In the Greek “appearing” is not there actually. One is to contemplate the kalon that is in both our observances/practices/ways-of-life, and our laws. Man’s laws supposely, more or less dimly, reflect the divine order. In studying them, supposedly, higher beauty is understood. Man’s laws are supposed to lead to Divine Law, through the mind. He (as Diotima) is speaking of a process of contemplation, a ladder of Eros. It is much less of a historical break from one domain to another (as in the break from the Law of Moses-flesh, to the Law of Christ-spirit), than a continuous and rising abstraction from the particular, accomplished through the Mind.
I was rather looking to supplying an understanding of the term ex-context.
I was responding rather to my real name’s original general question:
"greek terms I have wondered about, asked online about, and wondered about again. So now I’m asking anyone on here with knowledge of greek (especially satyr, who is greek in soul and body) what they know about these terms.
nomos: As in Plato’s Symposium, where in Diotima’s speech she talkes about rising in the hierarchy of types of beauty. One of these levels is appreciation for the “nomos”, which, in classical greek, means either “law” or “tune”. I suppose both of these might be forms of tradition in the hellenic culture. I think in modern greek the words for these ideas are different.
So, the question is, are we to appreciate music, or politics?
Would anyone shed light on these terms?"
Note: “greek terms I have wondered about” “As in Plato’s” “shed light on these terms”
The passage in Plato’s Symposium is one particular context but the original question implies, irrespective of context, i.e., in themselves - although I may be wrong!
Yes. I liked your interpretation, but there is a difference I wanted to point out in your analogy. No matter how much you contemplate the Law of Moses, you do not come up with, by virtue of the Mind, the Law of Christ, because the transformation from one law to another was based upon a historical event, a rending of time into epochs, a metaphysical change in man’s supposed relationship to the divine.
Admittedly this is a complex question, in particular because of Augustine’s appropriation of the neo-Platonist Plotinus, and the Hellenistic conceptual prologue of the gospel of John. Platonism and Christianity are to a certain extent braided, but there is in the Christian theology as aspect of break or transition that is antithetical to, or at least distinct from the laddered Platonic gradation. Even where Paul speaks of the Law written upon the heart, access to that law is a subjective break with the Old Law, a faith-based identification with Christ’s death and ressurection as an event.
Perhaps not worth going on about. But I find the difference to be significant.
But yes, again, I agree with your general point, that Plato is speaking of the divine law, as it is reflected in human law, and so many other things.
Some of us are interested in the dissecting of motives. Others are interested in the motives of dissecting. Because I am fatally in the latter camp, I will remain silent. Mostly.
If law is harmony, then would anarchy be dissonance? There is such a thing as dissonant harmony. Some of us find it truly quite beautiful - the good frolic dissonant harmony of lawlessness, regardless of what society thinks. Kalos k’agatho, indeed. I do not like showing fools respect, hang on their words and they will eventually crack off, we all die in the same bottomless pit. The only beauty is in splattering your soul all over your neighbor on the way down.
I checked with my Classicist friend and he said that he was not familar enough with the Germanic side of the development to comment, though words often diverge like this. He did say that the divine aspect of “nomos” as distribution may have been added later. As a side note he mentioned that the Latin “princeps” meaning chief or prince, can be derived from the meanings of “first” “cut”, as in the first cut of meat. There we have the act of distribution and taking put into an office of power. I’ll keep checking around.
Thanks all for their efforts: Dunamis for bringing up the online lexicon, Satyr for the modern greek understanding.
Thoughts from the neophyte:
If nomos is related to “to allot” and “to take”, I wonder if the laws and tunes mentioned can be translated “tradition”. They are the divine handed down to human use. This may be hard for moderns to appreciate with laws being created so cheaply nowadays; the ancients believed their laws to come from the gods – or at least from honored people.
As for “agathos”, isn’t that more like “good” for it’s own sake, while “good-for-something” would be more like “chraestos”? The former definition would be closer to Aristotle’s treatment of the whole (k&a) term at the end of the Eudeman Ethics.
Sure. But when considering the phrase itself, it is an instance of hendiadys, the saying of the one by two elements. So one can either assume that the two kalos and agathos are saying the exact same thing twice, or that the phrase is expressing two aspects of one thing. The kalon is the beautiful (and it is often assumed that the beautiful is inherently good), but even since Homer the appearance of something is alternately a sign of its inner character, but also the possibility of a deception. In the Iliad, heroes are said to have the [i]eidos /i of a god, when they perform great feats, yet Agamemnon’s trappings of a king are also the very thing that is questioned by Achilles’ inherent greatness. I would suggest that the phrase captures both, kalos k’agathos, appearance and essence if you will. Agathos is exactly as you say, good-for-itself, but it is a good that manifests itself as well, in both the appearance of beauty (kalon), but also by the capacity to act. I mention the for-something aspect only to draw out the subtle contrast to its partner term kalon, and not to define it. It was about as common a term as our term “good” is, full of uses and meaning.
If you didn’t check, this is a brief version of the Liddell/Scott defintion of agathos:
A. good:
I. of persons,
well-born, gentle, in political sense, aristocrats, esp. in the phrase kaloi k’agathoi2. brave, valiant, since courage was attributed to Chiefs and Nobles, Il.1.131
good, capable, in reference to ability,
good, in moral sense,
5.my good friend, as a term of gentle remonstrance,
II. of things,
good, serviceable, good for it,
of outward circumstances, to good purpose, for his own good end, c. inf., it is good to do so and so.
morally good,
good, blessing, benefit, of persons or things, confer a benefit on . for one’s good, the good,–in pl., goods of fortune, treasures, wealth; also, good things, dainties, good qualities,
As you can see, the meanings are diverse, and sometimes quite mundane. It is of note though that the kaloi k’agathoi are “the aristocrats”
I just thought of something. My dictionary starts by saying that nomos is from nemo in the sense of “to take into possession”. In Latin, that would be capio. Now my Latin dictionary says capio is cognate to the Dutch verb haven, which is practically never used today; that’s why it puts it like this: “(hand)haven”. “Handhaven” is a common word in Dutch, and particularly in the context of “de wet handhaven”, which means: to uphold the law. So my suspicion (I believe I told Dunamis about this in private) that the root *nem- originally meant “to take into one’s hand” (in order either to hand out or to take into possession) only needs to be slightly altered: not to take into one’s hand, but to hold, or at least to have, in one’s hand (by the way, the verb to have, Latin habeo, is also cognate to capio). In any case, it is not far-fetched to imagine that the root *nem- might have been used to form a verb meaning “to cause to be held/had in one’s hand” - i.e., to take into one’s hand (possibly in order to hand out).
Heraclitus uses the verb nemo in the following context:
“… pan herpeton plegei nemetai.”
Which is usually translated as:
“Every beast is driven to the pasture with blows”;
But which may be duly translated as:
“Every beast is held in line with blows.”
The word here translated as “beast” literally means “an animal that crawls”, especially a snake, and was seldom, but sometimes, used for human beings.
Now of course it would become Heraclitus if he should have meant: “The lower strata of society are controlled by force.” He may even be alluding to the image of infantry marching.
