The Divine Eye in Ancient Egypt and in the Midrash Interpretation of Formative Judaism.

This paper studies the “eye” as a religious phenomenon from the multiple traditions of ancient Egypt compared with rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity using a semiotic approach based upon the theories of Umberto Eco. This method was chosen because the eye is a graphic as well as a linguistic sign which both express religious concepts. Generally, the eye represented an all-seeing and omnipresent divinity. In other words, the god was reduced to an eye, whereby the form of the symbol suggests a meaning to the viewer or religious practitioner. In this manner the eye represented the whole body of a deity in Egyptian and the power of a discerning God in rabbinic texts. By focusing upon the semantic aspect of the eye metaphor in both Egyptian and rabbinic texts two religious traditions of the visually perceivable are analyzed from a semiotic perspective.

Plato's Doctrine Of Forms: Modern Misunderstandings

Among the philosophical ideas of Plato, perhaps the most famous is his doctrine of forms. This doctrine has faced harsh criticism due, in large part, to the interpretations of this position by modern philosophers such as René Descartes, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. For example, Plato has been interpreted as presenting a ¿two-worlds¿ approach to form and thing and as advancing a rationalist approach to epistemology. His forms have often been interpreted as ideas and as perfect copies of the things of the visible world. In this thesis, I argue that these, along with other interpretations of Plato presented by the moderns, are based on misunderstandings of Plato¿s overall philosophy. In so doing, I attempt to show that the doctrine of forms cannot be directly interpreted into the language of Cartesian, Lockean, and Kantian metaphysics and epistemology, and thus should not be prematurely dismissed because of these modern Platonic interpretations. By analyzing the Platonic dialogues beside the writings of the modern philosophers, I conclude that three of the most prominent modern philosophers, as representatives of their respective philosophical frameworks, have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Plato¿s famous doctrine of forms. This could have significant implications for the future of metaphysics and epistemology by providing an interpretation of Plato which adds to, instead of contradicts, the developments of modern philosophy.