Aristotle and the Eleusinian Mysteries
I have a rather speculative theory about Aristotle either never partaking in the Eleusinian Mysteries, or him being something like Lucius (as portrayed in Apuleisus's Metamophorphoses), where he goes through the motions of the initiation ceremonies, but is essentially blind to there use or meaning.
I wonder about this because I do not believe there is any firsthand account (or secondhand) of him going through this initiation. This may not seem like much of an oddity to us now but in ancient Athens it is believed the vast majority of the population partook of these initiation ceremonies.
From reading Plato, especially with the Analogy of the Cave, there seems to be more correspondence with what occurred in ancient mysteries, so it appears that Plato did partake (I am unsure of any direct historical evidence for this btw?). A great many people do frame Plato as a bit of a mystic, but I have never heard this kind of rhetoric aimed at Aristotle.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies?
I wonder about this because I do not believe there is any firsthand account (or secondhand) of him going through this initiation. This may not seem like much of an oddity to us now but in ancient Athens it is believed the vast majority of the population partook of these initiation ceremonies.
From reading Plato, especially with the Analogy of the Cave, there seems to be more correspondence with what occurred in ancient mysteries, so it appears that Plato did partake (I am unsure of any direct historical evidence for this btw?). A great many people do frame Plato as a bit of a mystic, but I have never heard this kind of rhetoric aimed at Aristotle.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies?
Comments (31)
Participants in the rites were supposed to be rewarded with some form of eternal life or reincarnation. Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? As the note below indicates, Ari had an ambiguous attitude toward such spiritualistic beliefs. For him, the Soul was not a separate thing that could animate several bodies, or walk around as a ghost. As I understand, his "Soul" was more like our modern notion of "Life" : an activity, not a thing. :smile:
Aristotle did not believe in the reincarnation of the soul, but he did believe in the immortality of the soul. Aristotle's theory of the soul was that the soul was a capacity, not a substance, and that it animated the body, allowing a person to be alive and to perform activities. He believed that the soul did not exist independently of the body, and that a person was more closely identified with their body than their soul.
___Google AI overview
Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence.
I think this is so far back in history that if you had some clear evidence you could publish a paper on it.
Any hint at this either way is what I am interested in. It will be speculation either way.
I'm not sure it's obvious Plato did due to the cave analogy. Would it be that hard for an aristocrat to hear the tales people tell and reforge them to demonstrate a point? He may have even been there, but the analogy -- especially given its literary form -- doesn't give clear evidence about Plato either way.
He could have heard it from someone else enough times to forge a myth that appealed to the people around him without attending.
I think scholarly opinion favours the view that Plato was an initiate, although as is well known, speaking about them was forbidden, they're secret rites (like Masonic rites in today's culture.) But many of the themes in the more spiritual of the dialogues - Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Symposium - are at least strongly suggestive of the soteriological beliefs of the that cult.
It is really not difficult to interpret the Analogy of the Cave as an analogy from ignorance (avidya in the Indian texts) to philosophical enlightenment although as always Plato's dialogues contain a strong rationalistic element which was not so pronounced in Eastern wisdom teachings.
Just fishing for info really.
What I read recently is a recent scholarly summation: Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. It focuses on Greco-Roman cults.
I do not believe he covers this at all in The Sacred and The Profane. He certainly covers this kind of thing else where. Probably in A History of Religious Ideas?
I get the impression that you would prefer to find evidence that Aristotle was not a mystic. Is that because you think of him as the original empirical scientist? :smile:
Is Aristotle the father of science?
Aristotle was considered to be the father of modern science because he was the father of the scientific method. He was the pioneer of the development of the scientific method, which is the hallmark of the modern science. Aristotle was the first to conduct empirical studies, which is what modern science is based on.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-aristotle-considered-the-father-of-modern-science.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
So seems others' agree with you based on reading his texts.
I was just thinking if you had something definitive like that it would likely be published or publishable. Ancient evidence is always sketchy and requires lots of interpretation from multiple experts. It's really interesting because of that, but it's definitely difficult to ascertain lots of specifics that one might ask.
Quoting Moliere
FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says :
"Aristotle was influenced by the Eleusinian Mysteries, a secret religious festival that took place in ancient Greece and was central to the development of much of Western civilization"
___Google AI overview
It is worth NOTHING.
If anyone wants to delve.
I think this is a tad more up to date and not at all speculative:
Mystery Cults in the Ancient World
Review by me here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMXgb2EIi7o&t=2s
The Immortality Key
Unfortunately, he gets mystical about it, instead of anthropological. But the synthesis is good. Appreciate you linking your review of your proferring too!
I am interested in what Aristotle thought about this and whether he took part.
As an aside I am intrigued by what part pomegranates had. Is that mentioned in the 'Immortality Key'?
I have strong reasons to believe it would be a waste of time reading that. I have heard him before and cannot imagine sifting through a couple of hundred pages is worthy of my time in the hope of finding one nugget of information.
By all means, tell me if he mentions Aristotle at all?
Then my suggestion wasn't for you, was it friend? :)
Quoting I like sushi
It may have been the entire purpose, form and execution of the Mysteries (though, not to box-tick drug taking). That's what explorations like Muraresku's are trying to sort through.
Quoting I like sushi
I can't but assume you really aren't coming into much contact with the substance of the work. Which is not Hancock's, btw.That's not meant to be disparaging - this is most people's position having not engaged particularly well. If any of your reasons have anything to do with racism, you should probably just stop and actually read his work - or admit you just don't know? Usually the way.
If you have any interest in Hancock's psychedelic work, Supernatural is probably the single-best-researched book o the topic which isn't specialised (i.e written by a worker, or focussed on one particular pet project). This coming from someone who has worked in academic psychedelic labs and lectured at several universities on the topic.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes. But it sounds like you're not particularly apt to accept something from this writer. Which is fair.
Where?
Aristotle says nothing about the Eleusinian Mysteries in fragment 15. He just talks about the nature of divinity/God.
His references are off.
Third paragraph into the book. This is a HUGE misrepresentation. If by the third footnote there are alarm bells (the only one I checked btw) then this is the work of a poor "scholar". I could forgive this but the guy is apparently fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek - there is no excuse for this.
It is basically Wikipedia research.
Hence, Hancock giving foreword is a pretty good indicator that what is about to be read is poorly researched and likely misleading.