Rule of Philo

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Werner Jaeger, the German, Greek Classicist wrote, "This book frequently points out that Greek culture developed, not by destroying its previous selves, but always by transforming them. The coin which had been current was not thrown away as worthless. It was given a fresh stamp. Philo's rule metax(ch)arete to theion nomisma dominated Greek culture, from Homer to Neo-Platonism and the Christian fathers of late antiquity. The Greek spirit works by transcending heights previously reached; but the form in which it works is always ruled by the law of strict continuity." Paideia, Vol II pg xii.

What is the translation of the Greek in English mean? Socrates was a big stickler for consistency. For him, consistency is the criterian of Truth. He asks many times, "Give me a definition of courage that would fit every situation that courage is required." Is this the same thing? Is this what Philo is getting at. Is St. Vincent Lerins' maxim the same thing--What has been believed everywhere at all times by everyone (which is consistency)? Is there any books on Philo's rule?

I plan to do an online encyclopedic article on this. And can I use information provided to make such an article?

I am having trouble with the Greek word malakos which is part of another thread on this site. Does not Philo's rule pertain to this and protect the word from revisionism and deconstructionism? Thanks for all your help.

Am i correct to understand that a word can grow in meaning but any new addition to the meaning must still conform in essence to the original meaning of the word?

[Owen Jones]

Words have strict meanings only due to extrinsic factors. Words are symbols that represent something beyond the word itself, an object of sense perception perhaps, which involves an experience of the object, or it could be an experience of a non-object, or of a non-existent thing, or of unreality. Words that apply to objects of sense perception obviously are easier to measure and compare, but even then there are questions raised, because a thing is never a thing in itself and a word that names or describes a thing never tells the whole story. So the consistency that Socrates and the Church's theologians are concerned about regarding the meaning of words are of concern because of questions that are raised that transcend the issue of definitions. The assumption is that there is something we call reality that we all share, but that reality is a mystery that cannot be defined. So there is always a paradoxical element to language. The paradoxical structure of reality is denied by most people because it is too difficult to tolerate. So we seek extremes. On the one hand is the Sophist who is a manipulator of words to his own personal advantage (i.e. an alechemist as Socrates calls them in the Symposium). On the other hand is the fundamentalist who demands a strict, objective, literal definition of everything before he will even discuss anything with you.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

To, Mr. Owens, Are you a Christian sir?

[Owen Jones]

Would my answer to Mr. Wheeler's question make a difference regarding my last post?

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Yes it would sir because it sounds that you are a nihilist. Socrates fought the nihilists in his society. Words have meaning.

Note from moderator: This allowed through, since I know Owen will not mind such confrontation; but let us keep things on a productive track.

[Owen Jones]

Here's my question: If I say "yes," I am a Christian, would the meaning of the words in my post mean one thing? And if I said "no," would they mean something else?

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Owen,

I'll only intrude into this conversation this once.

Come on, quit toying with W. Lidsay Wheeler. As evidenced by the thread about ecumenism here amongst fellow Orthodox, and as has been posted some time ago, when an unbeliever says the same words as a Christian (in simultude of a Porgy & Bess line), 'it don't necessarily mean the same thing.'

[Owen Jones]

I believe in every doctrine and dogma of the Orthodox Church, I pray every day, and I try very hard not to inflict extreme pain and suffering on others, whether they deserve it or not.

[Owen Jones]

For Augustine, language was the brick and mortar with which human beings construct knowledge. "All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things are learned by means of signs," (On Christian Doctrine, I:2).

[James H.]

First of all, I would just like to second what James Anthony said. Thank you James.
Next, Owen, many of us aren't as intellectually driven as you are. Can you please explain what you were saying in your post #844. I must agree with Ms. Wheeler that what you were saying seemed a bit nihilistic... but I know that you aren't. So, I'm not criticizing what you said at all (usually I agree with what you say even if not with your tone) It did, however, kind of fly over my head. If you could expand on what you said and explain it as if I were 10 years old that would be great. lol.

God bless!

James

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

For me words have meaning. What happened during the Peloponnesian War, words changed in meaning. Thucydides remarked on this and Plato in his dialogues. Language lost its meaning.

Fr. Seraphim Rose, in his book, Nihilism, the Root of Revolution in the Modern Age points out that we are living in an nihilistic age. The Old is being done away with and replaced with the new. One can not have new culture without new words and definitions. I am very afraid of "words" being taken lightly and that words change. Through the change and manipulation of Words even Scripture can be changed as evidenced in the thread On Effeminacy.

I still need help on defining what Philo's rule is, its translation in English and its meaning for today--Anything on this yet?

[Owen Jones]

My only point would be that simply searching for a rule that can then be quoted in order to defend the established meanings of words is probably not going to be very effective. Words are symbols that represent experiences we have had. Even when the words apply to physical things. When I describe a chair with the word chair, I am not only referring to that chair, but something that I recognize in that chair like "chairness." If I deny that when I experience an observation of a particular thing, that I also experience it as something intrinsically related to other things, then I have a disordered mind, and calling it anything I want to call it in that context will seem logical.

We all experience things as having some meaning beyond the thing itself. A well-ordered mind will recognize this and seize on the implications, and be careful about the meanings of words. But if you are trying to discuss the meanings of words with someone with a disordered mind, it is extremely difficult because the meaning of words is subject to whim. That is why the so-called Dialogues of Plato are, ironically, and an intended irony, are not dialogues at all. At some point in each dialogue with the Sophists, Socrates breaks off the dialogue because the Sophists either change the subject, or change the meaning of the words, so that no dialogue is possible.

For the same reason, Christ typically answers a question from the Pharisees with another question, because he realizes that there can be no dialogue until some more fundamental questions are answered, which, of course, they refuse to do. They refuse to engage reality on that level because they have already defined everything to their satisfaction. Who is the nihilist, the Pharisee who has a definition for everything that is written in stone, or Christ, who questions all of their premises and meanings?

Any rule therefore about the definition of a word raises many more questions, such as, what does it mean to be human? What is consciousness? What is the source of an ordered, healthy mind? And so on. Just defining a word a certain way and insisting that a rule makes it so makes little impact on someone who has experienced the world in his own mind as just a jumble of unconnected phenomena, or sees himself as the Creator. As a practical matter, in trying to help someone understand who Christ is, I probably would not start with quoting the Chalcedonian Definition. At the same point, there is probably no place to start, if the person's mind is so closed is to be incapable of learning.

It may be instructive to note that the Fathers argue that one cannot know God by starting with God, or a definition of who or what God is. Rather, one starts with a proper understanding of things (reality) and through a proper course of meditation on the true meaning and purpose of things one can ascend to an awareness and partial understanding of who God is. This means that any language about the meaning of things and of God is analogical and not definitive in an absolute sense.

[John Curtis Dunn]

For the same reason, Christ typically answers a question from the Pharisees with another question, because he realizes that there can be no dialogue until some more fundamental questions are answered, which, of course, they refuse to do.

What?

john dunn

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

If you would notice and read carefully the first post this was the rule of the Christian Fathers most of whom were Greek:

"It was given a fresh stamp. Philo's rule metax(ch)arete to theion nomisma dominated Greek culture, from Homer to Neo-Platonism and the Christian fathers of late antiquity."

I would suppose that Philo's rule is a "methodology" of thought. It is not like what is going on today, revisionism or deconstructionism.

Socrates and Aristotle came to the belief of one God very well by looking at reality. Starting with Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle came to the belief in one God and did know a lot about him through reasoning. It is proven metaphysically and rationally. It's pretty simple. But none of this answers my questions of the first post.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Philo's rule metax(ch)arete to theion nomisma dominated Greek culture, from Homer to Neo-Platonism and the Christian fathers of late antiquity. [...] What is the translation of the Greek in English mean?

Dear Mr Wheeler,

As much as you asked about the Greek, the verb metacharasso (sometimes metacharatto) means 'to re-model', to 'engraven anew'. So the phrase is roughly, 'Re-fashion the divine coin'; i.e. don't throw it out, but re-work, re-shape and re-forge it into something new.

You asked, on this topic:


Is St. Vincent Lerins' maxim the same thing--What has been believed everywhere at all times by everyone (which is consistency)?

I would not say so, though they're not necessarily disparate. It's hard to analyse what the single phrase may mean in extraction. It could easily imply that an essential reality (such as, by analogy, the metal of a coin on which a divine image [the figure of a god, or a 'divine ruler'] is fashioned) is not lost when that coin is melted down and re-shaped into a different image. The core material is identical. But the quip could just as easily mean that the core material is finally irrelevant: what matters is the fashion of the coin. Re-fashion it when it no longer serves a purpose in one form, for the base material lends itself to many.

I don't know the context of the remark, so it is impossible to know in what sense the comment should be taken. There is no way of expanding without context.

INXC, Matthew

[George Hawkins]

In reply to Mr Wheeler's question about whether words that have changed in meaning still have to conform in essence to the 'original' meaning (though I doubt we could ever track a word's original meaning as spoken language has existed longer than written), words are constantly changing their meaning, often very subtlely, but over centuries the difference can be profound, and the meaning of the word shows little or no relation to it's 'original' meaning. For example the English word 'silly', 1,000 years ago meant something akin to happy, but a few hundred years later, there had been a semantic change to meaning something akin to naive, and now it means, of course, foolish. If words are being used, they are going to slowly change their meaning, no language is immune, and I venture, if one were to look, one would find a similair amount of semantic change in Greek over the centuries as in English, Russian, Japanese or any other language.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Perhaps by tracing and following the usage of silly, we can perceive the manner or the how English speaking people changed in their perspective towards Christiainity?

Perhaps the etymology of the word silly also relays the attitude at various times of English speaking people to Christianity?

If, as has been stated; a thousand years ago the English word 'silly' meant something like happiness [fortuitous, happy or prosperous] and this conveyed a man's spiritual state or condition as being: pious, holy, or good, i.e, silly are the poor in spirit, silly are the meek, etc...; and then in the thirteenth century the word began to be used to express an idea of innocence followed with other nuances such as: harmless, helpless, insignificant and feeble' we are seeing verbal relics of a cultural change towards Christianity?

Then in the sixteenth century the word begins to be used to describe those who are unlearned unsophisticated, simple, rustic and ignorant; until today we use the word to describe those who are lacking in judgement or common sense and foolish.

Concerning that latter, St. Anthony the Great said in the last days all Christians would be thought as foolish. And so it seems to be, as the more sophisticated nuances of higher learning frees men's minds from any need to believe in the historical certainty of the Gospel.

john dunn