his writings make alot of sense. If nothing else, it tracts how history has been distorted throughout the centuries. It shows how people can interpret history according to whatever ideological viewpoint they may choose to follow. That is the value of Bernal's book. His book, to be sure, probably wasn't about showing the "Blackness" of Ancient Egypt. It may have been about protecting his own people, i.e. the Jews..............That is a whole nother point. That point was suggested to me by someone, and I don't doubt the truth of it.
Anyway Arrow, I didn't mean to offend you. It is good to know that perhaps you might in fact be open-minded.........thats cool . Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Bernal is an idiot,
Given your notorous inability to hold down a debate on ES, we estimate that you would last aproximately 11 nano seconds in a debate with Martin Bernal.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
a classic rasolian response. Actually, I'd love to debate Martin Bernal since everyone else has already beaten him. He did not write a history book but rather a political book. The book appeals to radical blacks and some radical white leftist profs. It has failed the peer review stage of academic discourse by historians and classical scholars. Actually it has been a successful book in terms of sales to its target audience in an age when one needs a controversial subjet to sell books. Its much like many of the Kennedy murder books, strong sales with little to no actual historical accuracy. It is very much in the same catagory of 'Chariots of the Gods' and other like jibberish.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: you [israel] continued to use some of the same types of subjective ploys I mentioned above. Example, "read a lttle and open your mind." What you are really saying is that people who disagree with you have a closed mind." Again, its a way of saying I will win the argument by demeaning the other person.
What a hypocrite:
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: That said, just because someone is black does not mean they subscribe to all these nutty theories concerning Greece and the rest of the world.
What are you trying to say, arrow? ^^ So simon can and we can't, eh?
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Bernal is an idiot, an old worn out communist political scientist who is not even educated in the field.
Just an ad hominem on Martin. And an opinion.
Oh, and back to:
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: That said, just because someone is black does not mean they subscribe to all these nutty theories concerning Greece and the rest of the world.
^^That's a given, and seeing that you haven't even specified what constitutes "nutty theories", you should feel lucky to have gotten a reply.
Listen, Simon, or would you prefer MASSA' ("yes mass'"), stop with the implicit statements, this is Egyptsearch, not simon sez, where all "blacks subscribe to nutty theories". Sorry professor.
quote: Originally posted by Arrow99: He did not write a history book but rather a political book. The book appeals to radical blacks and some radical white leftist profs.
Wow, even though I haven't even read THAT book, guess what your statement means? NOTHING. The above means nothing, as you haven't refuted anything, and is therefore immaterial to the discussion. Good bye. Nice try Prof. hore. Arrow, heres a (pretty challenging) question for you(, I'm sure). HOW?
Your first two responses did not even diserve any replies given your history on this forum but...
That's your goal/niche, eventually saying something so entirely stupid, so a[s]sinine, andd/or so bigoted that you draw a reply.
I know horemheb appears as a total bigot, but at times he has appeared open minded. If such is the case, I realized a while ago he must have an agenda (of disruption) for his brain/comments to keep retarding to such a reverted stated over and over again unless our professor is JUST THAT WAY and does not want to hear the truth
Oh yeah, and
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb/Arrow99/Simon: Thats a view point that will not change.
^ ^Narration: "That's a view that I donot want to change."
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb/Arrow99/Simon/person who this forum has on the verge of mental breakdown: come around to your way of thinking, which will not happen, these ideas will never get off the ground.
quote:What you are really saying is that people who disagree with you have a closed mind.
Close, (for our professor,) but Nope, no cigar. That's what someone like you would say.
However it would be a safe assesment to say that YOU are closed minded, or at least, your mind is slow to open.
Quit acting as if you were [i]trying to, bra'.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Bernal were not a white man his book would've been overlooked as the countless books of black writers since the mid-19th century on the self same topic were overlooked.
To whit, Bernal has added not one original rain drop to the ocean of historiography of African and Levantine contributions to, and their minor settlings in, the Aegean world laid out by black researchers since
Blyden's (1869) The Negro in Ancient History
or
Delaney's (1879) Principia of Ethnology: The Origin of Races and Color, With an Archaeological Compendium of Ethiopian and Egyptian Civilization, From Years of Careful Examination and Enquiry
all the way up to
Jones' (1972 & 2005) Black Zeus & Black Zeus II
with many even heavier hitters in between those dated extremes.
And I must ask forgivenes for not now including the black woman whose works, iirc, pre-date Blyden and Delaney.
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Thats all well and good but until the classical scholars and Greek historians come around to your way of thinking, which will not happen, these ideas will never get off the ground.
What? You mean that is all you can say in response to what I wrote? It is not what I think that matters, it is what Socrates thought. Socrates made the allegory to Egypt and so did other Greek thinkers. It is you who cannot grasp the signifigance of this and the classicists that you mention have yet to be quoted. What does a classicist offer on Socrates other than second hand commentary? They cannot change what was written about Socrates and what came out of his own mouth. It is funny how Eurocentrics will try and act as intermediaries for ancient Greek works and try and change the meaning of what is said in such works. It boils down to "well, that is what was written but what he REALLY meant was....". This is what you seem to be referring to when you try and use an appeal to authority on this issue. Sorry, my friend, an appeal to authority of someone who existed thousands of years after the writings were written is no authority. That is a contradiction of logic as Socrates would say, since the authorities on the subject, ie. Socrates or Plato are long dead. Any classicist can offer commentary on Greek writings, but that commentary does not make it right. In fact, such commentary is supposed to be debated and analyzed following the so-called Socratic method in order to determine its validity. Isn't this the self same tradition of scholarship that is the hallmark of "western" culture. You want to appeal to authority as an appeal to take someones commentary without critically analyzing it to see whether it is indeed valid or not. But, as I said, all of that is a secondary point. Socrates himself was challenged in his own time for many of his thoughts and the passage above shows that he himself was challenged about the ancient sayings of the Egyptians. Nothing new here, been there done that. What you are doing is just ..... nothing. You havent challenged anything, not whether Socrates actually used Egyptian sayings and certainly not whether my interperetation of his allegory is valid.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Classical scholars would say Doug, and do say, that there is an entire body of information that you are not lookling at. I sent you much of that material. What you and others here are doing is picking out the information THAT SUPPORTS the point you want to make and simply ignoring the rest. You are a smart man and you should want the truth , not just some sanitized and fictional story designed to back up a point of view.
The Beranl book represents a radical point of view. I'm am not saying that it is not valuable. Radical viewpoints are important on BOTH extremes. In many ways they define the center and the way we frame the argument and to some extent they keep us all honest. That said, untill they pass peer review, which his has not, we cannot accept them as mainstream thought and they have to be left in the radical catagory.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: The Classical scholars would say Doug, and do say, that there is an entire body of information that you are not lookling at. I sent you much of that material. What you and others here are doing is picking out the information THAT SUPPORTS the point you want to make and simply ignoring the rest. You are a smart man and you should want the truth , not just some sanitized and fictional story designed to back up a point of view.
The Beranl book represents a radical point of view. I'm am not saying that it is not valuable. Radical viewpoints are important on BOTH extremes. In many ways they define the center and the way we frame the argument and to some extent they keep us all honest. That said, untill they pass peer review, which his has not, we cannot accept them as mainstream thought and they have to be left in the radical catagory.
Classicists also pick and choose what they want to see when it comes to the Greeks and the positions that they maintain. We can and should debate the writings of BOTH Bernal or the so called leftists and the classicists, because we should take nothing for granted and examine all views to try and approach the truth. For sure, that IS the Greek legacy in the "western" world isn't it? Therefore, Bernal is not the be all and end all answer to the question about the Greeks and their intellectual and cultural relationship to Egypt. To focus on one or another writer in such a fashion is to pigeonwhole yourself into a corner and use someone else as an excuse to not think for yourself. The true wisdom of the Greek tradtion, which is indeed ancient and not unique to the Greeks, is that each man or woman should investigate the facts and traditions for themselves and come to a conclusion based on rational thought and logic. All this going around in circles talking about classicists and leftist liberals is only a superfical discussion that goes nowhere and does not investigate the relevant facts. If you want to talk about the relationship between Greek thought and Egyptian thought, the best approach is go to the source, the writings of the Greeks and the traditions of the Egyptians to see where they are similar and where they diverge. Anything else is nothing but a summary of someone else's commentary which may or may not be right or appropriate because of your own lack of first hand knowledge on the subject.
From what I posted to you privately:
quote: ....It is in the detailed comparison of Greek and Egyptian beliefs that you can understand where Greek and Egyptian are similar and where they diverge. What you posted has nothing to do with this and only remains a summary of summaries, without any real relevant facts or details.
Did the Egyptians believe in transmigration of souls?
Of course. The Egyptians believed that the soul was born into a new body in the gardens of Amenta and that this body was fashioned by Ptah. This afterlife looked much like this life in that the person would be surrounded by the same things and people he saw or owned in the the current life. Their funerary beliefs contained a very complex "formula" for making sure that the soul of the deceased was reconnected with the new body after they died. I think those who say that the Egyptians did not believe in the transmigration of the soul are doing so out of a bias towards one tradition over another. The point here is that regardless of whether the details of the cosmology, what I call the tradition, of Egyptian belief are exactly the same as other traditions, like those of Greece or India is irrelevant. The Egyptians believed that people possessed a soul and that this soul moved on in the afterlife to a world much like this one with a body much like the one in life. Transmigrate means to move across and certainly the Egyptians believed that the soul moved across from this life to the next, intact. That is the fundamental meaning of transmigration of the soul. The beliefs of Greeks, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other religions all come under the same umbrella of religions that have some sort of belief in the transmigration of the soul. There is no one method of belief or one way of tradition or one form of ceremony regarding such a concept. Each religion and each group will come up with their own way of expressing such a belief. It is only someone who has a shallow understanding of the fact that transmigration of the soul is a concept of faith not a fact that forces them to accept one tradition as being more real or the basis for all others. Humans have been believing in souls or spirits since long before there was an Egypt. This is indeed an example of a debate that requires a much deeper understanding of the facts than what you have put forward so far.
Did Plato study in Egypt?
Once again another discussion that requires more time and space than can be made in one post. You are oversimplifying everything, possibly because you feel that others are doing the same. Oversimplification will not do this issue any justice. First, as you said, whether or not Plato studied in Egypt is the subject of much debate. However, the fact that he referenced Egypt is not subject to debate. Plato acknowledged what modern Eurocentric scholars refuse to acknowledge, which is that the Egyptians were practicing math, science and philosophy long before the Greeks. The problem becomes what is math and what is philosophy? Well, of course, a Eurocentric scholar will say that math, science and philosophy all started with the Greeks. Unfortunately, this is not true on many levels. What are the Greeks really being given credit for in each field? What is it that the Greeks did that was new or different than what came before? This is where much more detailed study and comparison needs to be done between Greek, Egyptian, Baylonian and Indian thought to come to a conclusion. Suffice to say, the Greeks followed a tradition, as mentioned by Socrates, of passing on knowledge through oratory and allegory. Oratory and allegory are not new and was not invented by the Greeks. So what are they given credit for? What they are given credit for is the fact that their writings have survived and that they spent a lot of time writing about how one should approach knowledge in general. This is the framework that we really are referring to when we speak of the "western" tradition. It is a tradition of looking, observing, comparing and applying critical thought to what is observed and forming a conclusion based on a rational process of logic. But the Greeks were not the first to use rational thinking or logic. Rather, the fact that the Greeks existed much closer to our times and that their works of a rational nature were more readily available to us is what makes them siginificant in the western tradition. Much of what the Greeks take credit for is not new. Unfortunately, we dont have the amount of written evidence from other cultures to give us an understanding of the way they approached knowledge and the extent of their explanations of rationality or logic. Most of what we have from more ancient cultures is purely religious in nature, which makes these cultures seem more irrational and superstitious than the Greeks, which is not accurate to say the least.
Did the Egyptians have a mystery System?
The mystery system is only a reference to the teachings of math, rational thinking (philosophy), and the meaning behind the religious symbols (theology). It is only a mystery because we dont know how the Egyptians transmitted their understanding of mathematical concepts, how they approached knowledge in a general sense, or what the meaning was behind many of their religious symbols. This whole concept of mystery only alludes to the idea that there was an aspect of Egyptian knowledge that is not fully expressed in the religious symbolism of the heiroglyphs and reqiured access to some other tradition, oral or written in order to give insight into, ie initiate, one to the accumulated rational knowledge of Egyptian society. Going back to what I said earlier, this idea of an Egyptian mystery system is blown out of proportion by modern thinkers because most of the written information coming out of Egypt is of a religious nature. Therefore the mystery is how they looked at things outside of the religious framework we are left with. I would look at the mystery system as no more than a very exaggerated way of saying, getting an education in some Egyptian institute of learning. However, since we dont know much about the Egyptian system of learning, what they taught or what subjects they would have considered as academic disciplines, we call it a mystery. We dont even know if any aspects of knowledge were considered as academic by the Egyptians, meaning separate disciplines which contained techniques and formulas to solve problems that revolved around thinking and understanding. The fragments of a scientific nature that we do have only allude to the fact that they had a system for solving problems and for applying various formulas for solving problems, ie on some of the mathematical papyri that have survived. However, we dont know how these skills were taught, where or to whom. We do know that Ptah was the god of wisdom and thought and as the creator of the universe from the utterance or divine thought, there is no reason to assume that the Egyptians did not view thinking in a critical way or understand the signifigance of thinking related to everyday problem solving. Once again, it is a subject that requires much more in depth analysis and understanding than what can be put forward here.
Why claim that Grek philosophy was stolen from Egypt?
Once again we are oversimplifying things and a lot of it stems from a misunderstanding of what is being said. What most people are saying when they say that the Greeks "stole" philosophy from Egypt, is that the Egyptians are not given any credit for the role they played in the development of philosophy. Many of the Greek philosophical works contain quotes and references to Egyptian traditions, yet many still, as in the case of Socrates, dont fully appreciate the reason why reference to Egyptian traditions are significant. Socrates is a perfect example of the interaction between Egyptian traditions and Greek philosophy. The issue here is not one of the Greeks taking things word for word from Egypt. The issue here is that there are some traditions that the Greeks built on when framing their own views of reality, which we call "philosophy". It is the modern scholars who want to omit these references as being irrelevant. But if you read the Greeks themselves you will see that they are. Now, the Greeks are not taking everything word for word from Egypt, rather many times they are using the Egyptians as an example of older traditions being used as examples for allegory, comparison or explanation of complex philosophical ideas. That the Greeks used the Egyptians as a reference in such a way shows that Greeks acknowledged Egypt as having traditions in thought and cosmology that many dont give them credit for today. On top of that, if you go to another level, if you look at the concepts that the Greeks supposedly invented, many of these things are not new at all. For examle the concepts of duality in nature are certainly not new and neither is the concept of the logos or divine thought incarnate in nature a new concept. The Egyptians expressed their understanding of duality in the fact the most gods were a symbolic symbol and had a partner that was the opposite of this symbol. So one of the Neters represented dryness and is partner represented moisture, and so on and so on. That is a fundamental expression of duality that existed way before the writings of the Greeks. On top of that, most of these dual neters came from the creator god Ptah or some other supreme diety that expressed the concept of divine will or divine logos in some way. Ptah, Ra and Amun were all chief gods, ie. chief forces behind the creation of the universe in some fashion and the symbolism of each was designed to give insight into the inner nature of things and the universe, such as the nature of thought, the soul and material nature (atoms), all of which is expresed in Greek philosophy at a much later date. Therefore this again is something much more complex than can be given justice with a few words on a forum. The idea of a stolen legacy in Egypt really refers to modern historians and their attitude towards Egypt and its place within the history of philosophy, math and the sciences an attitude the Greeks themselves did not have. It does not really mean that the Greeks stole things word for word from Egypt in most cases, but that the Greeks are credited with some concepts that already existed in many places, including Egypt, which those people dont get credit for. These concepts may have found a fuller expression in the Greeks, but that doesnt mean that they invented the concept. Some of this is due to the Greeks, some of it is due to modern thinkers.
Until we get beyond these superficial diatribes that only serve to reinforce and entrench each side in its own socio-ideological framework and really does nothing to further the understanding of ancient thought and wisdom, we will be writing a lot of words but not sayin anything.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make some oputstanding points but in the end, to become mainstream accepted history the information has to pass peer review IN THE FIELD FROM WHICH IT COMES. The Classical scholars and the Greek historians have to have, and will have the last word.
Several years ago a great book was published on Confederate General Robert E Lee titled 'Lee Considered.'. Lee came out of the Civil War untarnished and became, of all the Confederates , the 'ideal' American in terms of personal character and values. A mythology developed about him which over the years elevated him to the level of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and other American heroes. In the book 'Lee Considered' the author took the position that Lee was, in fact, not unlike the rest of the Confederates and held many of the same views and that the way he was presented by history was mostly the result of popular mythology. I read the book, wrote down and examined all of the arguments and the end disagreed with the thesis of the book. That does not mean the book was NOT VALUABLE but it was radical scholarship out of the mainstream of thought concerning General Lee. The same thing is involved with other radical literature such as the Bernal book.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: You make some oputstanding points but in the end, to become mainstream accepted history the information has to pass peer review IN THE FIELD FROM WHICH IT COMES. The Classical scholars and the Greek historians have to have, and will have the last word.
Several years ago a great book was published on Confederate General Robert E Lee titled 'Lee Considered.'. Lee came out of the Civil War untarnished and became, of all the Confederates , the 'ideal' American in terms of personal character and values. A mythology developed about him which over the years elevated him to the level of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and other American heroes. In the book 'Lee Considered' the author took the position that Lee was, in fact, not unlike the rest of the Confederates and held many of the same views and that the way he was presented by history was mostly the result of popular mythology. I read the book, wrote down and examined all of the arguments and the end disagreed with the thesis of the book. That does not mean the book was NOT VALUABLE but it was radical scholarship out of the mainstream of thought concerning General Lee. The same thing is involved with other radical literature such as the Bernal book.
All of which is again well and good but misses the point. I already said that working from a peer reviewed third party source is not going to address the issues here, especially if the peer review process is based on a dogmatic tradition and onesided interperetation of Greek culture. You cannot disagree with what is normally called the "system" by only relying on the writings that are approved of or supported by the same "system" that you argue against.
Therefore, if the point is to be made against the writings, authorized interperetations and views supported by the system, one has to go to the sources directly and engage in debate based on primary evidence. I prefer not to engage in debates around defending the work of someone else, whether it be Bernal or a peer reviewed mainstream scholar. I prefer to go to the sources and prove the points being made directly. There is nothing so incredibly complex about Greek literature or Egyptian tradtion that it requires thousands of books written by modern classisicsts to interperet. The works of the Greeks have been translated and are available for all to read and interperet for themselves. On the other hand, while a lot has been published about Egyptian religion, my opinion is that it has not been given enough attention by modern scholarship in order to address the depth and scope of Egyptian theological and philosophical thought. In fact the bias in "western" academia that Egypt had no theology or philosophy is the number one reason for this, followed by the complexity of the symbolism and the fact that it variations over the long period it lasted. Therefore, when talking about such traditions most western scholars will only stay at the very superficial level and talk about the existence of a symbolic system of thought, the heiroglyphic system, in Egypt but never really address the deeper meanings of the symbols in any meaningful way. Therefore, much of the interperetation is left to the so-called fringe or esoteric circles, where people are allowed to make up any old meanings based on their own flights of fancy.
Given the depth and complexity of Egyptian religious symbolism, there should be tons of peer reviewed mainstream books relating to the study and meaning of such. However, what we get from the mainstream is more of a pigeonholing of complex ideas in Egypt into the category of purely superstitious belief on behalf of a culture that had a continuous tradition of cosmological and philosophical thought for over 3 thousand years. All of which brings me back to the point of not relying on peer reviewed resources to be the basis of any comparison between Greek thought and Egyptian thought, since there is not enough real scholarship on Egyptian thought in order to provide the basis for such a comparison. As an example, name a peer reviewed mainstream source that addresses the signifigance of the philosophical system that surrounded the pantheon headed by Ptah in Egypt. I am sure you will be hard pressed to find one solely dedicated to such a study. Most of what you will find are books that cover the whole range of Egyptian dieties from predynastic to late period all in a very superficial and summary fashion, without doing any sort of in depth analysis of all the phrases and variations of symbolism within one system of belief in one period from dynastic Egypt. The saddest part is that even the so-called Afrocentriests follow the same pattern by relying on quotes and references to other third party interperetations of Greek sources, without going straight to the source and comparing the two directly and critically. This therefore allows their views to be rejected outright as rehashing of older interperetations which have in many cases been rejected. Many times this rejection is unwarranted, but unfortunately a lot of good points in scholarship is lost since some want to throw the baby out with the bath water. But since no scholarship is 100% accurate when dealing with history or anything else, it is not fair to throw away everything from one scholar just because some of the work is inaccurate or outdated. Budge is a classic example of this point of view. But, the answer is to look at Budge as a starting point and come up with an updated, revised compendium based on what is still accurate and what is based on up to date research. Budge wrote a lot of work on Egypt, which I dont expect any modern scholar to duplicate in scope or depth. The best thing is not to just give Budge superficial treatment and throw all his work out though, because there is nothing to replace much of what he did, all of which is not invalid.
Even the Greeks recognized that there was meaning in this symbolism and their use of allegory concerning Egyptian traditions and tales attest to this. It is modern scholarship that views the symbolism of ancient Egypt as having no value in the modern tradition of religion even though much of our modern system of religion comes from Egypt and Africa, which makes it even more important to cover up such connections since they are considered pagan by these same religions.
The reason Robert E. Lee was looked at as a great American is because he was part of the American military tradition and married to a descendant of George Washington. They give him respect for his service prior to the civil war as part of the upper echelons of the American political and military establishment, notwithstanding his political views during the war. Keep in mind though that descendants of slaves could care less about the military and social importance of the upper crust in American history, but that is a different issue.
And for those who dont really understand history, the civil war was in large part about the transition from the agricultural age the industrial age, where the North represented the industrial age and the South represented the agriculural age. The voices for and against slavery were not as much concerned about slavery as a moral issue as they were about competitiveness with Europe in the industrial age. In fact, Lincoln wanted to send all slaves back to Africa and wasn't interested in making them truly free and equal in any real sense in the American system. He viewed as a burden that were unnecessary as things moved to industrialization.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, If you are trying to argue against the system you are beating your head against the wall. Every discpline has a 'system.' In order to be objective the first thing we have to do is find the center. You have to understand the center before you can examine anything on the radical fringe. The very definition of 'radical' is anything that disagrees with the center.
You are correct about the civil war. It was nothing more that a clash between industry and agriculture. The use of the Lee example was simply to make a point.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Doug, If you are trying to argue against the system you are beating your head against the wall. Every discpline has a 'system.' In order to be objective the first thing we have to do is find the center. You have to understand the center before you can examine anything on the radical fringe. The very definition of 'radical' is anything that disagrees with the center.
You are correct about the civil war. It was nothing more that a clash between industry and agriculture. The use of the Lee example was simply to make a point.
And the use of the 'system' was just to make a point. You keep trying to use ad hominem statements to avoid the issue. If someone wants to show a connection between Greek thought and Egyptian thought you need to go to the source and prove it or disprove it based on primary analysis of primary texts. Analyzing what someone else wrote and how someone else accepted or did not accept it is only an analysis of the current state of research and publishing not a statement on the validity of the concept in question. Bernal and many other authors actually are doing more than analyzing the facts, most of their works are attacks against the current status quo in the field and therefore are attacked or rebuked at that same level. Neither form of argument actually spends enough time and research going over the primary facts, so it becomes a debate over whose interperetation of the facts is most valid. That is a good exercise as a start, but at some point there needs to more first hand analysis of primary facts and evidence in order to reach a conclusion, rather than rehashing the same old writings written many years ago. There is tons of new information being uncovered and some need to get over attacking the system and start doing primary research into the facts. Western European history and culture spans a period of about 2,000 years and there are hundreds and hundreds of books covering every aspect of it. Egyptian history and culture spans 5,000 years and yet there is very little written on it from any perspective or for any period. Therefore, there are a lot of areas that someone can actually go out and do research on without ever focusing solely on attacking the system. Papers are published regularly update what is current knowledge in any particular feild. The peer review process is not so much something to be worried about if the research is thoroughly researched and documented at a scholarly level. Everyone may or may not agree on the conclusion, but that is true of any course of study. The point is not to get 100% agreement, but to add to the body of information available on a topic so that others can use to guide their own studies. Debating just to debate the process or the "system" is a waste of time and paper.
So, if you don't have a comment about the primary facts that I put forward then I consider the case closed, since I am not here to debate the role of geopolitical and social attitudes in academic research. That is a body of study in and unto itself.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I have proved the point by noting that Bernal type arguments are NOT peer reviewed and not generally accepted by the mainstream , or for that matter any classical scholars. Neither you nor I ARE QUALIFIED to examine these issues. We depend on experts and specialists in these fields to make these judgements. For that matter Bernal is not qualified as a Classical scholar and thus is at a tremendous disadvantage when he wanders into these areas. You may not like it but the major classical scholars WILL control what becomes accepted history in the field.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: No, I have proved the point by noting that Bernal type arguments are NOT peer reviewed and not generally accepted by the mainstream , or for that matter any classical scholars. Neither you nor I ARE QUALIFIED to examine these issues. We depend on experts and specialists in these fields to make these judgements. For that matter Bernal is not qualified as a Classical scholar and thus is at a tremendous disadvantage when he wanders into these areas. You may not like it but the major classical scholars WILL control what becomes accepted history in the field.
Sorry, your appeal to authority will not work and if you are not qualified to make such comments, then how can you comment on what is right and wrong? You can't. Therefore, you are also not qualified to say who is or isnt qualified. Since you aren't qualified then stop talking as if you are and responding to my posts, and other's posts as if you are. Obviously your lack of ability to defend your own arguments are obvious, hence a need to throw up strawmen arguments about Martin Bernal as the be all and end all answer on the issue. He isn't, is goal is to attack the system and not really provide a rigorous examination of the facts outside a critique on the status quo. You want to use him, and other so-called Afrocentrics as convenient whipping-boys to stagnate any research that will prove the fundamental issues at hand. People are not and should not be limited to the interests and desires of others to do reasearch and study on what they are or aren't qualified in. By following one's own desire and interest in a subject one becomes qualified by amassing the facts and details needed to provide a reasonable statement of theory based on the facts. As I said, you just want to support those who say what you want to hear and dont support what you dont like. I am not afraid to challenge any so-called qualified person in the field as to the accuracy of their opinions on ancient Egypt and Greece, since there are many aspects of this relationship that are based on biased interperetations and not the facts. I stand by my opionion and I am willing to back it up by proving such things through facts and evidence not hollow talk and appeal to authority or depending on someone else's work to prove my own ideas.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are running around in circles. I don't say who is or isn't qualified, the discplines do. The problem comes in when you lack the background to make the interpretations you mention. I do not deny that you should have your own views whether they are correct or nonsense but to deny that experts in the field understand the problems and information better than you is absurd. Further, I stated that the EXPERTS in the field will have the last word and that is correct whether you like it or whether you don't. If you do not believe that walk into a room with a group of 'specialist' in one of these fields and see how fast they blow you out of the room.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
you have made some excellent, philosophical points. You too Takruri. It is definitely a fact that Bernal wasn't the first to speak on many of the issues that he spoke about. Martin Delany is a "must" study, feel me?
Arrow, you are missing the point. You seem to be a good ole..."American".....lol. Hence, let me try to explain this to you, my WASP friend, in religious terminology. Jesus of Nazareth was not accepted by the religious and/or secular authorities of his time. Did that mean TO HIS FOLLOWERS that he wasn't who he said he was? The Pharisees rejected him, but his disciples believed in him. And whether or not one is a Christian or not, the fact is that a group that was totally outside of the "establishment" became the most "dominant" religion of the world today.
I hope talking about Chrisitianity in this context might help you to understand. The fact is that you don't need to be in the "establishment" in order to speak truth.............
For instance, Afrocentric scholars were saying for many years that Egyptians were not white. It is very assinine that Eurocentric people at one time acutually believed such a fallacy, but yes, people did believe that lie at one point in time. EVENTUALLY the truth was recogized. Look at the General History of Africa(UNNESCO), Vol. 1. It speaks of how a group of Egyptologists came together to discuss issues concerning Ancient Egypt, and it was the two Afrocentric scholars, Diop and Obenga, who in fact forced their peers to acknowledge the FACT that Ancient Egypt wasn't a white civilization.........
The whole debate was SO ASSININE...............Anybody with a right mind could tell that the Egyptians weren't white! Yet, we had to have such a stupid debate.
And other stupid debates carry on into our age. As time goes on, more and more people in the academic establishment will recognize what Bernal has written as being very close to the truth; certainly alot more close to the truth than what most Greek classicists scholars have acknowledged before Bernal.......Peace
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel, You say its close to the truth but the question then is, who are you? If you want to set up some little alternate universe here on egyptsearch you can do so. I think I said that radical scholarship has a place, we agree on that, and at times some of it may well become accepted scholarship. That fact is, however, most of it does not. I would rather accept the word on a doctored Classicalist who has spent a lifetime in the field than I would you or Martin Bernal. That is a reasonable position.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arrow, your appeals to authority are getting to be a bit tired. You and your way of looking at things has already been showed to be flawed. Logically, authority on the issue does not equal someone who is always right or always unbiased in their perspective. Being identified as an "authority" on something does not allow someone immunity from criticism or debate, in fact it opens one up for such. Socrates, the Greek that the "western" world hold dear as one of its greatest philosophers dedicated himself to questioning and debating everyhthing, including the authorities. This is supposedly what we therefore what the "western" tradition of logic and learning is all about. But of course you contradict all of this with your nonsense appeals to authority.
Therefore, case closed, you lost, you just contradicted your own a priori assumptions of the "correctness" of the "western" tradition and its use in advancing learning, by saying that no one should question authority and critically examine the facts and details for themselves. So why even study Socrates or any other Greek writer, since in many ways that is what they were doing, questioning the "authorities" on subjects and topics that came before them.
It is obvious at this point Arrow, that you talk to hear yourself talk but nothing you say makes absolutely any sense.
In other words, defend yourself and your own ideas on the square in plain view and scrutiny or sit down and keep quiet.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not sitting down and shutting up as long as he knows he can distract and disrupt any and every topic on this forum whenever and however he pleases.
He revels in the power we give him in not ignoring him and his roorag can be very hard to treat as though it's not there or doesn't exist, I know it bugs the shish outta me more than half the time and I cave in and reply.
posted
Ohh.... and while I am at it, someone asked if the Egyptians had a concept of transmigration of the soul. Well, actually the concept originated in Egypt and it is that fact that makes any such question a result of bias, ignorance or the purposeful distortion of Egyptian history and cosmology.
Trans means across and migrate means to move from one place to another. Therefore, ransmigrate means to move across something in a real sense. The origins of such a concept relative to death and what happens to the soul comes straight out of Egypt. The reason for this is because the West bank of the Nile river became the place of death in within the Egyptian system of belief in the afterlife. Therefore when one died they crossed the river to the land of the dead, literally and figuratively. This concept of "crossing over" was a fundamental theme of the Egyptian beliefs of the afterlife and can be found in many places in the funerary texts that still survive to this day. The Egyptians had elaborate ceremonies involving the king at death and one of the most sacred parts was when the body of the king was floated across the river to the burial chambers. This feature in Egyptian cosmology was present as early as the 4th dynasty, when boats were buried next to the pyramids. As a reflection of this association with crossing the river after death symbolizing the soul moving from this world to the underworld, or land of the dead, many funerary texts also feature points in which the soul had to speak with a boatkeeper to cross to its new life in the gardens of Amenta, the Egyptian's concept of heaven. Along this journey the soul also had to be judged at the feet of Osiris, king of the Underworld, with the risk of being eaten by a beast of the underworld. Other such beasts and demons were found throughout the journes of the soul to the afterlife in Egyptian texts. All of these things went on to influence the Greeks as well as early Christians, in that some of these same concepts were to be found in revelations and the apocalypse. And variations on the themes of dying and having to cross a river to get to the land of the death and eternal life is found in other religions. Therefore, to speak of transmigration of the soul and not to speak of crossing something, especially a river, in early religious symbolism is to totally miss the obvious and miss the point that Egypt is one of the first places where such symbolism occurs.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, You need to stop shouting and have an actual discussion for once in your life. You are not the be all and end all of information and it may be quite a shock to you but everyone who disagrees with you is not wrong. How many times have we heard "peer review" touted on this board? Peer review is an academic term which means that the "experts" in a field have reviewed and accepted a piece of information and have examined it. Now you guys use peer review 'when it suits your purpose' and you reject it when it does not. You sound like a room full of lawyers at times.
The point is that there always is an authority center IN ANY FIELD and you know it as well as I. Further, until you come down off this black Greece thing you will be seen as a bunch of clowns and nobody will take you seriously. There is a real world out there and all of us have to work within the system if we are going to make any progress.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arrow, dont change the point. Everything you are saying is a strawman. I kept the discussion focused around the facts and details that you consistently will not address and therefore are unable to challenge. All you can do is argue about who has authority over what because you cannot dispute my points about concepts of the transmigration of the soul in Egypt or the role the Egyptians played in Greek thought. Unless and until you can challenge those points then you are doing nothing but hiding your ignorance behind a smoke screen. Until you can challenge the facts without leaning on appeals to authority and procedure then all you are doing is excercising your right of acknowledgement of not being able to prove or disprove anything I said, which is the central point.
The facts speak for themselves, I nor anyone else needs peer review from an authority on the topic to say that much of the scholarship on Egypt is B.S. Especially when such scholarship dismisses the fact that Egypt had one of the earliest doctrines of the concept of transmigration, stemming from souls of the deceased crossing the Nile to the land of the dead on the West Bank of the Nile. That is a fact that needs no peer review. You on the other hand wish to try and avoid the fact that this puts a supreme hole in the nonsense arguments that the Egyptians did not have such a concept, which you yourself raised a few posts back, but now refuse to address since it has been proven to be totally wrong. Any so called authority that will contradict these facts on Egyptian belief in the afterlife will therefore also be shown to be wrong and therefore shown that they are not necessarily always the best source of evidence for ideas concerning Egypt or its relationship to Greece. If I could prove that such a concept existed in Egypt, using the most obvious aspects of Egyptian belief, then why didn't the so-called authorities notice it? Seems to me my silly friend, you dont understand logic at all, even though you claim it as such a primary part of "western" thought. If that is so, then how come the Greeks were better able to discuss and disect aspects of Egyptian thought, as seen in their use of parables and stories from Egypt, than you or your so called "authorities"? Seems to me you should take a hint from the Greeks and actually study some of the Egyptian traditions and not just give it mere superficial treatment. By studying these concepts you may get a better understanding of Egyptian thought and be able to actually discuss what they did and didnt understand as part of a debate. That is the only thing I have gotten from you on this so thread so far.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sent you information on the subject of transmigration of Souls Doug from a classical scholar , you just chose to disregard it. Same old crap, anyone who disagrees is "hiding their ignorance." You are not qualified to discuss these complicated issues and thus, like the rest of us we depend of SPECIALISTS to lead the discussion. The problem you have here, on this particular subject, is that they all disagree with you.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arrow, nothing you posted has touched on the fact of transmigration of the soul originating in ancient concepts of the afterlife, which included the soul having to cross a river to get to the land of the dead. What do you or your so-called authorities say about that? And I dont agree that Lefkowitz is such an authority on the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians to even say anything, because if she was she would have said this herself. You are demolishing your own position, because those you quote as authorities arent' and the points you chose to eximplify the fallacies of Afrocentrism only shows your ignorance and inability to address the issues you brought up. Why bring it up if you cant even defend it?
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptians did not believe in the Transmigration of Souls.
"it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life. Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification. Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation. In any case, there is no reason to assume that Pythagoras or other Greeks who believed in transmigration, like the Orphics and/or the philosopher-poet Empedocles, got their ideas from anyone else: notions of transmigration have developed independently in other parts of the world.'
Lefkowitz
this is pretty elementary stuff Doug.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Egyptians did not believe in the Transmigration of Souls.
it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life.
Ridiculous. 1) Did the ancient Egyptians believe in reality of 'death'; if so, how did one become 'dead', leaving the material body 'motionless'?
2)Did the Egyptians have a Netherworld or not? How did the dead get to this world?
3)Did the Greeks believe in 'afterlife'? How is this not a concept of "modes of existence"? Did ancient Greeks have a netherworld?
quote:Arrow99:
Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification.
Please elaborate on why. If some of these 'varied modes of existence' was acknowledged to be outside the realm of the 'material world'?
quote:Arrow99:
Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation.
Goes back to question #1 posed to you. Please refer to it, and deliver. Remember, this is 'elementary' stuff. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
do you know what "modes" mean Supercar? You are not thinking through the definition given. "modes" implies more than one, a "mode" would be one. That means the Egyptian system and the Greek were fundamentally NOT THE SAME.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
do you know what "modes" mean Supercar? You are not thinking through the definition given. "modes" implies more than one, a "mode" would be one.
Do you know how to 'read'; if so, why have you been incapacitated in answering my straightforward questions per layout?
quote:Arrow99:
That means the Egyptian system and the Greek were fundamentally NOT THE SAME.
So you shouldn't have any problem answering the aforementioned questions; goes back to question #3.
Bottom line, your reasoning for the idea of no belief in 'transmigration of soul' by the ancient Egyptians is very questionable.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arrow, I thought this was obvious but here we go again.
The Egyptians did believe in transmigration of the soul. Trans means across and migrate means to move from place to place. The Egyptians believed
1) In various aspects of a human's existance that survived death.
2) This aspect of the human's existence journeyed to the land of the dead literally and symbollically.
3) This journey involved crossing the Nile and that the aspects of a persons soul were incarnated into a new body, which looked like the old one, once it got to the sacred gardens of amenta.
What you call transmigration of the soul is just a definition a term that as become attached to a particular way of expressing the concept of reincarnation. In my opinion, transmigration of the soul does not just mean reincarnation. The fundamental concept is not about whether a soul exists or that it goes into another body. That is called reincarnation or resurrection. Transmigration of the soul really relates to any religion or belief that involves the soul having to journey from one place to another, meaning from this world to the afterlife and crossing a river to get there. The key part of the tradition being the importance of the journey itself and moving a cross the river being an important symbol of the soul passing from one life to the next and one phase to the next. This is why I question transmigration being associated ONLY with reincarnation because it really overlooks the derivation of the word transmigrate and how it relates to movement across something going back to the beliefs of the orphics and the egyptians in the underworld and crossing a river to get there.
Obviously the word soul did not exist in ancient Egypt, so therefore they would not have understood such a word because the word did not exist. Likewise, the term transmigratio of the soul did not exist so the Egyptians did not understand that either. However, what we are talking about here are concepts, which can be expressed in different forms, within different frameworks and traditions and religions. The concept of something surviving death and entering a new body after life did exist in Egypt. Whether they called it a soul and looked at it the same way we do is irrelevant. The concept existed in the Egyptian system of belief and that system expressed it as the ka,ba and other parts that remained after a human died. Next, as part of this system of belief, these aspects or one primary form of such, was involved in a journey that involved crossing the Nile and going through a series of gates, challenges or other journeys to get to the land of Amenta where these aspects of a human's identity were incarnated in a new body. Therefore, within the Egyptian tradition of belief, they had a concept of transmigration of the soul, meaning that the soul journeyed from the land of the living to the land of the dead and had to cross the Nile, or some river in the underworld to get there. Now, whether the Egyptians believed in a concept like reincarnation or ressurection depends on an understanding or interperetation of Egyptian funerary texts. The Egyptians believed that the deceased would be reanimated and live again, however it would be in the land of Amenta or among the imperishable stars, which does imply resurrection. Unless you have read the various texts however, you will not be able to determine whether this reanimation means reincarnation in this life or existence in a new life parallel to this one.
Example of what I mean:
quote: Thou shalt come in and go out, thy heart rejoicing, in the favour of the Lord of the Gods, a good burial [being thine] after a venerable old age, when age has come, thou assuming thy place in the coffin, and joining earth on the high ground of the west.
Thou shalt change into a living Ba(1) and surely he will have power to obtain bread and water and air; and thou shalt take shape as a heron or swallow, as a falcon or a bittern, whichever thou pleasest.
Thou shalt cross in the ferryboat and shalt not turn back, thou shalt sail on the waters of the flood, and thy life shall start afresh. Thy Ba shall not depart from thy corpse and thy Ba shall become divine with the blessed dead. The perfect Ba's shall speak to thee, and thou shalt be an equal amongst them in receiving what is given on earth. Thou shalt have power over water, shalt inhale air, and shalt be surfeited with the desires of thy heart. Thine eyes shall be given to thee so as to see, and thine ears so as to hear, thy mouth speaking, and thy feet walking. Thy arms and thy shoulders shall move for thee, thy flesh shall be firm, thy muscles shall be easy and thou shalt exult in all thy limbs. Thou shalt examine thy body and find it whole and sound, no ill whatever adhering to thee. Thine own true heart shall be with thee, yea, thou shalt have thy former heart. Thou shalt go up to the sky, and shalt penetrate the Netherworld in all forms that thou likes.
Likewise, other texts from Egypt identify the deceased becoming like Osiris, where Osiris is a symbol of resurrection itself:
quote: It is evident that the priests of Heliopolis "edited" the religious texts copied and multiplied in the College to suit their own views, but in the early times when they began their work, the worship of Osiris was so widespread, and the belief in him as the god of the resurrection so deeply ingrained in the hearts of the Egyptians, that even in the Heliopolitan system of theology Osiris and his cycle, or company of gods, were made to hold a very prominent position. He represented to men the idea of a man who was both god and man, and he typified to the Egyptians in all ages the being who by reason of his sufferings and death as a man could sympathize with them in their own sickness and death. The idea of his human personality also satisfied their cravings and yearnings for intercourse with a being who, though he was partly divine, yet had much in common with themselves. Originally they looked upon Osiris as a man who lived on the earth as they lived, who ate and drank, who suffered a cruel death, who by the help of certain gods triumphed over death, and attained unto everlasting life. But what Osiris did they could do, and what the gods did for Osiris they must also do for them, and as the gods brought about his resurrection so they must bring about theirs, and as they made him the ruler of the underworld so they must make them to enter his kingdom and to live there as long as the god himself lived. Osiris, in some of his aspects, was identified with the Nile, and with Râ, and with several other "gods" known to the Egyptians, but it was in his aspect as god of the resurrection and of eternal life that he appealed to men in the valley of the Nile; and for thousands of years men and women died believing that, inasmuch as all that was done for Osiris would be done for them symbolically, they like him would rise again and inherit life everlasting. However far back we trace religious ideas in Egypt, we never approach a time when it can be said that there did not exist a belief in the Resurrection, for everywhere it is assumed that Osiris rose from the dead; sceptics must have existed, and they probably asked their priests what the Corinthians asked Saint Paul, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" But beyond doubt the belief in the Resurrection was accepted by the dominant classes in Egypt. The ceremonies which the Egyptians performed with the view of assisting the deceased to pass the ordeal of the judgment, and to overcome his enemies in the next world, will be described elsewhere, as also will be the form in which the dead were raised up; we therefore return to the theological history of Osiris.
As I said, I think transmigration of the soul is a more general concept related to the movement of the soul from this life to the next and how, not just an individual belief in reincarnation or resurrection. Likewise, understanding these concepts as they express themselves within Egyptian cosmology requires a familiarity with Egyptian cosmology and symbolism.
For example, Osiris does not just represent resurrection. Osiris also represents the entire cycle of life death and new life as a fundamental divine principle in nature. This is one reason Osiris is often seen as a mummy underground pushing up crops or why statues to osiris were created and covered with mud and seed for grass or flowers to grow from. This symbol of the cycle of life, death and new life thereofore could imply that as being associated with Osiris, the deceased becomes part of the eternal cycle of living, dying and being born again, into the physical world, not just the world of the dead. This therefore is a form of reincarnation, but in a different symbolic and religious framework.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are welcome to think that Doug, others disagree. The main point is that the Classical scholars in mass have given you their case concerning why they do not believe these things came to Greece from Egypt. If they did not believe iot why would they publish this information. They certanily give the Egyptians credit for influencing the Greeks in the area of colossal architecture. If they thought it came from Egypt they would say so.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
They certanily give the Egyptians credit for influencing the Greeks in the area of colossal architecture. If they thought it came from Egypt they would say so.
Indeed the ancient Greeks gave the Egyptians due credit, which Eurocentric radicals today want to explain off by saying that these anceint folks, who supposedly laid the foundations of 'western civ.', were mentally screwed up when making these assessments. This is the type of argument Eurocentric radicals cook up.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets cut the Eurocentric crap, thats just victim garbage and you know better. Stand up like a man and quit leaning on a philosophical crutch. They ALL agree on those arguments SC, everyone that I have ever seen. They ALL cannot be wrong. An open mind is a good thing now and then.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Aren't you playing victim here about reference to Eurocentric radicals; do these radicals not play the victim card, by saying that ancient Greeks knew not what they said but at the same time had the 'smarts' to lay the foundations of 'Western civ.'?
quote:Arrow99:
Stand up like a man and quit leaning on a philosophical crutch.
An interesting statement coming from you, when you were apparently not man enough to answer the 'elementary' questions placed in front of you just momentarily.
quote:Arrow99:
They ALL agree on those arguments SC, everyone that I have ever seen. They ALL cannot be wrong.
They all agree to disagree with ancient Greeks, right? If "all" these unidentified individuals agree, then their direct sources for history, i.e. ancient Greeks, must be the ones who are wrong, right?
quote:Arrow99:
An open mind is a good thing now and then.
I agree. Practice what you preach.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Find me one classical scholar that agrees with you Super Car, one.
Some of you guys talk like whipped pups. I never apologise for Euro-American culture. They whipped everyones ass, took their land, money and sometimes their women. Thats the way the world works...more power to them. Instead of whining it might be better to get in the game.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: You are welcome to think that Doug, others disagree. The main point is that the Classical scholars in mass have given you their case concerning why they do not believe these things came to Greece from Egypt. If they did not believe iot why would they publish this information. They certanily give the Egyptians credit for influencing the Greeks in the area of colossal architecture. If they thought it came from Egypt they would say so.
The fact is that Socrates is written to have quoted an Egyptian saying conerning the traditions of Djehuti and the Kings of Egypt. If he used an Egyptian tradition as a way of explaining his concept or supporting his argument, this means that he 1) is familiar with Egyptian legends and traditions 2) His position is not that much different than that of the Egyptians. What he was saying in the quote I posted was that memorizing things transmitted orally are better for creating an understanding of knowledge being transmitted than just copying and memorizing old texts. This also shows that he acknowledged that the Egyptians had traditions that were ancient and held valuable lessons to learn from. He therefore is aknowledging the importance of ancient traditions older than that even of his own country. Something that even Phaedrus himself comments on and Socrates answers. All of which is seen here:
quote: Soc. Enough appears to have been said by us of a true and false art of speaking.
Phaedr. Certainly.
Soc. But there is something yet to be said of propriety and impropriety of writing.
Phaedr. Yes.
Soc. Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner which will be acceptable to God?
Phaedr. No, indeed. Do you?
Soc. I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?
Phaedr. Your question needs no answer; but I wish that you would tell me what you say that you have heard.
Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.
Soc. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.
Phaedr. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.
Soc. He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be intelligible or certain; or who deemed that writing was at all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters?
Phaedr. That is most true.
So, Socrates chides Phaedrus on his appeal to Athenian tradition and authority over the words and traditions of others from other places. Which shows that the traditions of Greek philosophers was open to receiving knowledge and traditions from other cultures, unlike that of the main body of Greeks of the time, symbolized in Phaedrus.
Now, the next issue concerns ideas about the word and the importance of words in the hands of men. in this case, he is talking about words with souls and how words can live on their own merit without the hands of men to move them. This idea is beautifully expressed by Socrates, but that does not mean that Socrates was the first to think of and understand the power of words in conveying meaning and understanding. He just recited a story about the got Thoth and the invention of writing and the debate between Thoth and the King on the nature of wisdom and the memories of men. Not only that, but even though he didn't mention it, Ptah as the god of the divine utterance was also a creator of words with life, meaning the physical universe and everything in it. Ptah is also the god of the craftsmen, like painters and sculptors in Egypt, which would have them endow their creations with "magic" which is another way of saying life, especially since the images of the deceased or living were considered living things in Egyptian thought. Now sure, the Egyptians did not express it the way Socrates is here. However, that does not mean that the Egyptians had no concept of the living word or the power of words in the hands and mouths of men. Now, I am not saying that he learned his methods from the Egyptians directly or that Ptah and any theology or system surrounding Ptah was the basis of his ideas, just that the Egyptians already had similar concepts long before socrates.
quote: Soc. I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves.
Phaedr. That again is most true.
Soc. Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than this, and having far greater power-a son of the same family, but lawfully begotten?
Phaedr. Whom do you mean, and what is his origin?
Soc. I mean an intelligent word graven in the soul of the learner, which can defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be silent.
Phaedr. You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which written word is properly no more than an image?
Soc. Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?
Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest; he will do the other, as you say, only in play.
Soc. And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his own seeds?
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. Then he will not seriously incline to "write" his thoughts "in water" with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others?
Phaedr. No, that is not likely.
Soc. No, that is not likely-in the garden of letters he will sow and plant, but only for the sake of recreation and amusement; he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path. He will rejoice in beholding their tender growth; and while others are refreshing their souls with banqueting and the like, this will be the pastime in which his days are spent.
Phaedr. A pastime, Socrates, as noble as the other is ignoble, the pastime of a man who can be amused by serious talk, and can discourse merrily about justice and the like.
Soc. True, Phaedrus. But nobler far is the serious pursuit of the dialectician, who, finding a congenial soul, by the help of science sows and plants therein words which are able to help themselves and him who planted them, and are not unfruitful, but have in them a seed which others brought up in different soils render immortal, making the possessors of it happy to the utmost extent of human happiness.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
. Salaam
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic