Brief Notes on Various Topics - 102

27 July 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 102

1.  The Tradition of Orpheus

The Orphic tradition is mentioned a few times in Plato’s Dialogues.  I get the impression that Orphism had a significant place in Plato’s thought, just as the Pythagorean tradition did.  But it is difficult to get a clear picture of what the Orphic tradition taught, the nature of its rituals, and how its members’ lives embodied the tradition.

The Loeb Classical Library has just released a new book on the Orphic tradition titled Orphic Collection.  The scholar who brought the Orphic material together is Alberto Bernabe (the translator is Michael Chase).  The collection includes recent material the was found by archeologists in buried mausoleums.  The collection does not include the  Hymns of Orpheus which have been translated several times.  In the ‘Introduction’ the author explains his reasons for not including them such as their very late provenance and other criticisms.  I’m not qualified to have an opinion about this.  But however one thinks about these issues, the Orphic Collection is a significant contribution to our understand because it brings together a great deal of early material from the tradition of Orpheus that has only existed scattered in academic journals or in monographs on specific documents as opposed to having an overview of the tradition. 

The collection also includes citations from varied sources where the source quotes older material.  These citations are wide ranging and include quotes from philosophers such as Proclus, historians such as Herodotus, and early Christian writers.  This is another example of how this Collection brings together scattered references, making access to them more available.

For those interested in the pre-history of Platonism I think they will find this work to be helpful.

1.1    Here is an example of Plato referencing the Orphic tradition from his Dialogue Laws:

The Athenian Stranger:  “In fact, we see that even now the practice of human beings sacrificing one another still persists among many people.  And we hear just the opposite about other peoples: how there was once a time when we did not dare to taste cattle, and sacrificed to the gods no animals, but instead gruel and fruits soaked in honey and other such hallowed sacrifices.  They abstained from flesh on the grounds that it wasn’t pious to eat it or to pollute the altars of the gods with blood.  Those of us who existed then had ways of life that were what is called ‘Orphic’: we partook of everything that lacked soul but abstained from the opposite, from everything that possessed soul.”

(Plato, Laws, Book VI, translated by Thomas L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press Chicago, 1980, page 171, 782c-782d, ISBN: 0226671100)

1.1.1  It’s interesting to me that Plato, in this passage, links cannibalism and meat eating.  Centuries later Porphyry would make the same linkage in his On Abstinence.  This connection found in Porphyry then became a topic of discussion in Renaissance Europe after On Abstinence was translated into a number of European languages. 

1.1.2  Plato mentions how Orphism rejected sacrificing animals on their altars to the Gods because to do so was a kind of pollution.  This view would apply to any contemporary tradition that sacrifices animals, including theurgy.

1.1.3  I’ve mentioned in comments on some quotes from Plato’s Laws that there are times when Plato seems to withdraw from the focus on constructing laws, and lifts his view to a more ethical, or even metaphysical, domain.  I see these as reminders that Laws is primarily focused on metaphysics and only secondarily on the political dimension of constructing laws.

1.1.4  Plato uses the construction of those things with soul verses those things that lack soul.  It is OK to eat those things lacking soul but one should refrain from eating those things that do have soul.  This is an interesting way of looking at the issue of vegetarianism (Plato doesn’t use the word ‘vegetarian’ in this quote, though some translators do) but it does raise some difficulties.  For example, I’m not convinced that plants don’t have souls.  Plato, in Timaeus, states that plants have a ‘third kind of soul . . . which shares not at all in opinion and reasoning and mind but in sensation, pleasant and painful, together with desires.’  (Timaeus, 77a-77b, R. G. Bury translation, Loeb Classical Library)  This means there is a bit of contrast between Plato’s description of plants in an Orphic context and the description in the context of Timaeus.  It’s possible that in the Orphic tradition when they say that plants ‘lack soul’ it means that they lack the soul that reasons and has opinions and this would be consistent with Plato saying that plants have a ‘third kind of soul’.  At times these three kinds of soul are laid out as, first, the rational soul which is primarily found in humans, second is the spirited soul that is often associated with emotions and inclinations such as courage and anger and is found in humans and animals, and third is the appetitive soul that is concerned with nutrition, growth, and responses to the environment such as when it gets cold or hot. 

It is interesting that the Jains also have a system of classification of different types of souls, though I don’t recall exactly its details; but in both the Jain and Platonic context the difference in types of soul is one of the reasons for refraining from eating or sacrificing animals but allowing for the consumption of plants.

1.1.5  There may be a reference to rebirth in this quote where Plato writes, ‘those of us who existed then’, meaning during the ancient times when people refrained from eating or sacrificing animals.  I think this could be read as implying a previous birth on the part of Plato and maybe the other two participants in the dialogue as well.  The quote could also be interpreted as saying something like an archaeologist today saying ‘we humans who existed 40,000 years ago’, referring to prehistoric human history.

But I incline to a reference to rebirth because I suspect that one of the reasons for refraining from harming animals by eating or sacrificing them is that to do so has consequences for rebirth, and the consequences are negative.  My view is that the rebirth interpretation of the quote fits will with the overall context.

1.1.6  This quote is a good example of Plato’s awareness of his predecessors' impact on his own teachings.  The predecessors I am thinking of are Orphism, Pythagoreanism, and possibly some mystery traditions that may be hinted at in a dialogue like Phaedo.  This suggests that the foundations of Western philosophy are broader, and more complex, than is often presented when Western philosophy is said to begin with Thales and other presocratic philosophers.  Perhaps the beginning of Western philosophy is more rooted in traditions like Orphism.

2.  Counterculture

For a long period of time Platonism was at the center of the culture.  This was true during the classical period from Plato through Proclus and Boethius.  And because Platonism was at the center its influence over other traditions and branches of philosophy was extensive. 

Times change.  Today I think it is the case that Platonism is a counterculture.  By counterculture I mean that Platonism is on the fringe rather than the center.  I mean that the major philosophical commitments that are offered today are either non-Platonic or anti-Platonic: these include materialism, reductionism, scientism, anti-transcendentalism, nihilism, and so forth. 

I think it is helpful for those studying Platonism and those who self-identify as Platonists today to consider their countercultural place.  For example, if you are part of a counterculture, you are in a position where you are frequently asked to justify your assumptions, whereas if you are part of the cultural center this happens rarely.  And if you are part of a countercultural presence, it is sometimes the case that your views will be casually dismissed by the role of someone’s eyes, or other dismissive gestures.

I don’t think this is a bad thing.  Such a situation means that contemporary Platonists need to really think about, and contemplate, what the Platonist tradition consists of, what its virtues are, and if there is anything that might be better stated or needs clarification.  That’s an opportunity.

3.  Sunset

The setting summer sun casts long shadows on the desert sand.  As the sun slowly falls behind the western mountain range the sky puts on a beautiful display of colors; like a painful goodbye ending in a sigh.  The shadows merge and unite in darkness as the stars speak to each other in a language inaccessible to mere mortals. 

A peacock shrieks and flies into the branches of a desert pine where it will spend the night.  Soon people are preparing for their journey to the land of dreams.

I turn the pages of a Dialogue by Plato and suddenly my room is filled with light.

4.  AI Philosophy Books

There seems to be a lot of AI generated books on philosophy these days.  Often these books are published in a series with all the books being issued in a short amount of time.  One series includes Pythagoras, Plato,. Plotinus, and many others.  I spent some time trying to track down the author but was unable to find any indication of an actual person.  The books themselves all follow the same format, which AI does well, but completely lack any information about the author, with no footnotes or bibliography, and no references, even passing references to source material or recommendations for further study.

The author’s name may not be the name of an individual; rather it might be the name used for all the books in the series and in the format being used.  It might be the name of an organization dedicated to generating these kind of books.  It’s not clear.  What I would like is clarity; if the author’s name is a stand-in for the name of an organization then it should say so on the copyright page, and possibly on the back cover. 

Another series uses the 366 Days a Year format.  This format is very popular.  When I worked at a spiritual bookstore we had a separate section devoted to this kind of book.  Some of these books were recovery related, some were devoted to quotations from famous people, some were more topical, like 366 thoughts on nature featuring famous quotes from well-known people, some were about relationship, and so forth.  This series has a 366 quotes from Plato as one example of its series.

I don’t have any problem with people using AI to assist in writing a book.  But what I would like is transparency; I mean that somewhere in the book, like on an acknowledgements page, the usage of AI, and the extent of that usage, should be explicitly stated. 

There is a teaching in economics, attributed to Thomas Gresham, that says, ‘bad money drives out good money.’  Perhaps we should apply this to the sale of books in the context I’m referring to.  A good book on Pythagoras will likely be priced higher than the book on Pythagoras from the first series I talked about.  But the very cheap price of the AI generated book on Pythagoras will naturally attract people, thus decreasing the sales of the book written by a qualified author or authors.  That’s why I think it is helpful to have the role that AI played in producing the book clearly stated; it’s kind of like labels on food products letting you know how much sugar is in the product you are buying.

Again, I’m not inherently against using AI in book production.  I just think we should be able to make an informed decision about such usage rather than having to do independent research on it; it should be right there for any reader to see.

4.1  Upon rereading this, it occurs to me that it won’t be long before we have AI generated translations.  And this will happen in the field of philosophy.  Think of a translation of Plato’s Dialogues or Plotinus’s Enneads done by AI.  Such a translation process will be less expensive than having a translator, or team of translators, getting paid for their time and their valuable expertise.  Just to repeat, I don’t think this is inherently a bad thing; it depends on the nature of the AI program being used; as many have noted AI today makes significant mistakes on a regular basis and one would expect translation mistakes in such a context.  On the other hand, potentially AI would have access to broad range of usages for a word, a phrase, or a sentence that AI could use to generate its own version.

For me, the biggest problem, and I’m speaking from a contemplative perspective, is that I don’t think that AI could read these Classical Platonist works from am experiential basis of contemplation, or from the experience of ascetic practices.  I think this would be a serious barrier to how deeply AI could mine for meanings in these works.  And even the way Plato, for example, uses allegory and metaphor might be difficult for AI to recognize.