I am under the impression that the early Friends were not sympathetic with the Cambridge Platonists, and I am wondering if anyone who reads this blog knows more about this.
I see lots of resonances between Plato's ideas and Quakerism.
For example, in Plato's Republic, Socrates argues that "it is never just to harm anyone" (335e).
Another example: the account of wisdom in the Republic is based on the sun analogy (506e-509d). Goodness is like the sun: it shines down the world offering illumination and warmth. The wise person sees not just what there is, but also perceives the play of light cast by the sun (goodness) upon what is. I interpret this to mean that the wise person is not merely knowledgeable about what there is and how it all works, but is also able to perceive or discern ebbs and flows of goodness in all that happens.
And I think that this is similar to the Quaker quest to look for that of God within everyone, and to live in a way that lends strength to the growth of goodness in the world. Isaac Penington writes about this in his letter to the Royal Society, where he argues that scientific knowledge alone (based on observation and reason) are not enough: attention to the spiritual dimension is important too. And Arthur Eddington, much later, writes about how science and religion are not at all at odds, because we have two modes of knowing: we perceive the world both in terms of what is, and what ought to be.
Both Penington and Eddington seem to be saying something similar to how Socrates defines wisdom. The best form of knowledge, wisdom, does not stop with just observing what is. We must also hone our ability to perceive the play of goodness over the world: to perceive what is in relation to what ought to be.
References:
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Science and the Unseen World, 1929.
Penington, Isaac, Some Things Relating to Religion, Proposed in the Consideration of the Royal Society (So Termed), to wit, Concerning the Right Ground of Certainty Therein, 1668. Available in: The Works of Isaac Penington, Vol. III, Quaker Heritage Press, Glenside, PA, 1996.)
Plato's Republic (multiple translations and editions available).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The ideas of the Cambridge Platonists are, as you nite, fairly congenial to Quaker thought. The reason why there wasn't more early interest in them by early Quakers is mostly sociological. The first Quakers were largely working class simple people from the north of England and the Cambridge Platonists were socially far removed from a movement that originated among the common people. But interest in intellectual matters did increase as Quakerism broadened its base to include more sophisticated people. In fact the Quaker philosopher Anne Conway is classed as one of the second generation Cambridge Platonists according to the Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy.
Thanks, Richard!
Yes, good point about the sociological context. And yes, I am familiar with Anne Conway and the intellectual circle surrounding her, as well as the early Friends who sometimes visited her. I want to look more into her thought and her life, because I get the impression that her household was a site of cross-fertilization of ideas from many sources. It is particularly through her that I think some of the early Friends were somewhat acquainted with Platonic philosophy. I'll follow up further on this and see what more I can learn.
Meanwhile, if you or anyone else knows more, please feel free to share further thoughts!
Laura,
I wish I had more to say on this, historically speaking, but I can’t help you on that score. I would be very interested in learning more about it, though. (Allow me to be slightly playful at this point, and take this as an opportunity to gently push my point that if we had a good way to share longer papers, this would be precisely the kind of thing I think we could all learn a little more about, and meaningfully interact around! Somewhere, over the rainbow, ... . On the other hand, given my already too “windy” and convoluted response that follows here, you might be grateful that I am at least constrained by the inherent limits of a blog!)
On the more philosophical side of things (beyond the historical point), I am always suspicious of any attempts (my own included) to find parallels, or even resonances, between the teachings of Friends (or any worship community) and those of either particular philosophers or even philosophy more generally. It is certainly the case that some philosophical doctrines appear to be a better “fit” with our traditional doctrines (which are not entirely univocal either, for that matter) than are others, but I am not sure what we should make of that, and what it calls us to (if anything). Are philosophical claims to be reconciled with religious doctrines? Do they enlighten each other; are they mutually reinforcing? Does one clarify, or fill out, the other? Is “truth” served by such attempts, or obscured by it? Or are we dealing here even with different forms of truth? The matter is complex.
There is, to approach this problem from an angle suggested by your contribution, and at least on my reading, an ambiguity built into the Socratic/Platonic view of wisdom: on the one hand there is the notion (more Platonic?) that wisdom is the highest form of knowledge (a view adopted by Hegel, for example, for whom the “sophia” of philosophy is thought in terms of absolute knowledge), and on the other hand the notion (more Socratic?) that wisdom is a denial of the claim to know, the “knowledge” (taken ironically) that I know nothing (the view adopted by skeptics). Is wisdom the “completion” of knowledge (a higher form but on the same scale, of the same kind - though perhaps with a greater range, including of what should be in addition to what is, for example), or a position that we take up with respect to knowledge? And is philosophy - if it is the love of wisdom - therefore itself a knowledge (which would issue in doctrines, etc.), or a position that we take up with respect to knowledge (which latter may then be understood, for example, as the issue of the sciences)?
And if this ambiguity exists apropos philosophy, it is equally so with respect to religion. On my view, at least, religion is more primordially a way of life than it is a system of “truths/doctrines” (although probably even more primordially a way of life as a response to a call to life), and so the “status” of religious doctrines (and this, it seems to me, is preeminently the case for Friends whose suspicion of “notions” has transformed “doctrines” into “faith and practice”), at least with respect to the “ontological” truth of that about which doctrines speak (for example: “is” there such a thing as an “inner light”?), is also something that appears, to me at least, to be non-straightforward.
Being unclear, myself, as to the status of “philosophical” doctrines, and equally uncertain as to the status of “religious” doctrines, wondering whether these respective modes of teaching actually share a referent or not, I am (and perhaps understandably?) less than sure of what to make of any apparent confluence between some set of those from one side and some set of those from the other. (I’m working on it, though.) I am open, moreover, to a proposal of confluences (like yours) enlightening us with regard to the question of the nature and legitimacy of such a confluence (like mine), as it is at least as likely, I think, that the principle is an effect of the particulars as it is that the particulars are cases of the principle.
So, Laura, to be clear (as if it were not already way too late for that!), I am not being critical. Your observations are keen, and of interest. They evoke in me genuine and respectful questions. I am not saying that we should not make these sorts of observations, and I am not saying that they are of no significance; they are, I trust, of genuine importance to us as we attempt to articulate our ongoing Quaker experience in the light of our own religious heritage and the broader history of human sense-making of which we are a part. But I’m not yet sure how to think about these things. I thank you for the provocation.
Jeffrey,
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts! I will respond more fully soon, but two quick thoughts in response:
1. We could share longer works via Google Docs, putting links to those documents into blog postings here. Or those who have web pages and post their longer writings there already could post links to them in blog postings here.
Perhaps a blog posting might say, "Here is a paper I wrote [or am working on]. {Then include a link plus maybe an abstract.} Any feedback or suggestions?" And then the blog comments could be a space for offering feedback.
Google Docs is especially good for collaborative writing, but you can also restrict collaboration and use it as a way just to share a longer piece of writing.
2. I do want to respond in more detail to the substance of your posting, but my brief initial comment is just to point out that my making comparisons and finding resonances was mostly (in this context) to show the motivation for my question. Seeing those resonances, I am puzzled about what the objections could be. My question is really a historical one -- I am going to spend some time looking more deeply into the early Quaker writings to see if I can find places where they may have written about this. If someone else has suggestions about where to look, I would appreciate those suggestions. (I do already have ideas myself that I am pursuing.)
But it is also true that I like to make comparisons and find resonances, and the questions you raise about this, and about wisdom, and about faith and philosophy, are good ones and I will respond more fully soon!
Laura,
Thank you, too.
1. Good ideas. I am thinking that we might want to be able, for example, to share our respective FAHE contributions with other Quakers in philosophy in print form so that more extended discussions might ensue. I always regret when there is a vibrant 20 minute discussion following a paper and then we all run off to the next and what might have been the beginning of a meaningful engagement is curtailed, and slips into oblivion. (I have this experience frequently both following one of my own presentations and those of others.) If we had such a place to collect papers perhaps we could ask all "philosophical(-ish)" paper presenters at FAHE if they would like to post their papers. I'm not sure what this would do to publication interests, but certainly a paper would have to be able to be withdrawn at any time. I have been thinking of starting a website for this kind of thing rather than just talking about it (also because a site tends to be kept up better if someone in particular takes responsibility for it, and since I'm the one belly-aching about it ...), but I have some high-tech, know-how deficiencies to overcome first. I'm actually more patient about this than I'm coming across, but will work on it.
2. I am not objecting to your seeing resonances in, for example, some ideas in Plato and certain Quaker doctrines. I see them too, and am simply pondering what that might mean. (These are real questions for me, and I think important ones; I'm not just making trouble.) There is certainly the historical question (that, and why, Quaker thinkers rejected or adopted certain ideas), but that at least leads into the "normative" question (of whether such rejections or adoptions were justified, fruitful, faithful, or whatever term we would deem appropriate here, and - and perhaps most importantly - of what our own approach to these things should be at present).
I look forward to further discussions.
laura and jeffery,
First, I'd like to endorse Jeffery's point that reading and commenting on each other's longer pieces of work could be valuable to some of us. As someone who works at a public university I find that the other philosophers in my department do not share my deepest values and so are really only of value to me professionally in a negative way, that is, when I float ideas/arguments past them I can count on them for hostile criticism which will ultimate serve to make my arguments stronger but I cannot expect encouragement or positive suggestions. I can only get that from philosophers who share my deepest values so Quaker philosophers are my best hope. Of course there are obstacles in the way of this. My training is hard-core analytic (though I also consider myself to be well grounded in the history of philosophy) so people whose training and corresponding turn of mind is very different (that is Jeffery) will naturally speak a different language. The empathy is there but communication problems will persist. Still, I think it's worth trying.
Concerning Jeffery's (by the way do you like being called "Jeffery" or do you prefer something else?) point about the value of seeing resonances between philosophical views and religious views, I think it is valuable so long as we don't start forcing them on the texts. Of course it is easy to get carried away and start with seeing some parallel between Plato and George Fox and then start overlooking or denying the real differences. That would be bad but that's just something to watch out for and I think Laura is sharp enough to watch out for it.
Richard,
Thanks for your message. I agree that there will be some problems of communication between those of us with such vastly diverse backgrounds, but I often find that trying to express myself to those who don't know my "jargon" helps me clarify my own thinking, so there is an up-side to these challenges too. Let us trust that despite this hurdle, the longer-term advantages of dialogue with spiritually empathetic and supportive Friends will be worth the efforts.
As to what I prefer to be called (cue the psychiatrists!), I use Jeffrey in every even slightly formal context (usually always in print), but everyone calls me Jeff. I don't really feel like a Jeff and honestly don't prefer it (sounds like a 17 year-old to me), but every time someone refers to me as "Jeffrey" it feels stilted, and it takes me a minute to realize they're talking to me. So, since its not possible to get it right, its also impossible to get it wrong - so do what you're comfortable with. To tell the truth, I prefer the nick-name that my best friends growing up endowed me with: "Jafe" (long a, silent e), but nobody has called me that for 25 years. No identity problems here!
Jeff(rey)/Jafe
Jeff(rey)/Jafe,
Hmm, I thought I too had detected some ambivalence. Thanks for the explanation.
And "Jeff(rey)/Jafe" befits your postmodern(?)(-influenced?) philosophical identity! It is an elegant expression of the complexity of your own self-identity.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist! :-)
L
P.S. I think "Jafe" is very cool!
Jafe,
I too think that the advantages of trying to communicate from our very different philosophical homes are considerable.
What do you think about sharing some ideas about what we will write for the FAHE newsletter? It's an interesting challenge since most of the readers will not be philosophers but will be intelligent people interested in philosophy. the problem I see about writing for such an audience is that to avoid technicalities and jargon you have to keep it general and not get into specifics. But avoiding specifics completely is liable to leave the reader with only a foggy impression of what we are talking about. Have you (I'm including Laura here) any thoughts on how to address the audience appropriately?
Richard and Laura,
Yes, the three of us have agreed to to author something on the Roundtable, as I understand it (though I don't think it's for the FAHE newsletter, but for another publication), and perhaps we should co-author one piece rather than each try to come up with 1400 words (I suggested this to the editor who was fine with it). I'm not sure there is that much to say, as it is more of a "report" than anything else, I think (or am I mistaken?). I began sketching out a few ideas earlier today, and will try to get it together in a couple more days and perhaps send what I have to each of you for additions/corrections/deletions? I'm not stuck on this as the way to proceed, but I'll let this stand as an offer for now. If you'd prefer we each wrote our own, or if one of you would prefer to get a collective ball rolling, let me know and we'll go that way.
Jafe
Jafe,
My impression was that the editor, being a Quaker, was pretty open to whatever we came up with. If we want to just report on the session, I think she's fine with that. If we want to add reflections that arose from the session, I think that's fine too. Since I also started sketching out an essay maybe we should each submit essays from different perspectives to give readers a more multifaceted view. And perhaps we could just post the drafts of what we've got on this site. Laura, what do you think?
Yes, I too have been working on a separate piece, and I am considering posting a draft here.
Post a Comment