library

The Divergent Uses of Greek Philosophical Terms By Platonic Philosophy and Modern Psychology: Two Illustrations

While a number of Greek philosophical terms have been adopted by modern psychology, the manner in which they are utilized by psychologists differs considerably from what Platonic philosophers understood them to mean. Perhaps the most well-known example is the word archetype. ⁽¹⁾ In this essay two other terms will be briefly considered: daimon (or daemon ) and psyche.

At first glance, the use of the word daimon in modern psychology does not appear to be greatly different from the way in which it might have been understood in the Graeco-Roman world. For the ordinary man, the daimon was a driving power which brought about events in his life which were unforeseen and not consciously chosen. ⁽²⁾ In a similar vein, Carl Jung stated that:

"The Greek words daimon and daimonion express a determining power which comes upon man from outside, like providence or fate, though the ethical decision is left to man."⁽³⁾

For Plato and Socrates, the daimon was not a determining power, but rather a divine guardian and guiding power. In The Apology, after Socrates has been condemned to death, he addressed those who had voted to acquit him:

"I think of you as my friends and I wish to show you the meaning of what has now happened to me. For to me, judges—and in calling you judges I am calling you rightly—something wonderful has taken place. For previously the familiar divinatory voice of the daimon always spoke to me quite frequently and opposed me even in very small things if I was about to do something I should not rightly do. And now there has happened to me that which might be considered and is generally thought to be the greatest of evils. But the divine sign opposed me neither when I left my home in the morning, nor when I was coming up here to the court, nor when I was about to say anything. And yet on other occasions it stopped me many times in the middle of speaking, but now, in this matter, it has opposed me in neither my deeds nor my words. What, then, do I suppose to be the cause of this? I will tell you. That which has happened to me seems to me to be good, and those of us do not conceive rightly who think that death is an evil. That which, to me, is a clear proof of this has occurred. For the familiar sign would surely have opposed me if I had not been about to do something good." ⁽⁴⁾

There are marked points of agreement in these passages, including the recognition that the daimon is a power connected to, but distinct from, oneself and that, whatever the daimon's promptings, ethical or moral decision-making remains the province of the individual. In another passage, however, Jung wrote: "On closer inspection one finds, however, that the civilized man of antiquity, such as Socrates, still had his daemon and there was a widespread and natural belief in superhuman beings who, we would suppose today, were personifications of projected unconscious contents." ⁽⁵⁾

This conception is given further exposition by the psychotherapist Dr. Rollo May, who considered that: The daimonic is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person. Sex and eros, anger and rage, and the craving for power are examples. The daimonic can be either creative or destructive and is normally both. . . .The daimonic is obviously not an entity but refers to a fundamental, archetypal function of human experience. ⁽⁶⁾

In being thus possessed, Jung concludes that:

"The daemon throws us down, makes us traitors to our ideals and cherished convictions—traitors to the selves we thought we were." ⁽⁷⁾

Thus, in modern psychology, daimons are considered to be a natural function of a person which can take them over, a personification of one's own projected unconscious, certainly not an entity in itself, much less a divine guide, as Socrates considered his daimon to be. To a Platonist, on the other hand, the daimon is a metaphysical, ontological reality, not a projection of our unconscious. In modern terms, some might equate it with the guardian angel or spirit guide. ⁽⁸⁾

Philo, indeed, equated daimons with angels, when he spoke of those

". . .who are absolutely pure and excellent, who have received a greater and more divine spirit, having never craved for earthly things, but are lieutenants of the ruler of all, like ears and eyes of the great king, beholding and hearing all things.

They are called daimons by other philosophers, but the Sacred Word is accustomed to call them angels." ⁽⁹⁾

blank