BLOG
SCIENCE HISTORIAN CRACKS THE 2000 YEAR OLD ‘PLATO CODE’

Posted in Blog Archive

Posted by abeodbart June 30, 2010 at 10:27 am

Plato was the Einstein of Greece’s Golden Age and his work founded Western culture and science. Dr Jay Kennedy’s findings are set to revolutionise the history of the origins of Western thought.

Dr Kennedy, whose findings are published in the leading US journal Apeiron, reveals that Plato used a regular pattern of symbols, inherited from the ancient followers of Pythagoras, to give his books a musical structure. A century earlier, Pythagoras had declared that the planets and stars made an inaudible music, a ‘harmony of the spheres’. Plato imitated this hidden music in his books.

The hidden codes show that Plato anticipated the Scientific Revolution 2,000 years before , discovering its most important idea – the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. The decoded messages also open up a surprising way to unite science and religion. The awe and beauty we feel in nature, Plato says, shows that it is divine; discovering the scientific order of nature is getting closer to God. This could transform today’s culture wars between science and religion.

“Plato’s books played a major role in founding Western culture but they are mysterious and end in riddles,” Dr Kennedy, at Manchester’s Faculty of Life Sciences explains.

“In antiquity, many of his followers said the books contained hidden layers of meaning and secret codes, but this was rejected by modern scholars.

“It is a long and exciting story, but basically I cracked the code. I have shown rigorously that the books do contain codes and symbols and that unraveling them reveals the hidden philosophy of Plato.

“This is a true discovery, not simply reinterpretation.”

Full article at PsyOrg

COMMENTS
June 30, 2010 at 10:52 am
Murdock says:

Any word on what it contains?! I wonder how it will effect our current understanding of Plato. Pretty exciting.


June 30, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Francis says:

Sounds like plain old cabbalistic bullsh*t so far if you ask me…


June 30, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Ged Byrne says:

Full details, without the silly hype, can be found here: http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/jay.kennedy/


June 30, 2010 at 3:47 pm
AllanW says:

From his introduction;

“Modern scientists don’t ask where their fundamental laws come from; for Plato, the beauty and order inherent in mathematical law meant its source was divine (a Pythagorean version of modern deism). Plato may light a middle way through today’s culture wars. ”

Yeah. Deism. Maybe as a philosopher he should have understood a little more of the Enlightenment thinking of Hume or be really bold and argue against someone like Bertrand Russell.

But anyway it looks like a diverting piece of work which I’ll discuss with a friend of mine who is an expert in medieval history and the philosophy of science. I hope his reply isn’t two words, hyphenated.


June 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm

If music be the food of love, play on….. :)


June 30, 2010 at 4:13 pm
roz says:

jeez. who doesnt have a code these days!


June 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm
alan says:

Wasn’t Plato a student of Socrates? And not, apparently, a particularly adept one either. Since when Socrates died, his understanding disappeared with him. The way to unite science and religion is to realize that they are both merely tools. Being utilized by humanity, in pursuit of the ultimate goal, survival.


June 30, 2010 at 10:40 pm
whodat says:

Ion has always been my jam – turn that shit up.


July 1, 2010 at 12:50 am
Floribunda says:

I always thought religion was used to try and make sense of the world before we had science to do it more succinctly and accurately. Maybe in 1000 years there’ll be an even more sophisticated way of explaining the universe, and everyone will be laughing at all the backward scientists… If we haven’t made ourselves extinct by then!

- The two subjects never had a conflict until the last 1800 years – we don’t laugh at Plato, we understand where he was at the time and respect him for his thinking. I take your last point though, hopefully we can rise above it. – Phillis


July 1, 2010 at 9:35 am
@zenpyramid says:

…aye, the conflict between science and religion is a relatively new one. The rise of science as a tool of empirical proof has spooked the religiously minded to attempt to use religion to also provide empirical proof’s for it’s claims. In the same way scientific dismissal of the religious mythos occurs because scientists sometimes forget they don’t have the ‘Truth’ either (i’m looking at YOU, Dawkins), but a set of currently unfalsifiable hypotheses…


July 1, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Jim says:

As a scientist I can say that we don’t forget the laws of Nature are not unequivocal truths. There is a fundamental understanding amongst physicists that is any law can only be disproved. The weight of evidence supporting a theory can of course be overwhelming but it takes but one contradictory piece of evidence to bring the edifice crashing down.

People’s understanding of how science, particularly physics, works however is flakey…


July 2, 2010 at 7:56 am

good article….


July 2, 2010 at 9:53 am
JayKay says:

This is terrible! I can’t wait a generation to have the codes interpreted? Hurry up!

Thanks for this post. Excellent. I shall look for more info.


July 2, 2010 at 9:55 am
Rob says:

Both science and religion are attempts to describe the ‘truth’ as we perceive it in a way that can be contained in our tiny little minds. The difference is in the approach.
Science says: ‘I want answers, I will keep asking questions and refining my understanding’.
Religion says ‘I have answers, why ask questions?’.
With certain obvious exceptions.
I think that an intellect far greater than ours would see both bodies of knowledge (sci and rel) as being very crude approximations, clumsy and unwieldy, only suited for our single-track minds.
Even physics: what ACTUALLY is energy? an approximation of the movements of billions of particles. Not a real thing, but the behaviour of a system, like traffic or bubbles.
God is like energy – an approximation. Definitely not a man with a beard.


July 2, 2010 at 9:59 am
Rob says:

Plato is seriously cool, though. Hope the code is real.
So easy to find ‘fake’ codes, a la Bible Code and a thousand other examples of such things.
Like Mr Wiseman says, or should say if he hasn’t already, ‘Humans are hard-wired to see patterns in random or complex information arrays such as books or pictures’.


July 2, 2010 at 10:10 am
AllanW says:

zenpyramid burbled; ‘scientists sometimes forget they don’t have the ‘Truth’ either (i’m looking at YOU, Dawkins), but a set of currently unfalsifiable hypotheses…’

Let’s ignore your ignorance of the falsifiable nature of scientific enquiry (or it wouldn’t be science) for a moment (have you ever heard of Popper?), we’re all agog to learn about this ‘Truth’ you claim exists; please explain. Anything at all about it. Anything. A definition, where it might be found, how you ‘know’ it from something else, what it is. Anything. Please.


July 2, 2010 at 12:12 pm
@zenpyramid says:

AllaW, at no point do i make a claim for the existence of this ‘Truth’, that’s just plain silly, and you know’s it! Should have put ‘…but a set of currently unfalsifIED hypothesis…’, not unfalsifiable, you’re right, my burbling makes it look like religious dogma. But my point is that those who are less critical of how they form reality are prone to accept this idea as dogma, even to the extent that they ‘believe’ in certain aspects of these scientists philosophies without any ‘proof’ (smells like faith to me). And Dawkins and all don’t exactly try to explain themselves, they act like they’re on a crusade. Not that you can blame ‘em, there’s some powerful PR at work behind the creationists et al, and finding a middle ground where dialogue is possible is a tricky. But i’m up for it, r u?


July 2, 2010 at 1:19 pm
AllanW says:

zenpyramid; I understand your comment a lot better now. Thanks. Am I up for finding a middle ground? No thanks. I’ll stick with the scientific method and leave the justification for extraordinary claims to those who make them; while knowing that we don’t know everything yet, I am convinced more by a process where I can examine the ‘workings-out’ than by one that relies for it’s explanation on ‘magic happens here’. Exactly as the host of this site does.


July 2, 2010 at 8:30 pm
@zenpyramid says:

…i’ve had raging arguments with religionists from all faiths for too many years, but my only ‘faith’ is that at some point i’m gonna crack the nut(s) wide open, and rediscover this purported middle ground where mythos and logos can exist in perfect harmony, bit like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sssqBjaTzOU

Then i’m gonna sort out the old Grand Unified Theory malarkey, and if i’m still on a roll, the British electoral system (*sigh)…

…or maybe i’m just an eternal optimist. Breaking it down, Plato style, i know nothing except that i know nothing. Does science need to prove that there is ‘no god’, any more than religion needs science to prove that there ‘is god’? Faith’s about accepting as fact that which has no proof, creationism’s a blasphemy, ‘cos it stresses proof, etc..


July 25, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Eric says:

From Archaic animism to theistic premodernity is the Fall when the sacred is limited and commodified by rulers. In its turn, the premodern monotheistic makes way for the modern atheistic. God dies; the sacred is denied. Romanticism and the New Age, crazy and absurd, bring back the totality of the sacred – postmodern pantheism. When belief is personal and individual, proof has no relevance. All beliefs but mine are wrong. To believe otherwise is cultural suicide. No wonder modernity is crashing around our ears. People are equal; the rule of law fundamental. But your beliefs? Rubbish! Mine? Fantastic! Pluralism yes. Multicultural relativism no thanksl.


STORE

New and exclusive items



FEATURED Infamous Brochure

Infamous Brochure
FIND OUT MORE
FIND OUT MORE