|
|
29 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Plato's Timaeus, August 22, 2000
Plato's TimaeusThere are a plethora of disciplines (disciples) who would wish to claim the Timaeus as their own (or at least one part or another). Plato's cosmogony seems to hold something for everyone. Even to this day zealous mathematicians and geometricians have to vie with crystal worshippers and spirit channelers to proclaim Plato's take on the Pythagorean `sacred geometry' idea relating to the make up of the universe (a bunch of triangles, apparently (p. 54-56)) as plausible and still worthy of serious study. Others search for clues within a small section of what would seem to be nothing more than a literary device (p.25)- for the secrets of the lost city of Atlantis, the story of which is related to the gathered characters by Critias as an illustration of what Plato's Republic could be, or could have been. Yet others see it as a handbook of ancient astrology (1). Although described as a `dialogue', it really isn't. In fact Hermocrates gets to exchange social pleasantries once or twice at the beginning and is thereafter mute throughout. Critias gets a reputable monologue recounting the fate of Atlantis (p.20) before handing off to Timaeus (perhaps Timaios, a Pythagoran), the astronomy expert, who handles, with a line or two of encouragement from Socrates (p.29), the entire piece to its end. Perhaps it was living in the shadows of the persecution, trial, and subsequent execution of Socrates that allowed Plato to lift his eyes to focus on `The Forms'. This was his theory put forward in the `Republic' and repeated again in the `Timaeus' (p.40), that a divine craftsman created our universe. This demiurge modeled our close approximation on some original Divine set of `Forms' which we can, through application of philosophy strive toward, but never see (sense) or `know' (have intellectual certainty of). This Demiurge created the pantheon of Gods and gave to them the task of creating all living creatures from the elements of fire, earth, air and water (p.49). Each `bit' of each element possessed a particular geometric shape, too small to be seen by the human eye, which mingles with others - or doesn't - according to a set of mathematical rules. After the planets (spherical, thus perfect (p.33)), man was created next closest to perfection (after a somewhat disastrous beta cycle (p.43)). Woman came into existence as the transmigrated soul of men who didn't cut the mustard the first time around (p.42) and were made into something less than a man, that is, a woman. The scale of incompetence declined steeply from there. Next were animals that dragged their four limbs across the ground, birds, then fish and last of all oysters. The known planets, Mercury (Hermes), Venus (Aphrodite), Jupiter (Zeus) and Mars (Apollo), along with the moon and the sun where put into motion in their allotted orbits around `Mother' Earth. By virtue of Platonic decree, the heavenly bodies were set in their sophisticated motion by the souls that inhabited them, for they were living beings, too. Fixed stars, being fixed, were hooks to hang each soul on between incarnations (p.38). But it seemed something was missing in Plato's unifying theory. It seemed for this universe of close approximation to exist, it had to be held in, perhaps nurtured by, framed by,`The Nurse Of Becoming', or the more ominous sounding `receptacle of becoming' (p.48)'. What Desmond Lee's translation does not convey about this Receptacle (Greek: Khora) is that within the text of the Timaeus, the Receptacle is a `she' (2). When read within the context of the female genitive, the sexual politics give a much clearer picture of what both Plato and Desmond Lee seem to be struggling with when they discuss her blank void and her inability to give form or function to that which she holds within her. That it is the `he' that attributes the form and the function. Being denied one such omission, one wonders what other oversights one is unaware of. Plato's Anatomy and Physiology lesson (expounded by Timaeus) is, in all respects, somewhat wide of the mark. Still, however, an interesting read (the description of the function of the liver is particularly fascinating), and at times (unintentionally) humorous - and at others it is thought provoking and insightful in a mythic sort of way. Here he touches on the metaphysical once again, setting up road signs back to the extispicy practices of the Akkadians (3) and forward to the Greco-Roman mystery religions of the first few centuries AD. I have a thing or two to say about the Penguin Classic edition, also. The paper is yellowed and cheap and acts like blotting paper when one takes a hi-liter to it. I would much prefer nice shiny white paper, with plenty of white space for marginalia and esthetics. The Timaeus is hard. The translator, Desmond Lee says so. Plato says so. Who am I to differ? Mr. Lee's notes were of great help, but I sometimes got the impression that he was as lost as I - which I found strangely comforting. At times he defers to the `Cornford' translation (also available from Amazon), perhaps this tells us something. This is essential reading for anyone who has an interest in math, comparative cosmogony, myth, astrology, archeoastronomy or philosophy. I advise all medical students to stay away. (1) See "Hamlet's Mill', pp. 305-309, De Santillana, Giorgio, David R Godine, Publisher, Inc. Jaffery, New Hampshire (2) See `Space & Timaeus', Bigelow, John, Monash University. URL http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/phil/department/bigelow/space.html (3) See `Ancient Mesopotamia', p.213, Oppenheim, A. Leo, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977
|
by Plato
by Saint Augustine
by Lucretius
by Aristotle
See all Editorial Reviews
