3.

          A retrospect concerning transcendence

          Tolstoy describes the religious perception as a universal psychological phenomenon present in all people. It is a propelling force in our human civilization directing it to a positive evolutionary development of art and science. This religious perception reveals itself in every society trough 'the meaning of life' it expresses. From a historic perspective Tolstoy recognizes an evolutionary development of the meaning of life. He regarded 'the Christian meaning of life' to be the most universal standard for our time. The modern humanistic moral standards have their origin in the Christian ideals concerning the mutual brotherhood and equality of all mankind. For al clarity: Tolstoy regarded the present Christian institutional church as a watered down, dogmatic reflection of the original pure Christian religious experience (pg. 65). Tolstoy argues that the Christian meaning of life had been a progression and improvement of 'the classical meaning of life'. The antique 'meaning of life' had possessed ideals such as a joy for life, physical beauty, courage etc. that only had concern for their own limited society. However Christian morality was appealing to the notion of unity and equality of all mankind.
          Socrates' obvious obsession with beauty in the broadest range of its appearances (physical, mental, social, and transcendental) agrees with Tolstoy's judgement about the 'classical meaning of life'. However the most remarkable contrast between him and Tolstoy 'meaning of life' lies in the fact that Socrates identified himself with the (moral) élite of his society, and actually disregarded the masses. His ironic attitude was sometimes all too obvious just a transparent cover for his superior attitude, which did not earn him many friends. For instance in the Symposium Socrates forces Agathon to admit that the masses show far less intelligence than the small group of the 'smart set' that had been invited at the party (194b-d). It is a commonly known fact that Socrates choose his pupils with restraint and that he sometimes -by intervention of his inner divine sign- choose to reject a certain student from this limited few.
          Reading the Euthyphro dialogue we can perceive a stunning example of this for us modern readers repulsive attitude of superiority. Socrates ridicules in his common ironic fashion Euthyphro who is about to legally accuse his father because of his fatal neglect with regard to a slave that eventually caused the death of this slave. There is not any moment in this dialogue we find any compassion from Socrates for the cruel treatment the slave endured because of his masters' (Euthyphro's father) despotic actions. This superior attitude also played a dominant role in his final juridical conviction as can be read in Plato's Apology. Just like in the juridical procedures of for example the United States of America his conviction entailed two phases. First there had to be established if somebody was guilty to the crimes that he was accused of. Secondly a judgement had to be passed about the punishment one had to get. It is remarkable that the jury had passed his guilt verdict with just a minute majority of votes. However his exorbitant claim for a special and honorary treatment as punishment incited the juries to condemn him to death with a very convincing majority.
          Tolstoy's enthusiastic admiration for the pureness and simplicity of the art of the Russian peasants caused a lot of confusion in his time period where art of any relevance was always associated with the upper-classes. During that historical period of Russia it was still quite common for landlords to 'own' the farmers that worked their land. Tolstoy leaves no opportunity unused to charge in all possible ways the status the 'upper-classes' ascribed themselves with; he obviously choose the side of the social less privileged and the underdogs of his society.
          Plato's 'aristocratic' attitude reflects itself in the social constitution of his 'ideal state' in the Politeia that was certainly not democratic, but had to be ruled by a select class of philosophers and gave the lower classes only the right to obey their masters. It would also be inconceivable to hear Socrates defend the good taste of slaves and to hear him say that they expressed the highest possible standards with regard to art, on the contrary. This 'aristocratic' attitude can also be recognized in the manner he expressed his philosophical teachings in his written dialogues. His theories are obviously not written to be accessible and explanatory for a big public, but only serve as a reminder of a small intellectual élite that knew somehow already his opinions by means of direct oral discussions and that felt no need to have an extensive elaborate explanation. They were happy enough to keep the message to themselves. Of course this attitude can still be found in societies that value social classes, but with regard to our modern academic and intellectual culture of objective and impartial knowledge it is outdated and even worse unscientific. And we should remind ourselves how emphatically Tolstoy charged against the social sciences that produced theories only serving to defend the rights and privileges of the 'upper-classes'.
          Any sincere discussion about Plato's convictions about transcendence has to deal with his references to 'mystical experiences' that appear to have an upright and authentic character. His description for instance in Symposium (210e) of the ultimate vision of the Transcendent Beauty at the end of some sort of gradual spiritual development can be recognized in the meditative spiritual praxis experienced by mystics in other cultures. Another example of such a meditative praxis that transcends people above their normal physical capacities can be read in Alkibiades' story in Symposium (220a-d) about Socrates behaviour during a military campaign in Potidaea. Alkibiades tells how Socrates, watched in amazement by his fellow soldiers, had been standing still at one spot without any movement for a whole day and night.
If we take into account 'the doctrine of Eros' as expressed in Symposium this could perhaps add and explain what this achievement stood for. If we realize that desires in relation with our rational power basically have a voluntary character because the act of deliberation entailed a freedom of choice. This freedom of deliberation meant that people could choose to disregard their need for wisdom and that there was no coercive necessity to abandon their absolute preoccupation with their physical, emotional and instinctive desires. In this regard people have the freedom to choose to live in slavery or to live in freedom.
          Our physical and instinctive desires had been associated with a coercive involuntary need for material goods. It needs no argue that we all need to eat and drink to stay alive and that our physical constitution has its limits that can not be overruled by our will. However Socrates' remarkable physical achievement of standing still at one place for a whole day shows the absolute mastery of his mental capacity to control and resist his involuntary physical desires. It was the utter example of his realization of the power of  'mind over matter'. His successful attempt to resist and free himself of his physical and coercive desires actually meant an extension of his freedom, and he thereby proved the transcendental extend of his willpower. Socrates was definitely not a rigid or morbid ascetic. At the end of Symposium we are told that he drank lots of wine, talked and 'partied' till everybody had fallen asleep, though without losing his clarity or senses. Early in the morning when everybody had fallen asleep he left the Symposium to visit the gymnasium, another example of his extra ordinary physical constitution!
          Masters in matters of mystic and meditation all over the world that perform the same sort of acts can be heard to explain their skills in similar words. Their mystic visions of the 'ultimate transcendent reality' often go hand in hand with such supernatural physical achievements.
          Nowadays we can witness that a lot of people of people in our Western civilization are getting alienated from the Christian dogma's and institutes. The desecularisation of our culture has left a spiritual 'gap' and many are focussing their attention to Eastern philosophies to somehow fill this up. What they seem to be forgetting is that our classical cultural roots have many spiritual recourses that are being unexplored. The so-called Neo Platonists such as Plotinus explored Plato's writing to connect them self with his spiritual message. Most of the modern academic classical philosophers have had great problems with this spiritual search and this has often been ridiculed for being mere superstition. However everybody with an open mind can recognize the transcendent dimension in Plato's writing. Even a lot of modern Christian theologists have shown their respect for this spiritual dimension and have felt inspired by it. Perhaps it is now the proper time for all these spiritual seekers to search in the richness of our own ancient culture for our own spiritual roots.
 
 

BACK TO HOME PAGE

BACK TO CONTENTS

NEXT PARAGRAPH

Last updated April 29, 1999 author: Drs. T. J.  Kuijl ©1995-1999. Comments are welcome and can be send via e-mail (click on e-mail) Quotations of the content of this article should mention the author's name and its source. Copies of this article must leave the text unaltered including the copyright reference. Dissemination of  electronic copies is not allowed.