Lawgiving and Philosophy

Part 2: Glyphic philosophy and controversies in dating.

Cecrops I — A contemporary of Zoroaster?

The Greeks were not the first philosophers if they were not the originators of math or writing. This argument would be defeated by the possibility of “oral” philosophy. I will argue here why philosophy, according to Plato, cannot be purely oral, as writing is a precondition for philosophy.

Philosophy is inherently “glyphic” — it can be transmitted orally, but it cannot originate from a purely oral source. The invention of glyphics (writing and math) was a revolutionary prerequisite for philosophy. It allows for Nietzsche’s “pathos of distance.” It allows us to consider ideas coldly and cruelly, rather than melodically and poetically.

Unlike English, which is monotonous, ancient Greek had a “pitch accent,” meaning that different syllables in each Greek word were pronounced with a different musical pitch. In this sense, Greek was an inherently musical language. Greek likely lost its pitch due to the mass immigration of non-Greek speakers, who “creolized” Greek, or simplified it via the introduction of “slang” and “vernacular.”

Plato’s critique of poets, sophists, and orators suggests that “oral philosophy” was insufficient to unveil truth; that the process of writing was crucial. Plato’s Ion describes a poet who, while extremely talented at eliciting emotions through his recitation of Homer, has little understanding of the phrases he has memorized.

This is not to say that Plato was opposed to music as a whole, but does offer critique in The Republic of the corrupting influence of music. Socrates argues for the need to censor or outlaw certain musical forms, specifically to reduce the sensuous and effeminate influence of music. By contrast, writing, being devoid of sensual melody, yet still allowing for rationality, could be seen as more virtuous.

In Plato’s Meno, Socrates teaches an illiterate slave boy geometry by having him draw a square in the sand. The Meno argues that truth is innate, and never learned, but only remembered. But the catalyst for this memory is the glyph, the drawing, which is the foundation of all writing, abstraction, signs, symbols, and mathematics. The entrance to Plato’s academy stated, “Let no one unacquainted with geometry enter here.” Plato believed that mathematics was a prerequisite for philosophy — but not just any kind of math. Among all mathematics, Plato favored the most visual form of mathematics, which can only be understood by glyphs, drawing, writing, diagrams, and pictures. While arithmetic can be performed “in the head,” and memorized, geometry requires symbolic representation and demarcation.

The Age of Writing

The writings of Homer and Hesiod are dated to the 8th century BC, and Thales, the first philosopher, is dated to the 7th century.

There are several candidates for a pre-Greek written philosophy:

1. Zoroastrian-Gathic;

2. Vedic;

3. Egyptian;

4. Daoist.

If we contradict Plato, and believe in the possibility of an oral philosophy, of which we have no written record, we can also mention:

1. Celtic-Druidic;

2. “Hyperborean,” as one of the apocryphal influences on Pythagoras;

3. Dravidian.

In order to judge the relative primacy of these traditions, it is necessary to date them accurately, and to judge their content.

A possible depiction of Zoroaster. Note the red Phrygian cap.

Zoroastrian-Gathic

The traditional dating of Zoroaster depends on a phrase, repeated throughout a number of ancient sources, of “258 years from Zoroaster till Alexander.”¹ There is some ambiguity as to whether this means “from the birth of Zoroaster to the death of Alexander,” or “from the death of Zoroaster to the birth of Alexander.” In the Selections of Zadspram, from the 9th century AD, it is said that “Zartosht (Zoroaster) passes away, who attains seventy-seven years and forty days.”² If Zoroaster lived to be 77, and Alexander lived to be 33, then there could be as much as 100 years of ambiguity in dating Zoroastrianism.

Alexander was born 356 BC. If “Alexander’s birth to Zoroaster’s death,” (356+258+77), it is possible that Zoroaster was born in 691 BC. Alternatively, if “Alexander’s death to Zoroaster’s birth,” Zoroaster was born 100 years later in 581 BC. Dr. Shahbazi (1977) places Zoroaster's birth as 569 BC, with Zoroaster's teachings introduced around 539BC.³

Since Thales was born as early as 626 BC, it is unclear whether Thales or Zoroaster came first, or if they were contemporaries.

Proponents of “Zoroastrianism first” would argue that while Thales and the pre-Socratics were a scattered band, Zoroaster’s religion was similar in its success and scope to Plato’s academy, if not more so. These pro-Zoroastrians would argue that, given the immense success of Zoroaster, the pre-Socratics must have been influenced by his teachings. Part of this argument would include the claim that the Zoroastrians were originally vegetarians, and that Pythagoras received his vegetarian ideas from Zoroaster. The Pythagoreans themselves admitted that Pythagoras sourced his ideas from non-Greek sources, and that Pythagoras himself was not wholly Greek.

The father of Pythagoras, Mnesarchus, was a wealthy merchant who traveled extensively throughout the Mediterranean. Mnesarchus could have been Greek, or Tyrrhenian, which is sometimes used as a catchall term for “non-Greek.” Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60 BC - 7 BC) claims that the term “Tyrrhenian” was often used to describe peoples of Italy, such as the Etruscans, Latins, Umbrians, and Ausonians. According to Porphyry, Neanthes claimed that Mnesarchus was born in the city of Tyre (today Lebanon) — this may have resulted from etymological confusion between "Tyre" and "Tyrrhenian."

Opponents of “Zoroastrianism first” would argue that Zoroastrianism represents a series of dogmas and doctrines, not philosophical inquiry. Zoroastrianism, like Judaism, sought the destruction of idols, established rituals, and persecuted heretics. The dogmatic and communistic nature of Zoroastrianism was later unleashed or uncovered more fully by the prophet Mazdak, who instituted feminist orgies and vegetarianism.⁴ The proponents of a “Greek first” philosophy could argue that Greek adventurers and explorers introduced some teachings to Iran, which then created a cargo-cult around some of these teachings without fully understanding the process by which they were discovered. The honesty of Pythagoras, who admitted that he surveyed many cultures and religions before arriving at his philosophy, is consistent with the philosophical process of considering multiple perspectives. By contrast, the dogmatism and threat of hell (Duzakh) for sins (especially sexual sins) in Zoroastrianism is the opposite of freedom of thought.

Whichever argument is more compelling, it seems unlikely that Zoroaster and Thales had no connection whatsoever. Thales, like Pythagoras, was alleged by Herodotus to have Phoenician ancestry. The allegations of “foreign blood” by the Greeks against their philosophers seems to be an indication that pre-Socratic philosophy was not Greek in origin. An alternative explanation is that the Greeks, in their unique xenophilia, studied foreign cultures and religions in order to discover a “freedom of thought” beyond any nomic dogma. For the Greeks to accuse their philosophers of being “foreign” either represents an inaccurate compliment, or a vicious slander by the many opponents of Plato.

Nancy Rourke, Plato's Cratylus

Philosophy and Law Giving

It seems more appropriate to compare Zoroaster with Solon instead of with any Greek philosopher, since both were ultimately pronouncers of laws and religious doctrines. Solon, who became archon of Athens in 594 BC, was a great reformer of Greek law and religion. He was perhaps less vicious and fanatical than Zoroaster, who abolished the divine family of the Iranians, and replaced them with a single figure, Ahura Mazda.

In Plato’s Cratylus, Socrates says that law comes from a lawgiver (νομοθέτου, nomothetou), and the lawgiver alone has the right to determine the meaning of names. Socrates calls the lawgiver δημιουργῶν, dimiourgon. The term dimiourgon has been anglicized as “demiurge,” and was used by neo-Platonists and gnostics to refer to an evil entity which created the material world. But this obscures the meaning of the term as it is used clearly in the Cratylus, in which it seems to mean “one who is able to mold the people.”

This indicates that although Solon is typically thought of as a lawgiver, for Plato, the lawgiver and the philosopher were not so distantly related.⁵ While the law, nomos, is described by Alamariu as the opposite of philosophy, the lawgiver is closer to the archetype of a prophet, of Prometheus, and of a tyrant than to the gerontocratic council of elders. Later on, after the death of the lawgiver, the priest class dogmatizes his law and halts whatever progressive or philosophical spirit was at work during his life. This is the case with Jesus, Muhammed, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha.

Conclusion

It is possible to conclude that whereas Solon and Thales were contemporaries, Zoroaster was peer to none. This accounts for Zoroaster’s unique tyranny over Iran, which allowed him the free reign to destroy the Iranian religion and replace it with something entirely new. The “singularity” of Zoroaster resulted in a dogmatic religion, whereas the “multiplicity” of Solon and Thales resulted in the evolution of a slow and rational process of philosophical inquiry over many centuries.

This characterization of Zoroastrianism is worthy of a rebuttal. Nietzsche’s perspective is that Zoroastrianism was principally moralistic and priestly — by appropriating the name “Zarathustra,” he sought to overturn the Zoroastrian religion. Jason Jorjani’s perspective is that Zoroastrianism is Promethean, and the least dogmatic of religions. The content of Zoroastrianism deserves further research. However, the structure of the religion appears more clearly. Thales inspired students who deviated from his thought, and introduced their own ideas. Zoroaster, seemingly, inspired a legion of fanatical priests who sought to set his teachings in stone for all time. In this respect, Zoroastrianism cannot conclusively claim to precede the Greeks in establishing a tradition of “free thought.”

Creation of Adam by God, Monreale Cathedral (Sicily), 12th-13th century.

Addendum on the Dating of Zoroaster

In this analysis, Zoroaster has been dated as a contemporary of Solon. However, Diogenes and Pliny the elder cite the claims of Hermodorus and Euxdoxus which date Zoroaster to 6300 BC - 6200 BC. Pliny the Elder resolves this massive contradiction in dating by explaining that there were two Zoroasters. The first Zoroaster lived 6000 years before Plato, while the second Zoroaster was a contemporary of Xerxes I in 480 BC. Mary Boyce, using a linguistic analysis of Avestan, comparing it to the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda, claims that Zoroaster must have lived between 1700 BC and 1000 BC. Although these claims are interesting and worth consideration, they do not significantly alter the substance of the Zoroastrian tradition. Whenever Zoroastrianism originated, it had clearly become a mass dogmatic religion with sacred rituals and a priest class at some point in history.

The Avesta was not written down until 1323 AD; the Avestan alphabet was not developed until after 226 AD. Up until that point, Zoroastrianism was seemingly transmitted orally, like most indigenous religions of the world. Oral tradition necessitated memorization without criticism. By contrast, the Greeks committed their religion to writing much earlier, in the 8th century with Homer and Hesiod. Whatever occurred in 6300 BC⁶ was certainly lost in the following millennia, so by the time of Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism had taken on a dogmatic quality, in opposition to philosophical inquiry.

In both the emergence of Greek philosophy and Zoroastrianism, the bipartite interaction between an Indo-European warrior class and an “indigenous” priest class can be seen. A true Zoroastrian philosophy would not significantly challenge the class structure of Alamariu’s thesis, only the geography. Before this class structure itself can be critiqued, a further investigation of ancient religions will proceed onto the Egyptian.

Finally, since I open the door to speculation about an “8000 year old Zoroaster,” I should also mention that Cecrops I, the mythical first king of Athens, was half snake, and said to be a lawgiver.⁷ Significantly, he taught the Greeks how to write. Castor of Rhodes claimed that Cecrops reigned from 1556–1506 BC, which is very close to the archaeological discoveries which date Linear B, the first Greek script, to around 1400 BC.⁸ The Greek association between Cecrops the lawgiver and the invention of writing ties in neatly with the association between lawgiver and philosopher as presented in the Cratylus.⁹

1. A. Shapur Shahbazi (1977) The 'Traditional Date of Zoroaster' Explained: https://www.jstor.org/stable/615820?seq=1.

See also: Boyce, Mary (1996), A History of Zoroastrianism: Volume I: The Early Period. See google book here: https://books.google.com/books?id=S5A18Y6rkjoC

2. SELECTIONS OF ZADSPRAM. Translated by E. W. West, from Sacred Books of the East, volume 5, Oxford University Press, 1897. Online version: http://www.avesta.org/mp/zadspram.pdf

3. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/615820?seq=6]

4. Mazdakites claimed that Zoroaster was originally vegetarian, but that this doctrine was lost, and he was reintroducing it.

5. Plutarch alleges that Solon worked as a merchant prior to becoming a lawgiver, similar to how Pythagoras was born the son of a merchant. If we accept the connection between lawgivers and philosophers, then it seems that the merchant class has a role to play: Plutarch, Life of Solon, ch. 2

6. This time period would correspond with my dating for the Ukrainian “Atlantis,” the Black Sea Deluge, 6800 BC to 5600 BC.

7. We could go even further back to Plato’s date for Atlantis in 9600 BC, and suggest that this was somehow evidence for “Poseidon as lawgiver,” although I dispute Plato’s dating and location for Atlantis.

8. Linear A, which seems to be its ancestor, originates from the Minoans, a non-Indo-European people.

9. The Greeks variously described Cecrops as being half-Greek; as Pelasgian; and as Egyptian.