Chapter 6 - The Pythagorean way of life and Pythagorean ethics

Summary

Problems of method

Discussion of the Pythagorean way of life (bios pythagorikos) cannot be undertaken without considering certain methodological presuppositions. The topic has often been treated from a point of view that tends to neglect the fundamental role of the relationship with the divine in ancient Pythagoreanism. In Western civilization, the vision of the world is dominated by what the psychiatrist A. Deikmann calls “instrumental consciousness,” a type of consciousness that enables us to act on the environment so that we will survive as biological organisms, but that for this purpose perceives reality as a series of objects that are distinct and separate from each other and from the subject, yet capable of being dominated and manipulated by that subject. Instrumental consciousness employs ration-al categorization, analysis, control and acting. It emphasizes separation and reinforces egoism, causing people to forget that there is another type of consciousness that Deikmann calls “receptive consciousness,” and that perceives reality more as a connected whole, with which one must be in harmony and which one must approach with disinterested attention and a spirit of service. This type of consciousness, in which the boundaries between the subject and environment are blurred, is characterized by intuition, acceptance and surrendering.

The Western scientific approach is on the whole characterized by the first attitude. It puts given items into categories and thereby “appropriates” them, but this practice can lead to distortion if the phenomena to be interpreted belong to the second kind of consciousness. It is far from clear that Pythagoras’ actions and his relationship to the divine are rightly interpreted as fabrications, or – to put it more positively – as “devices” to impress or beguile the public. Ethnological research shows that shamans, spiritual teachers and other “life guides” are motivated primarily by service, acting mainly to help their communities on behalf of “the divine.” What we know of Pythagoras and Pythagoreans calls for a framework of this kind, without which the sociopolitical impact of the movement would remain inexplicable. So such testimonies must be evaluated critically but also remembering that the sources may reveal traces of an original “receptive” attitude, which emphasizes harmony with the divine and one's role of service. A viewpoint dominated by “instrumental consciousness” cannot take adequate account of these features.