6 added 4 characters in body
source | link

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers (typically, but far from exclusively Socrates). While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be entirely free of Eurocentricethnocentric political/cultural influencesbiases either. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers (typically, but far from exclusively Socrates). While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be entirely free of Eurocentric political/cultural influences. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers (typically, but far from exclusively Socrates). While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be entirely free of ethnocentric political/cultural biases either. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

5 added 14 characters in body
source | link

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers (typically, but far from exclusively Socrates). While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be entirely free of Eurocentric political/cultural influences either. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers. While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be free of political/cultural influences either. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers (typically, but far from exclusively Socrates). While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be entirely free of Eurocentric political/cultural influences. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

4 added 2 characters in body
source | link

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers. While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. It The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be free of political/cultural influences either. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers. While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship. It draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be free of political/cultural influences either.

I'm personally sympathetic to the idea of Egyptian influence on Greek philosophy. But the problem with using Plato as evidence for anything is that he is officially on record as endorsing the creation and promotion of wholesale fictions in the service of higher truth --his (in)famous concept of the "Noble Lie" as introduced in the Republic. He also seems to have had an antipathy towards taking credit for his own ideas and therefore always places them in the mouths of other speakers. While this could be accurate, the ideas tend to have an idiosyncratic unity that argues against them actually being the unaltered arguments of so many diverse persons. He's generally considered to have wholly invented myths such as the "Lost City of Atlantis," and must accordingly be treated as an unreliable narrator with regards to historical fact. It's worth comparing and contrasting him with his classmate Xenophon, who is considered to be a more trustworthy historical source, but a much inferior philosopher.

However, your question was not "should" he be taken as evidence, but has he been taken as evidence. The concept that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Egyptians is a central tenet of Afrocentric scholarship, and is the core premise of British scholar Martin Bernal's influential but controversial three volume work, Black Athena. The concept draws heavily on the work of the ancient historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who did in fact take Plato's statements (as well as other ancient sources) as evidence of actual Egyptian influence.

This belief is currently discredited in more mainstream historiography, but as is always the case with history, it can be difficult to say with certainty which interpretation is the biased one, and which one is objective. While the Afrocentric viewpoint does have a clear political/cultural agenda, it is difficult to claim that the mainstream viewpoint could conceivably be free of political/cultural influences either. In my own opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: It's impossible to believe that Plato was entirely free of Egyptian influences, but a distortion to minimize the impact of his own original contributions to the ideas he synthesized.

3 added 2 characters in body
source | link
2 added 732 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link