In Bruce Charlton's recent post "Christians cannot 'Be Good' in 2021 - but Can avoid being corrupted by evil", he writes in a comment
"In the early Eastern Roman Empire, apparently everybody argued about theology on every street corner and across the dinner table."
This is interesting for two reasons. One is that it shows the degree to which Christianity was a part of daily life in the Eastern Roman Empire. The other reason is that the Christian theology of those days was highly abstract and intellectual. The fact that it was discussed by the general population is evidence for Bruce Charlton and Michael Woodley's idea that general intelligence has declined since the industrial revolution.
But in addition to general intelligence, special intelligence has also changed. In particular, there is reason to believe that the ancient Greeks had a special talent for understanding abstractions.
A good example of the ancient Greek approach to abstractions versus the modern is geometry versus algebra. In its heyday, ancient Greek mathematics was primarily concerned with geometry, while modern mathematics, especially since the development of Calculus in the mid to late 17th century, has been highly algebraic.
The strength of algebra is that if you can manipulate an equation according to certain steps, then it is not necessary to think. Just follow the steps to the end and you have your result. Not just in mathematics, but much modern thinking, especially abstract thinking follows this procedure. Develop a model and manipulate the model. The goal is not to take the whole system into one's mind, but to follow each step and what is at the last step is the result.
Whereas in geometry, even when aided by diagrams, it is necessary to visualize and visualizing allows one to be able to hold the problem in one's mind as a whole. Furthermore, the Greeks studied 3 dimensional geometry (for example, the Platonic Solids) yet without many of our technological means of visualizing, such as with computers. They probably did carve models, maybe out of wood, but it is necessary to hold the shape in one's mind before carving.
I believe that the Greeks viewed abstractions in this way. Similar to visualizing a shape or an interaction in geometry, they had a special talent for taking the whole abstraction into their mind and viewing it almost in a concrete way. Of course, modern people still have the capability, but imagine an entire culture where this special ability to take up abstractions was widespread. The Eastern Roman Empire was culturally and linguistically Greek and, in fact, everyone arguing about theology is exactly what you would expect in such a civilization.
What you are trying to understand, is God's creation. There is no linear explanation. Everything starts from something or nothing. Hence, it must be circular. God is ultimate and therefore He never ends. He is not hierarchical. He is everything, always.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Omni' understanding that has played out is true in a sense, because it becomes a fact that modern Institutions don't even consider it anymore. They are so blasee about it. They trust science before any real, rigorous undertaking. There is a reason why God was given those attributes since you could even think for yourself. And forever more.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting distinction between geometry and algebra.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that most of the creative mathematicians and physicists had a geometry-like way of 'visualizing' (or 'feeling') at the root of their original thinking - rather than becoming enmeshed in the equations. This applies to Maxwell, Einstein and Feynman - for example - although I don't really know much about the genius pure mathematicians.
Physics is a good example for geometry since it is necessary to have an intuitive understanding of the underying physics.
DeleteAt this point, it seems like those who are skilled at manipulating equations but don't care about understanding the underlying system go into economics or maybe statistics.
As far as the genius pure mathematicians, they seemed to have a strong intuition for one aspect of math or another, going beyond skill at manipulating equations. For instance, Gauss had a facility for calculation but even more than that, he had an extraordianry "number sense." Gauss had an intuitive feel for how numbers work, which helped him understand their properties at a deeper level.
Charles Hermite is another good example. He did not like geometry, but he seemed to have a strong feel for equations and expressions.
Poincare wrote: "Talk with M. Hermite. He never evokes a concrete image, yet you soon perceive that the more abstract entities are to him like living creatures."
Also, I agree that the Greeks of Plato's time were highly imaginative, much more so than now. Because of their strong imagination, they were able to imaginatively approach the abstract. Rudolf Steiner said in a lecture that the ancient Greeks perceived the world through their senses more intensely than modern people. But perhaps the true understanding is that rather than through senses, but because of their strong imaginations, their perception of the world was more vivid.