“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”
–Alfred North Whitehead

Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Activity: Socrates, Jesus, and the Wisdom of Love

I’ve been asked to think about thinking, and to write about it. I’ve gotten myself tangled up in the middle of this kind of mess before, and so I’ll admit right off the bat that I cannot be sure which comes first, the thinking or the writing. Maybe my writing is just the trace of an ever-advancing spirit; or maybe my spirit–that in me which thinks–is just a character in a story, a name, given me by the people and the language into whose care I was thrown at birth. Heidegger spoke of being thrown, of waking up in the midst of the world in wonder of its historical depth, and of one’s own impending death. When and if my spirit advances, it does so thinking of such things.

Philosophy, according to Socrates, is learning to die. Not the loving metempsychosis of the Phaedrus, nor even the eros of the Symposium or the grand design of the Timaeus contains the secret of the Platonic teaching. The secret is in the Apology, where Socrates is sentenced to be executed and Plato first falls in love with Wisdom (and so begins to philosophize). The polis, it seems, will never understand the philosopher; to the extent that the people of the city do understand, they tend to take offense. Thinking is not taken kindly by ignorant people awash in gossip and stories. They cannot bear to look at what thinking reflects. It is a mirror too bright with the light of the Good. It blinds their sense-bound egos. They prefer the flat shadows of the cave wall to the eternal depths of the spirit. Socrates willingly accepted the verdict of the polis that he should die, and in so doing raised thinking forever above popular opinion regarding the meaning of ego death.

Death is always my own. I die alone, just as I think alone; though of course I leave loved ones behind after I die, and my thoughts, especially if spoken or written, become events in the world contributing to the new stories that spread in my wake. We can only tell stories, after all, even if we are thinkers, philosophers. Stories are the blood shared between souls, the sea that gives our spirit buoyancy during its passage through this life between birth and death. Though Socrates died to the stories of the city to be born a philosopher, he still believed Wisdom had a chance to enlighten the citizens of some future Athens. He did not give up on humankind. He became a teacher, a caretaker of souls awaiting the death of their bodies on earth and the birth of their spirits in heaven.

Socrates taught thinking, which is no easy task, since thinking is always one’s own. It cannot be taught like multiplication tables or proper spelling. To learn to think, I must remember how to do it for myself, to draw its power up out of my own soul-life. All that a teacher can offer are likely stories which might inspire a student to draw up wisdom from the as yet still waters at the bottom of their own soul. “Know thyself,” says Socrates. Look for the mirror within yourself, see the face beneath your persona reflected back at you: at first, it appears as the face of death, but in truth it is the Image of God.

There was another lover and teacher of Wisdom who walked the earth a few centuries after Socrates. His name was Jesus. He was born into the stories of Jerusalem instead of Athens, a Jew and not a Greek, but his teachings reach beyond any city. Jesus stood before a woman and asked for water out of the well (John 4):

Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? “You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” […] The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.

Jesus the Christ offered the drink of eternal water, the truth of the spirit, a Wisdom not bound by the laws of any city on earth. He offered the woman the gift and grace of God’s Love. I cannot think how such a gift should be possible with the sense-bound intellect. The reality of the Christ Event (as Rudolf Steiner called it) remains indecipherable to the abstract reflection of my ego. It requires faith, some say. But perhaps there is yet a way to know?

Steiner’s Anthroposophy is an attempt to bring the spiritual in the human to meet the spiritual in the universe. It is Christian in religious orientation, but also teaches a science of the spirit. It is not a gnostic path, per say, but it nonetheless seeks to overcome the limits imposed upon human cognition by the philosophy of Kant. Anthroposophy seeks knowledge of the spiritual world through direct experience in that world. The philosopher-poet S. T. Coleridge made much of the difference between “the Understanding” and “the Reason,” a distinction he said he learned from Kant. Steiner expands upon this difference, noting that the Understanding, and the abstract concepts through which it relates to the world, is supported also by another relation, the Reason, that:

“…does not, in its immediate specificity, reach into ordinary consciousness. But [this relation to Reason] does subsist as a living continuity between the human mind and the sensuously observed object. The vitality that subsists in the mind by virtue of this continuity is by the systematic understanding subdued, or benumbed, to a ‘concept.’ An abstract idea is a reality defunct, to enable its representation in ordinary consciousness, a reality in which the human being does in fact live in the process of sense-perception, but which does not became a conscious part of his life. The abstractness of ideas is brought about by an inner necessity of the soul. Reality furnishes man with a living content. Of this living content he puts to death that part which invades his ordinary consciousness. He does so because he could not achieve self-consciousness as against the outer world if he were compelled to experience, in all its vital flux, his continuity with that world. Without the paralyzing of this vital flow, the human being could only know himself as a scion comprised within a unity extending beyond the limits of his humanity; he would be an organ of a larger organism.” (from p. 55 of The Case for Anthroposophy (2010), ed. and transl. by Owen Barfield)

Those trapped in the benumbed world of abstract concepts cannot grasp the meaning of Socrates’ or of Jesus’ teachings. They lose all moral imagination and become utilitarian nominalists who drink only from the well of the senses. But as Steiner makes clear, it is only after we’ve become self-conscious by divorcing ourselves from the chaotic womb of cosmogenesis that we can hope to re-marry the life of the whole willingly. Without first securing an ego, we cannot crucify it to be resurrected in Christ. The only way to God is through me (and out the other side). Steiner teaches that the soul has another side, not opposite but dimensionally internal to the outward facing senses. To perceive the world of the spirit that lies hidden beneath the world of the senses, the soul must cultivate the proper organ. We are born with physical eyes, but must birth within ourselves the I of the spirit.

The stories of modern cities are materialistic. Stale and deadening. We are taught in school that the brain produces consciousness. Steiner offers another teaching, that behind or beneath neural tissue there is something to us not created in the cranium. He calls it the etheric, or body of formative forces, that which is not produced by the brain but in fact produces the brain. The brain’s mortal perception of external space and of the passage of clock-time are imaginations originating in the etheric body. If ordinary consciousness turns inward to contemplate its own limits, it finds there a door to the ethereal. This door is the Imagination, the first stage in the development of the organ of spirit. Imagination is akin to seeing the outside, the surface, of inner spiritual realities. Further development is needed to penetrate to the core. Seeing the reflected image in the still water at the base of the soul, one then hears the voice of what speaks from within it. This is the stage of Inspiration. We not only see the light of the Word, but hear it in our own heart. We are warmed by Its Love. Finally, in the stage of Intuition, the organ of spiritual perception/cognition is complete. We are born through the water of the soul into spirit. We become the Word.




11 responses to “Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Activity: Socrates, Jesus, and the Wisdom of Love”

  1. John Anngeister Avatar

    I like this post, Matthew, because it is at least complete insofar as it contains all 5 of the words I use to represent the 5 irreducible modes of human subjective experience:


    In my own writing, I always to try to assign clear and distinct meanings to each of the 5 – as if they were not interchangeable.

    As an example, I would have to do something differently in your first paragraph – I’m sure I would not use the important word ‘spirit’ analogously with “that in me which thinks.”

    Your reason for doing so seems to reflect your intention overall – but my reason is that I would need to hold the word ‘spirit’ in reserve until I am speaking of my participation in that relation with God (of worship-in-spirit-and-in-truth) to which Jesus refers in your quote from John. “God is spirit,” he says. Very well, but I am sure that my being ‘in God’ or ‘in spirit’ (if, as Jesus implies, that is possible) does not mean that God or spirit do my thinking for me.

    And so on…

    1. brett Avatar

      “But it is the spirit in a person, the breath from Shaddai, that gives him understanding – it isn’t [only] the great who are wise or the aged who know how to judge. Therefore, I say, listen to me; I too will express my opinion.”

      understanding from God begs mans inner thinking into such restlessness, in thinking about thinking, I would imagine. So that he may always soon be speaking out perhaps the better claim

      1. John Anngeister Avatar

        brett, good help there – the lines from the Book of Job seem to place this ‘understanding from God’ in the category of powers of human wisdom and judgment (i.e. higher functions than the automatic reactions of animal mind). So these are functions of ‘personal mind’ aided by spirit, rather than lower, impersonal mind which depends more on the play of matter.

        My so-called ‘irreducibles’ do not rule out interrelations between each, and a supervenience of Spirit overall.

  2. Edward F. Kelly et al.: Irreducible Mind « Next Theology Avatar

    […] Meanwhile I have recently run out my own set of ‘irreducibles’ while following the thoughts of Matthew David Segal over at Footnotes to Plato […]

  3. Imagining the Future with Owen Barfield: Towards a Participatory Turn | Footnotes to Plato Avatar

    […] Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Activity: Socrates, Jesus, and the Wisdom of Love […]

  4. Coleridge and Barfield on Life, the Imagination, and Reality | Footnotes to Plato Avatar

    […] Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Activity: Socrates, Jesus, and the Wisdom of Love (footnotes2plato.com) […]

  5. soulquesting Avatar

    Excellent piece Matthew. My understanding of “my spirit–that in me which thinks” is your I-being which strives to become a conscious part of you. “Hippocrates observed that the brain was the messenger of consciousness, not the consciousness itself.” quoting my own book I Connecting : The Soul’s Quest. The consciousness itself is our I-being, ego eimi in the New Testament represented by Jesus, Jehovah in the Old Testament. I think you put your ideas very clearly.

  6. The Beginning and the End of Positive Philosophy | Footnotes to Plato Avatar

    […] Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Activity: Socrates, Jesus, and the Wisdom of Love (footnotes2plato.com) […]

  7. Leslie segall Avatar
    Leslie segall

    In order to get into t’he realm of understanding what “Jesus” is all about…. You must first “pray”.open your heart and soul to this God of Abraham. He is a Decendent. Read also; t’he Bible. Then Talk every day to God/Jesus….. You must develop a personal relationship !!!!! It takes time.!!!!!! You fall away in sin; and you know it ; but you repent and He forgives !!

    It is first. All about a “talking” relationship. Called “Prayer”.

  8. Philosophy and the City « Footnotes 2 Plato Avatar

    […] did not. He found himself called to testify. He was convicted of atheism and sentenced to death. Philosophy is inherently disturbing to the ruling classes. It under-minds the politician’s sense of identity by forcing him to consider the grounds of […]

  9. israel forson Avatar
    israel forson

    i have a question.
    how would i feel if something is not right, that is consciously and unconsciously

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: