Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rod Hemsell's avatar

Let me add that this understanding of 'dogma' was extant at the time of Plato as well. The views of Pyrrho, the earliest sceptic, who was critical of the Platonists, were elaborated by Sextus Empiricus in the 2nd century, who wrote, for example, "While, however, the Dogmatics are conceited enough to think that they should be preferred to other men in the judgment of things, we know that their claim is absurd, for they themselves form a part of the disagreement; and if they give themselves preference in this way in the judgment of phenomena, they beg the question before they begin the judgment, as they trust the judgment to themselves. Nevertheless, in order that we should reach the result of the suspension of judgment by limiting the argument to one man, one who for example they deem to be wise, let us take up the third trope. The third trope is the one based upon differences in perception." Sri Aurobindo was of course, a Platonist through and through.

Expand full comment
Rod Hemsell's avatar

I am referring to a system of precepts, axioms, principles that are logically consistent and interdependent in such a way that all the statements are necessarily true, for example Leibnitz's Monadology or Spinoza's Ethics. Its authority is based on its internal consistency. From deknuo, to show, it is logical in the sense of a revealing or showing in such a way that its truth is seen. Thus "authoritative". I would consider Sri Aurobindo's very elaborate explanation of "the Many" as an exclusive concentration of Brahman by its "tapas" to be such a dogma. It can be believed as such. This as I understand it is how scholasticism understood the term, prior to the authoritarian imposition of a belief.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?