Hellenic perspective on psychic powers?

[David19]

This is something that was brought up in the other thread 'Do you think the Greek Gods are better?', but to save that going too OT, I wanted to ask this here.

What's the Hellenic perspective on things like psychic powers, and the supernatural in general?.

It seemed, from what I got from the other thread, that psychic powers and the supernatural were seen as "natural" and perfectly "rational", and I've read that in ancient Greece, people like Apollonius of Tyana and others saw themselves as "scientists" despite the powers they possessed (for example, teleportation, bilocation, I think resurrecting the dead, etc).

I've always considered science something that dealt with hard facts, with the physical world, and the supernatural (which includes psychic powers, IMO) to be something different.

Did the ancient Greeks have this definition?.

I am really curious to know how they saw things like that and even how they defined and approached science.

Anyway, I hope this made some sense and thanks for any help you can give me :).

[Twinkle]

From *this* Hellene's perspective...what we consider supernatural has a natural cause....we just are not aware of what it is. Anything that is perceived in this world does not work against nature. The supernatural would then be a violation of nature, and an impossibility. Science can and should work in harmony with nature.

Plutarch believed that science brought the supernatural down to the natural, yet all that is natural is still supernatural in that religion, the contemplation and worship of the gods works in fulfillment of nature, not the violation of it. (Transcendence). Basically, he was a rationalist that had a bit of a mystic in him. Even then, he does not stray away from rationalism. All works in conjunction with natural law...as it must if we believe that the Gods cause, harmonize and move the world. And of course, along with this...these abilities must be weighed with Hellenic ethics, and piety.

Psychic powers, therefore are not supernatural....and not rejected outright.

At least they wouldn't be for me.

In my reading...I've found that Herodotus outright rejected the supernatural as nothing but an unknown variable in natural law. I'm inclined to agree....but at the same time, I'm a sucker for the strange and unexplained. I tend to look for the mundane, and even if I *can't* explain it...it doesn't necessarily make it anything woo-woo...


You may find this e-book helpful:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J5osppB40NAC


I would also suggest that you check out the works of Herodotus and Plutarch. They didn't get a long too well...but they are both extremely interesting.

Incidentally, Plutarch and his views on Transcendence greatly inspired Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau...and their Transcendalist romantic movement.

[electricpeppers]

I'm not a recon so I don't know why I'm answering this but in reference to the supernatural word:

I have a problem with the word 'supernatural' mainly because I don't believe it exists. Everything that exists within the world including psychism is natural, because it exists. As Twinkle said, nothing in the world is in opposition to natural law.

In other words, nothing that exists within the world can be supernatural because it exists, and because it exists it is therefore natural IMO -- just like I see magic as an unexplained science. Nothing mysterious about it, we just don't (as of yet) understand how to measure it.

[David19]

From *this* Hellene's perspective...what we consider supernatural has a natural cause....we just are not aware of what it is. Anything that is perceived in this world does not work against nature. The supernatural would then be a violation of nature, and an impossibility. Science can and should work in harmony with nature.

Plutarch believed that science brought the supernatural down to the natural, yet all that is natural is still supernatural in that religion, the contemplation and worship of the gods works in fulfillment of nature, not the violation of it. (Transcendence). Basically, he was a rationalist that had a bit of a mystic in him. Even then, he does not stray away from rationalism. All works in conjunction with natural law...as it must if we believe that the Gods cause, harmonize and move the world. And of course, along with this...these abilities must be weighed with Hellenic ethics, and piety.

Psychic powers, therefore are not supernatural....and not rejected outright.

At least they wouldn't be for me.

In my reading...I've found that Herodotus outright rejected the supernatural as nothing but an unknown variable in natural law. I'm inclined to agree....but at the same time, I'm a sucker for the strange and unexplained. I tend to look for the mundane, and even if I *can't* explain it...it doesn't necessarily make it anything woo-woo...


You may find this e-book helpful:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J5osppB40NAC


I would also suggest that you check out the works of Herodotus and Plutarch. They didn't get a long too well...but they are both extremely interesting.

Incidentally, Plutarch and his views on Transcendence greatly inspired Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau...and their Transcendalist romantic movement.

Thanks for the info, it's given me some things to think about, and I'll look up those writers (was Herodotus the one who wrote his "Histories" that are apparantly very flawed?).

Thanks again :).

[David19]

I'm not a recon so I don't know why I'm answering this but in reference to the supernatural word:

I have a problem with the word 'supernatural' mainly because I don't believe it exists. Everything that exists within the world including psychism is natural, because it exists. As Twinkle said, nothing in the world is in opposition to natural law.

In other words, nothing that exists within the world can be supernatural because it exists, and because it exists it is therefore natural IMO -- just like I see magic as an unexplained science. Nothing mysterious about it, we just don't (as of yet) understand how to measure it.

I think that's where we disagree, 'cause, the trouble is, whenever psychic powers are investigated, there isn't much evidence found to support the claim. Now, I'm not trying to say they don't exist, I do definitely believe in them, but I just don't science can prove their existence, in any hard way anyway.

Things like ghosts, spirits, Gods, etc are supernatural, just IMO anyway, 'cause they tend to violate scientific laws (ghosts pass through walls, Gods can do pretty much what they want, whether it's shooting lightning bolts or blasts of fire, and then you have various powers that humans can develop like teleportation, invisibility, etc (if you look into certain traditions such as Hindu mysticism, Jewish mysticism, Christian, Hellenic and basically every tradition in the world).

That's just my own opinion, though.

[Tim]

David19, the smallpox vaccine was developed at a time when there was no scientific proof that viruses existed. We are only limited by our technology. In ancient Greece, reason alone developed some pretty accurate theories regarding the universe, such as the earth revolving around the sun and not the other way around, surprisingly close predictions for the distance of the moon to the earth and the earth to the sun, and even atomic theory (which actually more closely resembles string theory).

Any phenomenon that ever occurred happened because a natural law exists that allows for it. If it happened once, it can happen again, and it is only a matter of discovering and understanding the conditions needed for a thing to happen. I think the problem that you are running up against is lumping all "supernatural" concepts together and wanting them all to be real. There is some scientific evidence to indicate that spirits, psychic ability, spontaneous human combustion, and other "paranormal" occurrences do happen. Other "supernatural" happenings, such as spellcraft, have no proof because in actuality they provide no greater probability of a desired outcome. True spirituality though does provide tangible evidence, even if the evidence is in the form of positive emotional and psychological health, and cannot be empirically linked to divinity.

[patch]

Thanks for the info, it's given me some things to think about, and I'll look up those writers (was Herodotus the one who wrote his "Histories" that are apparantly very flawed?).

Thanks again :).

He thought eels were born from the earth.

[TomasFlannabhra]

David19, the smallpox vaccine was developed at a time when there was no scientific proof that viruses existed. We are only limited by our technology. In ancient Greece, reason alone developed some pretty accurate theories regarding the universe, such as the earth revolving around the sun and not the other way around, surprisingly close predictions for the distance of the moon to the earth and the earth to the sun, and even atomic theory (which actually more closely resembles string theory).


Not to mention the theory of the atom! That one still gets me.

[David19]

David19, the smallpox vaccine was developed at a time when there was no scientific proof that viruses existed. We are only limited by our technology. In ancient Greece, reason alone developed some pretty accurate theories regarding the universe, such as the earth revolving around the sun and not the other way around, surprisingly close predictions for the distance of the moon to the earth and the earth to the sun, and even atomic theory (which actually more closely resembles string theory).

I'll have to take your word for that, but I'd remain skeptical, and, while I respect ancient people, some of their theories were just plain wrong - the earth isn't flat, Greece isn't the center of the world (neither is Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc), etc.

Any phenomenon that ever occurred happened because a natural law exists that allows for it. If it happened once, it can happen again, and it is only a matter of discovering and understanding the conditions needed for a thing to happen. I think the problem that you are running up against is lumping all "supernatural" concepts together and wanting them all to be real. There is some scientific evidence to indicate that spirits, psychic ability, spontaneous human combustion, and other "paranormal" occurrences do happen. Other "supernatural" happenings, such as spellcraft, have no proof because in actuality they provide no greater probability of a desired outcome. True spirituality though does provide tangible evidence, even if the evidence is in the form of positive emotional and psychological health, and cannot be empirically linked to divinity.

But, the last point proves my point, that shows the Gods are supernatural - they can't be proved. You can point to psychological health and/or emotional health, but that doesn't mean anything (you could also get the same from a plecibo). And, I'm just still not convinced of any scientific evidence for spirits, psychic ability, spontaneous human combustion, etc, for the bits of evidence that seem to validate it, there's a whole mountain of evidence that says it's not possible and legions of scientists to back up the latter claim.

As for spells, you might get some disagreement on that, from people who've sucessfully worked magic.

BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything like that, as I do respect your opinion and you do seem to know a lot, I just don't think spiritual things (e.g. Gods, ghosts, powers, etc) can be proved.

[Twinkle]

He thought eels were born from the earth.


Plutarch tore him up for it, too. :)

[plumedsnake]

Everything that exists within the world including psychism is natural, because it exists. As Twinkle said, nothing in the world is in opposition to natural law.

In other words, nothing that exists within the world can be supernatural because it exists, and because it exists it is therefore natural IMO -

I wonder what is your definition of 'natural law'. Does nature just mean 'everything that exists'?

[plumedsnake]

Any phenomenon that ever occurred happened because a natural law exists that allows for it. If it happened once, it can happen again, and it is only a matter of discovering and understanding the conditions needed for a thing to happen.

I think that the problem here is that a humungous assumption has been made. That everything is bound by natural laws. Then further complicated is the fact that we do not know what these natural laws are and are still in a process of discovering them. Therefore we can make sweeping statements such as there is no supernatural because if something occurs that we can't explain we can say that's because we haven't discovered the natural laws yet. It's a win win position. Win if you can explain it, Win if you can't.

Alllowing for the possibility that NOT everything in the world is under natural law is counter intuitive for Left Brainers which is what most people are in this modern world. That is all it is counter intuitive but it doesn't mean it is impossible. Many facts about reality are counter intuitive. Quantum Theory is counterintuitive. Multi dimensional realities are counter intuitive too. Our brains can't grasp it but that doesn't mean it's not real. It's just a limitation of our brains.