Dialogue ~ 42

Previously I asked, “Are Prometheus, Athena and Hephaestus representative of aspects of one’s inclination, as it charts the course of one’s will?”

To explore this further, it might be an idea to look at the relationship of Prometheus and his brother Epimethius. Whereas Prometheus was said to represent ‘forethought’, his brother Epimethius was said to represent ‘afterthought or hindsight’. Together, the brothers were said to act as representatives of humanity. Prometheus has often been referred to as a ‘culture hero’ or instigator. The association of his ‘being at the vanguard’ or at the forefront has been attractive to the notion of any given society or organisation as having supremacy over others or of being progressive.

The myth of Prometheus has it that Zeus had him bound to a rock, presumably as a form of punishment for his having stolen fire from the gods and/or of being a champion of humanity. It would take a ‘strong man’ i.e. Heracles (Hercules), to shoot the eagle that was tormenting Prometheus on a daily basis and to free him from his chains.

Wikipedia gives this reference to Prometheus and Epimetheus, attributing Leo Strauss, “Prometheus decided that humankind’s attributes would be the civilising arts and fire, which he stole from Athena and Hephaestus. Prometheus later stood trial for his crime. In the context of Plato’s dialogue, “Epimetheus, the being in whom thought follows production, represents nature in the sense of materialism, according to which thought comes later than thoughtless bodies and their thoughtless motions.”

Consider that if Prometheus (as representative of a timeless aspect of the syzygy) is bound, that one’s experience of time is doomed to repeat. ‘Epimetheus, the being in whom thought follows production’ – effectively, as if the ‘hindsight’ of Epimetheus has been put at the helm of humanity and an ‘idea’ of the absentee brother of Prometheus is being deployed as an ongoing corrective of course. Was it the hubris of Prometheus that was in question or instead the short sightedness of Zeus?

How do we look beyond Epimetheus as being “representative of nature in the sense of materialism, according to which thought comes later than thoughtless bodies and their thoughtless motions”? It is civilisation which has given rise to the megalith of our scientific and technological endeavours as well as of materialism in all of its superficial glory.

Perhaps Prometheus and Epimethius do not ‘spin in the same circle as one another’ as in a lateral or ‘same’ axis of time, but function in much the same way as the mechanism which we conceive of as a gyroscope? It is not that materialism (or physicality as we perceive it) is flawed, so much as it has obscured reality or a ‘larger wheel of our being’ – and one in which Prometheus invites us to wisdom?

Previously I asked, “What is the purpose of time? Does time provide a ‘medium or space’ for a person to recognise themselves as (in relationship with) life – and for however long that shift of thought and comprehension takes? Even that imagery is flawed, in that it suggests something (time as a medium or as space) exists which is ‘other’ than self. Perhaps time as space IS synonymous with movement of mind? Not quantitative (which is how we are accustomed to measuring time) but qualitative?” and, “Consider that when infinity gives way to necessity, there is an opening for one’s truth (aleithia).”

Epimetheus brings something into focus, much as does the tale of Sisyphus, in that there are growing fractures in the modalities of knowledge and intellectual pursuit, so diligently crafted in the West; patching them up with quick fixes in the name of progress is slowly driving us into an era of authoritarianism and tyranny, much as has occurred in the past with Zeus.

In his book ‘What is Political Philosophy?’, Leo Strauss wrote, “Philosophy as such is nothing but genuine awareness of the problems, i.e. of the fundamental and comprehensive problems. It is impossible to think about these problems without becoming inclined towards a solution, toward one or the other of the very few typical solutions. Yet as long as there is no wisdom but only quest for wisdom, the evidence of all solutions is necessarily smaller than the evidence of the problems.”

The famous quote, often attributed to Einstein (although it looks as if he never said it), “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” says much the same thing.

Strauss continues, “Therefore the philosopher ceases to be a philosopher at the moment at which the ‘subjective certainty’ (quoting M. Alexandre Kojève) of a solution becomes stronger than his awareness of the problematic character of that solution. At that moment the sectarian is born.”

“The danger of succumbing to the attraction of solutions is essential to philosophy which, without incurring this danger, would degenerate into playing with the problems. But the philosopher does not necessarily succumb to this danger, as is shown by Socrates, who never belonged to a sect and never founded one. And even if the philosophic friends are compelled to be members of a sect or to found one, they are not necessarily members of one and the same sect: Amicus Plato.”

(“Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas” is a Latin phrase, translating to “Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend (literally: Plato is friend, but truth is more friend (to me than he is)). The maxim is often attributed to Aristotle, as a paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics 1096a11-15.

Effectively then, as soon as we think we ‘are certain’ about something or have found ‘a solution’ to whatever problem is at hand, the mirage before us disintegrates and we are left with as many pieces as before. What does this say about science or the religions of the world? That they are not to be trusted, or rather, that they are not intended to be intransigent? It is not change per se that is in focus here, as in ‘rearranging the same furniture in the room’ but transforming the way that everything in the room is seen – would that be to follow in the footsteps of Heracles, to meet with Prometheus and to escape the ‘gimbal lock’?