Physiognomy and ideas of the Greek philosophy.
The ancient Greek philosophy developed during many centuries and became a
source of modern philosophy. In a result a plenty of knowledge has collected.
Within this site the analysis of diverse philosophical systems of the past and present time is inexpedient as enough to have the general notion about ancient Greek philosophy for comparison of philosophical concepts with physiognomy of a human face, but more detailed physiognomic analogies are possible according to features of those or other concrete philosophical doctrines. In essence each philosophical doctrine can be correlated to forms of a human face and can be understood from the point of view of physiognomy, as in any case the man learns itself, and it means that knowledge are anthropomorphous, namely can be structured or systematized according to forms of a human body, or otherwise to tell according to formal structures of the man.
Basic parities of knowledge of the Greek philosophy with physiognomy of a human face are presented in the table.
|The table shows the conditional image of a human face in profile, and shows physiognomic spheres and levels which divide a half-face according to levels of a universe. The top physiognomic sphere of consciousness (forehead and eyebrows) corresponds with a world of ideas or a figurative world. The middle physiognomic sphere of individuality (nose) corresponds with a world of atoms or an elementary world. The bottom physiognomic sphere of feelings (lips and chin) corresponds with a world of substances or a material world.|
The sphere of consciousness includes three levels
according to which the human thinking is organized and the image of a universe
is formed, or otherwise to tell a speculative image of the world, that in a
context of different philosophical systems of the Ancient Greece had different
Socrates spoke about objective knowledge which arise from comparison of subjective knowledge of people.
Subjective knowledge correspond with eyebrows, comparison of subjective knowledge corresponds with middle of forehead, objective knowledge correspond with top of forehead from the point of view of physiognomy, as it has been told on the previous page and it is shown in the table.
Plato considered that true knowledge are ideas or images, that is equivalent to objective knowledge in a context of philosophy of Socrates, and subjective human knowledge are doubtful and assumed.
Aristotle considered that the subjective human knowledge has reliability if results from true conclusions, and ideas and images of consciousness are assumed.
Alexander of Aphrodisias distinguished material mind equivalent to subjective knowledge (it is comparable with analytical consciousness and corresponds with eyebrows); the acquired mind equivalent to comparison of subjective people's knowledge (it is comparable with integrating consciousness and corresponds with middle of a forehead); the "coming from the outside" super personal mind equivalent to objective knowledge (it is comparable with synthesizing consciousness and corresponds with top of forehead).
And also other Greek philosophers had different opinions which in all cases can be correlated to different levels of consciousness and spheres of a human face.
Each philosopher considered those or other aspects of consciousness as paramount.
Objective ideas are paramount in philosophical system of Plato, and the comparison of subjective knowledge of people are paramount in philosophical system of Socrates, as comparison of knowledge allows to go from subjective to objective understanding of the world.
Alexander of Aphrodisias described a sequence according to which super personal coming mind influences material mind, and as a result knowledge are formed in the acquired mind. But the sequence of human thinking is another in philosophy of Socrates, namely the acquired mind integrates subjective knowledge of material mind, then objective knowledge are synthesized in super personal mind. Or the sequence of thinking is another in philosophy of Plato, namely super personal mind synthesizes knowledge and forms the acquired mind, then material mind is capable to analyze world around.
More complex and ambiguous sequence of thinking is in philosophy of Aristotle, namely two variants are probable. Or material mind analyzes world around and confirms knowledge by means of super personal mind, and in a result the acquired mind is formed. Or knowledge arise in super personal mind and form the acquired mind without participation of material mind.
And also there can be other sequences of human thinking which from the point of view of different philosophers and systems of the Greek philosophy are caused by paramount importance of different levels in sphere of human consciousness, and accordingly caused by differently expressed physiognomic levels in facial sphere of consciousness.
The sphere of individuality includes four levels which correspond to four kinds of atoms of an elementary world.
In the common context of ancient Greek philosophy only Democritus and Epicurus spoke about individuality as about set of atoms (about set of non-material particles) which have properties of water, fire, earth, air. But other Greek philosophers spoke about individuality as about a derivative part of consciousness. All philosophers named individuality by means of the word "soul" but this word had ambiguous sense, and consequently it is necessary to distinguish the soul-consciousness which is a derivative from sphere of consciousness, and the soul-individuality which is derivative from sphere of individuality.
In philosophy of Plato the soul is consciousness and occurs from sphere of ideas (initial images) which are embodied through sphere of consciousness and penetrate three spheres of human essence, and as a result make three parts of the soul: reasonable, emotional, sensual.
The reasonable soul corresponds with physiognomic sphere of consciousness.
If the reasonable soul prevails then the man aspires to comprehension of ideas and to the supreme knowledge, and also the man has moderate sensual aspirations.
The emotional (affective) soul corresponds with physiognomic sphere of a nose.
If the emotional soul prevails then the man has passionate impulses and courage, but also the man is capable to subordinate impulses of passions to a duty.
The sensual (longing) soul corresponds with physiognomic sphere of feelings.
If the sensual soul prevails then the man attached to a physical world and depends on material benefits.
Three parts of soul correspond with three physiognomic spheres but also have projections in physiognomic sphere of individuality, namely the reasonable soul corresponds with top of nose bridge, the emotional soul corresponds with middle of nose bridge, the sensual soul corresponds with a nose-tip. But it is necessary to take into account that in philosophy of Plato there is no concept of individuality and individual soul as such, but there is a soul-consciousness which occurs from sphere of ideas (initial images) and penetrates three spheres of human essence, that is shown in the table.
In philosophy of Aristotle the soul too penetrate
into human essence through sphere of consciousness, but soul occurs from sphere
of "pure forms" (from sphere of the initial engine), that is in essence similar
to sphere of ideas in philosophy of Plato.
The detailed information on forms of Aristotle and ideas of Plato look on the following page.
Aristotle divided soul into three parts which have other sense and correspond with spheres of human essence differently rather than in philosophy of Plato, that is shown in the table. Namely vegetative and animal parts make sensual soul and correspond with physiognomic sphere of feelings, the reasonable part makes reasonable soul and corresponds with physiognomic sphere of consciousness. The sensual soul is inherent in plants and animals, and the man except for sensual has the reasonable soul.
In philosophy of Democritus the soul is not consciousness, but "true nature" of bodies are atoms according to which material bodies are formed, provided that atoms are not material and are inaccessible to sensual perception, but atoms can be realized with the help of thinking. It means that feelings do not perceive atoms of soul but atoms are necessary for formation of material bodies, and the consciousness is capable to realize atoms of soul but is not necessary for existence of atoms. Hence in philosophy of Democritus there is no concept of the soul-consciousness, but atoms of the soul-individuality are essential, that too is shown in the table.
Follower of Democritus was Epicurus who considered that atoms of a soul-individuality dissipate after death, and consequently comprehension of own individuality disappears, and also the material body breaks up, and consequently the moral principle of Epicurus' philosophy is the satisfaction of individual and sensual needs of the man. It does not mean that Epicurus aspired to sensual pleasures, but his aspiration consist in coolness, namely in coolness of individual soul.
If to correlate moral principles of different philosophical schools of ancient Greece with physiognomy of a human face, and in particular with physiognomic sphere of individuality, then moral principles in philosophy of Epicurus correspond with the expressed nose-tip; moral principles in philosophy of Stoics correspond with the expressed bottom of nose bridge; moral principles in philosophy of Aristotle correspond with the expressed middle of nose bridge; moral principles in philosophy of Plato correspond with the expressed top of nose bridge, that is shown in the following table.
|Moral principles of philosophical schools of ancient
Greece have analogies to types of temperament and four elements which
determine types of atoms.
And also moral principles of philosophical schools of ancient Greece can be compared with Confucian concepts of names (social roles) about what look the information on the third page in this site section.
According to philosophy of Plato the purpose of human life is creation of the
perfect human society in which individuality of each man is subordinated to the
common expediency (state necessity), that from the point of view of physiognomy
corresponds with top of nose bridge.
According to philosophy of Aristotle the human life is public but the state is necessary as a condition of individual development of the man, namely the purpose of the state are fair laws which allow each man to improve noble properties, that from the point of view of physiognomy corresponds with middle of nose bridge.
The previous page shows the half-face of Aristotle where the nose is doubtful as restorations were subjected, but according to certificates Aristotle had "aquiline nose" namely the middle of nose bridge was expressed.
According to philosophy of Stoics the purpose of human life is clearing of political and social laws of the state for the sake of preservation of self-control and personal advantage, namely the moral ideal in philosophy of Stoics is impassivity (apathy) as a result of which the man do self determination own acts irrespective of external circumstances, and also contrary to circumstances, that from the point of view of physiognomy corresponds with bottom of nose bridge.
Well-known Stoics in the Roman empire was Seneca (0005-0065 years of new era) who lived during emperor Nero when attitudes of the man and the state were negative.
According to philosophy of Epicurus the human life achieves serenity and rest if the man is discharged of social activity, but as against philosophy of Stoics who aspire to impassivity for the sake of the statement of own moral force, in philosophy of Epicurus the serenity is necessary for self pleasure that supposes an adaptation to laws of the state.
Thus moral principles of ancient Greek philosophical schools correspond with physiognomic levels of individuality, but in essence moral principles concern to physiognomic sphere of feelings, as to achieve those or other moral qualities it is possible by means of control of feelings, but the physiognomic sphere of individuality specifies not methods but the purposes which the man has.
The sphere of feelings includes five levels which correspond to five initial potentialities of a material world.
Initial potentialities are known in the Greek mythology, but in the Greek philosophy about them there is no information, namely Greek philosophers did not compare initial potentialities to feelings.
Plato and Aristotle correlated feelings to 4 elements, namely with water, fire, earth, air, which were named by means of the word "elements" and had other sense rather than essence of elements (elementary qualities of atoms) in philosophy of Democritus. Namely Plato and Aristotle had incorrect understanding of a world structure, and it is the reason of incorrect understanding of a world structure in modern philosophy which starts with philosophical concepts of Plato and Aristotle. As elementary qualities of water, fire, earth, air are inherent in atoms which are not perceived by feelings, but are "hidden" factors for formation of a matter that corresponds to correct concepts of Democritus. And Plato or Aristotle considered that elements directly are a matter and are accessible to perception by feelings, that is incorrect as actually elements determine qualities of atoms in human individuality, and feelings are derivatives of five material initial potentialities: chaos, eros, gaia, tartarus, uranus.
It is possible to tell that the sphere of feelings is subordinated to sphere of individuality, and the sphere of individuality is determining for sphere of feelings, or it is possible to tell that the sphere of individuality is quintessence for sphere of feelings. Therefore Plato and Aristotle applied the term "quintessence" (fifth element or ether) in addition to four elements to explanations of interrelations of individuality and feelings. In essence the quintessence (fifth element or ether) is individuality in a context of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, but this is incorrect understanding as individuality are four elements (four kinds of atoms), and quintessence (fifth element or ether) for individuality is sphere of consciousness.
Such conclusions can be made from the point of view of understanding of human essence by means of physiognomy. As the man is a measure of all things and is criterion of reliability of knowledge, and including the physiognomy of a human face is criterion of reliability of philosophical and psychological knowledge.
In a context of this site I can not explain all multi-complex interlacing of opinions of different Greek philosophers and concepts of Greek philosophy, but I define substantive provisions which are necessary for correct comparison of philosophical concepts to physiognomy of a human face.
If not to consider different philosophical opinions and interpretations then it is possible to tell that connection of atoms is human individuality which influences a shapeless matter (chaos) and consequently creation (eros) forms a formalized matter (gaia) which can be destroyed (tartarus) or can be transformed (uranus). Four kinds of atoms (four elements) are determining for five initial potentialities and therefore there is a material body which by means of feelings perceives the material world. Creation of a body is initiated by consciousness (quintessence or ether) which determines connection of atoms of individuality and then determines formation of feelings and body.
It proves to be true in myths of ancient Greece where there is the information that Ether and Chaos form Anthropos, namely the man is formed of a shapeless matter by means of consciousness.
In total mythological names Chaos, Eros, Gaia, Tartarus, Uranus, Ether, Anthropos have following parities with physiognomic spheres and levels of a human face.
Sphere of consciousness (forehead and eyebrows) the Ether.
Sphere of individuality (nose) the Anthropos.
Sphere of feelings (interval between nose and upper lip) the Chaos.
Sphere of feelings (upper lip) the Eros.
Sphere of feelings (lower lip) the Gaia.
Sphere of feelings (interval between lower lip and chin) the Tartarus.
Sphere of feelings (chin) the Uranus.
Accordingly it is possible to analyze character of the man.
The expressed interval between nose and upper lip corresponds with Chaos and a no formalized condition of the matter, and consequently it seems that the man has no confidence of material sensations.
The expressed upper lip corresponds with Eros and creation of the matter, and consequently it seems that the man aspires to material sensations.
The expressed lower lip corresponds with Gaia and a formalized condition of the matter, and consequently it seems that the man has completeness of material sensations.
The expressed interval between lower lip and chin corresponds with Tartarus and destruction of the matter, and consequently it seems that the man limits material sensations.
The expressed chin corresponds with Uranus and transformation of the matter, and consequently it seems that the man coordinates material sensations to own requirements.
In interrelations of feelings (five initial potentialities) with consciousness (ether) and individuality (anthropos) there is a principle according to which the self control of feelings is necessary for the sake of justice in a society or for achievement of personal serenity, but the control of feelings is possible by means of consciousness and individuality, as consciousness predetermines individuality, and individuality predetermines feelings. Namely during physiognomic analyses it is necessary to compare levels in sphere of feelings to levels of a face in spheres of individuality and consciousness. And in total according to the expressed or not expressed physiognomic levels of a human face it is possible to analyze character of the man from the point of view of the Greek philosophy, and according to myths of the Ancient Greece.
The following page results the further information on concepts of ancient Greek philosophy, and also gives the information on human soul from the point of view of the Christian Gnostic philosophy.
previous - upwards - following