Symbols are deities

[Thricegreat]

Although I already have been thinking that symbols are real because of Neoplatonic influences, this is a very recent thinking of mine. I think this also shows that recently I'm somewhat leaning to Shintou.

This idea is not at all rigid yet. So I haven't written this and it could change easily. And I haven't fully embraced yet.

In fact it was quite easy to find. If symbols are as real as my hands, what would they look like? Deities. Or angels and demons if you prefer that way. Beauty is Aphrodite, Afterlife is Osiris, Wealth is Inari, &c.

Furthurmore I started to embrace this kind of ancient Greek thinking:

"If you fell in love, that is because you got shot by Cupid's arrow."

So things like feelings show some objective truths about the deities. Planets are deities too as in the classical planets. Those planet deities symbolising cause and effects determine your fate. As if you got shot by Cupid's arrow.

Numbers are deities too. Similar to that Nous is also a deity in Hermeticism. This justifies Pythagoreanism.

Also I think it is possible that different deities in different cultures point to the same existence. So Hermes and Thoth are the same Hermes Trismegistus. Kami's in Shintou and Buddhas in Buddhism can be the same.

And The One supports this as the foundation. It is the one unified world. Every deity is emanated from The One. Panentheism. Prisca Theologia and the perennial philosophy.

[Amlux]

I think this is true in a sense and I really appreciate the link you've established. What do you think of animism in this context? Are symbols alive? Are they animated by a kind of universal consciousness?

[Thricegreat]

I think this is true in a sense and I really appreciate the link you've established. What do you think of animism in this context? Are symbols alive? Are they animated by a kind of universal consciousness?

This is my very recent thought. So I haven't thought about things like animism. But I think symbols are universal forces.

[Deoster]

Are symbols universal for all living things? As in, are animals experiencing and interactions with the same symbol-deities as we do? Additionally, if different cultures have different deities for the same thing, can any culture be more "right" in the way it portrays a deity/symbol?

[Thricegreat]

Are symbols universal for all living things? As in, are animals experiencing and interactions with the same symbol-deities as we do? Additionally, if different cultures have different deities for the same thing, can any culture be more "right" in the way it portrays a deity/symbol?

For the first question, yes. Aphrodite is Aphrodite for all living things. And if an animal felt love, they got shot by Cupid's arrow.

For the second question, I haven't thought but I guess yes. Because those deities are objective reality, if you accept this worldview. For example numbers are deities too.

[Deoster]

For the first question, yes. Aphrodite is Aphrodite for all living things. And if an animal felt love, they got shot by Cupid's arrow.

For the second question, I haven't thought but I guess yes. Because those deities are objective reality, if you accept this worldview. For example numbers are deities too.

How do you think these sorts of realities are revealed to us? Is it from a sort of mystical message or vision that we can feel love and recreate a Cupid in art and symbolism, which is the Cupid that actually exists, or do we feel the Cupid implicitly in the sensation?
I find that this thinking is pretty much opposite from my own, where I think that symbols follow from, point to, and are constructed around the initial thing (which is a sensation or experience like beauty love etc, although these words are already symbols for the more initial and primordial experiences of finding something beautiful, falling in love, etc). So the idea that the symbol is first and that additionally it is a deity with objective reality (and presumably some amount of power and agency) is interesting and unique to me, and I'm trying to figure out how it works.

[Thricegreat]

For the first question, yes. Aphrodite is Aphrodite for all living things. And if an animal felt love, they got shot by Cupid's arrow.

For the second question, I haven't thought but I guess yes. Because those deities are objective reality, if you accept this worldview. For example numbers are deities too.

How do you think these sorts of realities are revealed to us? Is it from a sort of mystical message or vision that we can feel love and recreate a Cupid in art and symbolism, which is the Cupid that actually exists, or do we feel the Cupid implicitly in the sensation?
I find that this thinking is pretty much opposite from my own, where I think that symbols follow from, point to, and are constructed around the initial thing (which is a sensation or experience like beauty love etc, although these words are already symbols for the more initial and primordial experiences of finding something beautiful, falling in love, etc). So the idea that the symbol is first and that additionally it is a deity with objective reality (and presumably some amount of power and agency) is interesting and unique to me, and I'm trying to figure out how it works.

I guess both? Dreams are also realities caused by those deities.

But since my ideas are still vague, you should not rely on me. I made this thread only because the topic whether symbols are real or not came out from Hans' thread and that was what I recently thought about.

[Hans Sepp]

are as real as my hands

This is a very significant claim that requires careful definition and justification. What do you mean by "real" in this context?

[Thricegreat]

are as real as my hands

This is a very significant claim that requires careful definition and justification. What do you mean by "real" in this context?

Simply things that exist.

To write more about my ontology, I think everything is an idea. In fact this does not mean anything because things that are not ideas do not exist. If something exists, then it is an idea.

And what so called "matter" is just ideas restricted by the spacetime. I don't think they are essentially different from other ideas that are not matter.

Also similar to that, I think that "3" in the mathematical world and "3" in 3 people, 3 chairs, &c. are totally the same thing.

But... At the same time I also think that you questioning that and me answering this could be all meaningless in the sense of Tractatus. That feels like Thomism in the Catholic church. At least the worldview I wrote was not strictly logical arguments. Well this is a kind of Orthodox thinking and may be not for you.

To explain this matter more accessibly, this post of mine could help you. If you strictly limit the words to the definitions, you can talk about only small portions of the world and you should shut up about things like ethics, aesthetics, &c. Because you made the words and their meanings 1-1.

I don't think that you should not question anything and I think your pointing out was proper, but I also don't think your approach is the way.

[Thricegreat]

After I wrote yesterday I have realised that this is a bit similar to Jungian psychology. Archetypes, the collective unconscious, &c.

Though what I wrote is more than psychology. Because it contains things like numbers.