    Page 5.
|
 |
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
understanding.
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.
-
