Sophie
Scion, you can be my philosophy professor any time.
Very clearly argued, and at last someone who defines, specifies and tells us what the Diable we are talking about!
As for the substance of your propos, I need a bit more time to digest it. What I'd been thinking, actually, was that this discussion was veering between the neo-platonic, the scholastic and the good old-fashioned fist-fight.
First thought -possibly false, but...
Tarot and its iconography is medieval in origin, therefore likely to be more Aristotelian. However, it really took off in the late Renaissance -early modern times as a reading deck, so could be considered Platonician. The makers of the TdM are practical men: so I'd plump for Aristotle. The readers are more etherial and esoteric: so it's Plato. Deux partout.
Is there a reconciler? a way of aspiring to the Divine, but outside that bloody cave, in the world? (and preferably, with Tarot, while we are at it - for that I would refer everyone to Silvia's post)
Very clearly argued, and at last someone who defines, specifies and tells us what the Diable we are talking about!
As for the substance of your propos, I need a bit more time to digest it. What I'd been thinking, actually, was that this discussion was veering between the neo-platonic, the scholastic and the good old-fashioned fist-fight.
First thought -possibly false, but...
Tarot and its iconography is medieval in origin, therefore likely to be more Aristotelian. However, it really took off in the late Renaissance -early modern times as a reading deck, so could be considered Platonician. The makers of the TdM are practical men: so I'd plump for Aristotle. The readers are more etherial and esoteric: so it's Plato. Deux partout.
Is there a reconciler? a way of aspiring to the Divine, but outside that bloody cave, in the world? (and preferably, with Tarot, while we are at it - for that I would refer everyone to Silvia's post)