Aristotle first systematized the usage of the word, making it one of the three principles of rhetoric alongsideethos andpathos. This original use identifies the word closely to the structure and content oflanguage ortext. BothPlato andAristotle used the termlogos (along withrhema) to refer tosentences andpropositions.
Ancient Greek:λόγος,romanized: lógos,lit. 'word, discourse, or reason' is related to Ancient Greek:λέγω,romanized: légō,lit. 'I say' which is cognate withLatin:lex,lit. 'law'. The word derives from a Proto-Indo-European root, *leǵ-, which can have the meanings "I put in order, arrange, gather, choose, count, reckon, discern, say, speak". In modern usage, it typically connotes the verbs "account", "measure", "reason" or "discourse".[1][2] It is occasionally used in other contexts, such as for "ratio" in mathematics.[3]
TheGospel of John identifies theChristian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[10] and further identifiesJesus Christ as theincarnate Logos. Early translators of the GreekNew Testament, such asJerome (in the 4th century AD), experienced frustration with the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the wordlogos as used to describe Jesus Christ in theGospel of John. TheVulgate Bible usage ofin principio erat verbum was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) nounverbum for "word"; laterRomance language translations had the advantage of nouns such asle Verbe in French. Reformation translators took another approach.Martin Luther rejectedZeitwort (verb) in favor ofWort (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involvingthe living word as used by Jerome andAugustine.[11] The term is also used inSufism, and the analytical psychology ofCarl Jung.
Despite the conventional translation as "word",logos is not used for aword in the grammatical sense—for that, the termlexis (λέξις,léxis) was used.[12] However, bothlogos andlexis derive from the same verblégō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".[1][12][13]
In the ancient Greek context, the termlogos in the sense of "word" or "discourse" also contrasted withmythos (Ancient Greek:μῦθος). Classical Greek usage sees reasoned argument (logos) as distinct from imaginative tales (mythos).[14]
The writing ofHeraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC) was the first place where the wordlogos was given special attention inancient Greek philosophy,[15] although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way in which it was used in ordinary Greek of his time.[16] For Heraclitus,logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.[17]
Thislogos holds always but humans always prove unable to ever understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with thislogos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep.
For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although thelogos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.
— Diels–Kranz, 22B2
Listening not to me but to thelogos it is wise to agree that all things are one.
Whatlogos means here is not certain; it may mean "reason" or "explanation" in the sense of an objective cosmic law, or it may signify nothing more than "saying" or "wisdom".[19] Yet, an independent existence of a universallogos was clearly suggested by Heraclitus.[20]
Following one of the other meanings of the word,Aristotle gavelogos a different technical definition in theRhetoric, using it as meaning argument from reason, one of the threemodes of persuasion. The other two modes arepathos (πᾰ́θος,páthos), which refers to persuasion by means of emotional appeal, "putting the hearer into a certain frame of mind";[21] andethos (ἦθος,êthos), persuasion through convincing listeners of one's "moral character".[21] According to Aristotle,logos relates to "the speech itself, in so far as it proves or seems to prove".[21][22] In the words of Paul Rahe:
For Aristotle,logos is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil.[5]
Logos,pathos, andethos can all be appropriate at different times.[23] Arguments from reason (logical arguments) have some advantages, namely thatdata are (ostensibly) difficult to manipulate, so it is harder to argue against such an argument. On the other hand, trust in the speaker—built throughethos—enhances the appeal of arguments from reason.[citation needed]
Robert Wardy suggests that what Aristotle rejects in supporting the use oflogos "is not emotional appealper se, but rather emotional appeals that have no 'bearing on the issue', in that thepathē [πᾰ́θη,páthē] they stimulate lack, or at any rate are not shown to possess, any intrinsic connection with the point at issue—as if an advocate were to try to whip anantisemitic audience into a fury because the accused is Jewish; or as if another in drumming up support for a politician were to exploit his listeners's reverential feelings for the politician's ancestors".[24]
Aristotle comments on the three modes by stating:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.
Stoic philosophy began withZeno of Citiumc. 300 BC, in which thelogos was the activereason pervading and animating theUniverse. It was conceived as material and is usually identified withGod orNature. The Stoics also referred to theseminal logos ("logos spermatikos"), or the law of generation in the Universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimatematter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divinelogos.[26]
The Stoics took all activity to imply alogos or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, thelogos wasanima mundi to them, a concept which later influencedPhilo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.[27] In his Introduction to the 1964 edition ofMarcus Aurelius'Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote that "Logos ... had long been one of the leading terms ofStoicism, chosen originally for the purpose of explaining how deity came into relation with the universe".[28]
Public discourse on ancient Greek rhetoric has historically emphasized Aristotle's appeals tologos,pathos, andethos, while less attention has been directed toIsocrates' teachings about philosophy andlogos,[29] and their partnership in generating an ethical, mindfulpolis. Isocrates does not provide a single definition oflogos in his work, but Isocrateanlogos characteristically focuses on speech, reason, and civic discourse.[29] He was concerned with establishing the "common good" ofAthenian citizens, which he believed could be achieved through the pursuit of philosophy and the application oflogos.[29]
Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD), aHellenized Jew, used the termlogos to mean an intermediary divine being ordemiurge.[8] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[30] Thelogos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God".[30]Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated".[31]
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within thelogos, but thelogos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.[30] In particular, theAngel of the Lord in theHebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with thelogos by Philo, who also said that thelogos was God's instrument in the creation of the Universe.[30]
The concept oflogos also appears in theTargums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible dating to the first centuries AD), where the termmemra (Aramaic for "word") is often used instead of 'the Lord', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed asanthropomorphic.[32]
InChristology, the Logos (Koine Greek:Λόγος,lit. 'word, discourse, or reason')[2] is a name or title ofJesus Christ, seen as the preeminent expression in fulness of all the attributes, the complete thought, and the entire "knowable" reality of the infinite and spiritually transcendent Godhead. This concept is applied toJohn 1:1 in theDouay–Rheims (1582),King James (1604), as well as theNew International and other versions of theBible, where "logos" is capitalized in translation as "Word"; thereby rendering the verse as:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[33][34][35]
Neoplatonist philosophers such asPlotinus (c. 204/5 – 270 AD) usedlogos in ways that drew on Plato and theStoics,[37] but the termlogos was interpreted in different ways throughout Neoplatonism, and similarities to Philo's concept oflogos appear to be accidental.[38] Thelogos was a key element in themeditations of Plotinus[39] regarded as the first neoplatonist. Plotinus referred back toHeraclitus and as far back asThales[40] in interpretinglogos as the principle of meditation, existing as the interrelationship between thehypostases—thesoul, the intellect (nous), and theOne.[41]
Plotinus used a trinity concept that consisted of "The One", the "Spirit", and "Soul". The comparison with the ChristianTrinity is inescapable, but for Plotinus these were not equal and "The One" was at the highest level, with the "Soul" at the lowest.[42] For Plotinus, the relationship between the three elements of his trinity is conducted by the outpouring oflogos from the higher principle, anderos (loving) upward from the lower principle.[43] Plotinus relied heavily on the concept oflogos, but no explicit references to Christian thought can be found in his works, although there are significant traces of them in his doctrine.[citation needed] Plotinus specifically avoided using the termlogos to refer to the second person of his trinity.[44] However, Plotinus influencedGaius Marius Victorinus, who then influencedAugustine of Hippo.[45] Centuries later,Carl Jung acknowledged the influence of Plotinus in his use of the term.[46]
Victorinus differentiated between thelogos interior to God and thelogos related to the world by creation andsalvation.[47]
Augustine of Hippo, often seen as the father ofmedieval philosophy, was also greatly influenced by Plato and is famous for his re-interpretation of Aristotle and Plato in the light ofearly Christian thought.[48] A youngAugustine experimented with, but failed to achieveecstasy using the meditations of Plotinus.[49] In hisConfessions, Augustine describedlogos as theDivine Eternal Word,[50] by which he, in part, was able to motivate the early Christian thought throughout theHellenized world (of which the Latin speaking West was a part)[51] Augustine'slogoshad taken body in Christ, the man in whom thelogos (i.e.veritas orsapientia) was present as in no other man.[52]
The concept of thelogos also exists inIslam, where it was definitively articulated primarily in the writings of the classicalSunnimystics andIslamic philosophers, as well as by certainShi'a thinkers, during theIslamic Golden Age.[53][54] InSunni Islam, the concept of thelogos has been given many different names by the denomination'smetaphysicians, mystics, and philosophers, includingʿaql ("Intellect"),al-insān al-kāmil ("Universal Man"),kalimat Allāh ("Word of God"),haqīqa muḥammadiyya ("The Muhammadan Reality"), andnūr muḥammadī ("The Muhammadan Light").
One of the names given to a concept very much like the Christian Logos by the classical Muslim metaphysicians isʿaql, which is the "Arabic equivalent to the Greekνοῦς (intellect)."[54] In the writings of the Islamicneoplatonist philosophers, such asal-Farabi (c. 872 – c. 950 AD) andAvicenna (d. 1037),[54] the idea of theʿaql was presented in a manner that both resembled "the late Greek doctrine" and, likewise, "corresponded in many respects to the Logos Christology."[54]
The concept oflogos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity). In Sufism, for the Deist, no contact between man and God can be possible without thelogos. Thelogos is everywhere and always the same, but its personification is "unique" within each region.Jesus andMuhammad are seen as the personifications of thelogos, and this is what enables them to speak in such absolute terms.[55][56]
One of the boldest and most radical attempts to reformulate the neoplatonic concepts into Sufism arose with the philosopherIbn Arabi, who traveled widely in Spain and North Africa. His concepts were expressed in two major worksThe Ringstones of Wisdom (Fusus al-Hikam) andThe Meccan Illuminations (Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya). To Ibn Arabi, every prophet corresponds to a reality which he called alogos (Kalimah), as an aspect of the unique divine being. In his view the divine being would have for ever remained hidden, had it not been for the prophets, withlogos providing the link between man and divinity.[57]
Ibn Arabi seems to have adopted his version of thelogos concept from neoplatonic and Christian sources,[58] although (writing inArabic rather than Greek) he used more than twenty different terms when discussing it. For Ibn Arabi, thelogos or "Universal Man" was a mediating link between individual human beings and the divine essence.[59]
Other Sufi writers also show the influence of the neoplatoniclogos.[60] In the 15th centuryAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī introduced theDoctrine of Logos and the Perfect Man. For al-Jīlī, the "perfect man" (associated with thelogos or theProphet) has the power to assume different forms at different times and to appear in different guises.[61]
InOttoman Sufism, Şeyh Gâlib (d. 1799) articulates Sühan (logos-Kalima) in hisHüsn ü Aşk (Beauty and Love) in parallel to Ibn Arabi's Kalima. In the romance,Sühan appears as an embodiment of Kalima as a reference to the Word of God, the Perfect Man, and the Reality of Muhammad.[62][relevant?]
Carl Jung contrasted the critical and rational faculties oflogos with emotional, non-reason oriented and mythical elements.[63] In Jung's approach,logos vseros can be represented as "science vs mysticism", or "reason vs imagination" or "conscious activity vs the unconscious".[64]
For Jung,logos represented the masculine principle of rationality, in contrast to its feminine counterpart,eros:
Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle ofEros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man isLogos. The concept ofEros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that ofLogos as objective interest.[65]
Author and professor Jeanne Fahnestock describeslogos as a "premise". She states that, to find the reason behind arhetor's backing of a certain position or stance, one must acknowledge the different "premises" that the rhetor applies via their chosen diction.[66] The rhetor's success, she argues, will come down to "certain objects of agreement...between arguer and audience".
The wordlogos has been used in different senses along withrhema. BothPlato andAristotle used the termlogos along withrhema to refer to sentences and propositions.[67][68]
Some modern usage inChristian theology distinguishesrhema fromlogos (which here refers to the written scriptures) whilerhema refers to the revelation received by the reader from theHoly Spirit when the Word (logos) is read,[72][73][74][75] although this distinction has been criticized.[76][77]
^Launderville, Dale (2003). "Poetic Truth and the Manifestation of the Divine Source of Royal Authority".Piety and Politics: The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel, and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 32.ISBN9780802845054. Retrieved7 October 2023.[... I]n Archaic Greece [...]logos was a form of discourse focused on persuading an assembly, whereasmythos was discourse linked with the authority of a wisdom figure. [...] Emerging Greek philosophical discourse defined its own sphere of authority as reasoned argument over against the imaginative tales of poets and bards:logos was pitted againstmythos [...].
^F. E. Peters,Greek Philosophical Terms, New York University Press, 1967.
^W. K. C. Guthrie,A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1962, pp. 419ff.
^abcDavid M. Timmerman andEdward Schiappa,Classical Greek Rhetorical Theory and the Disciplining of Discourse (London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010): 43–66
^Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Douwe Runia
^De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary, By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction
^Gardet, L., "Kalām", in:Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.
^abcdBoer, Tj. de and Rahman, F., "ʿAḳl", in:Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.
^Sufism: love & wisdom by Jean-Louis Michon, Roger Gaetani (2006)ISBN0941532755 p. 242[4]
^General linguistics by Francis P. Dinneen (1995).ISBN0878402780 p. 118[8]
^The history of linguistics in Europe from Plato to 1600 by Vivien Law (2003)ISBN0521565324 p. 29[9]
^Theological dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1 by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Geoffrey William Bromiley (1985).ISBN0802824048 p. 508[10]
^The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q–Z by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995).ISBN0802837840 p. 1102[11]
^Old Testament Theology by Horst Dietrich Preuss, Leo G. Perdue (1996).ISBN0664218431 p. 81[12]
^What Every Christian Ought to Know. Adrian Rogers (2005).ISBN0805426922 p. 162[13]
.png)
