{{Short description|Concept in philosophy, religion, rhetoric, and psychology}} {{Italic title}} {{Other uses|Logos (disambiguation)}} [[File:Logos.svg|thumb|Greek spelling of ''logos''|class=skin-invert-image]]
'''''Logos''''' ({{IPAc-en|UK|ˈ|l|oʊ|ɡ|ɒ|s|,_|ˈ|l|ɒ|ɡ|ɒ|s}}, {{IPAc-en|US|ˈ|l|oʊ|ɡ|oʊ|s}}; {{langx|grc|λόγος|lógos|lit=word, discourse, or reason}}) is a term used in Western philosophy, psychology and rhetoric, as well as religion (notably Christianity), that most broadly means reason, logic, order, or understanding. Among its connotations is that of a rational form of discourse that relies on inductive and deductive reasoning.
Aristotle first systematized the usage of the word, making it one of the three principles of rhetoric alongside ethos and pathos. This original use identifies the word closely to the structure and content of language or text. Both Plato and Aristotle used the term ''logos'' (along with ''rhema'') to refer to sentences and propositions.
== Background ==
{{langx|grc|λόγος|lógos|lit=word, discourse, or reason}} is related to {{langx|grc|λέγω|légō|lit=I say|label=Ancient Greek}} which is cognate with {{langx|la|lex|lit=law}}. The word derives from a Proto-Indo-European root, *leǵ-, which can have the meanings "I put in order, arrange, gather, choose, count, reckon, discern, say, speak". In modern usage, it typically connotes the verbs "account", "measure", "reason" or "discourse".<ref name="LSJlogos">Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dlo%2Fgos ''An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon'']: logos, 1889.</ref><ref name="perseus.tufts.edu">Entry [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlo%2Fgos {{lang|grc|λόγος}}] at LSJ online.</ref> It is occasionally used in other contexts, such as for "ratio" in mathematics.<ref>J. L. Heiberg, ''[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0085%3Abook%3D6%3Atype%3DProp%3Anumber%3D30 Euclid, Elements]'',</ref>
== Origins of the term == ''Logos'' became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus ({{Circa| 535| 475 BC|lk=on}}), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.<ref>''Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'' (2nd ed): Heraclitus, (1999).</ref> Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean "discourse". Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"<ref name="PaulRahe"/> or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ''ethos'' and ''pathos''.<ref>Rapp, Christof, "[https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ Aristotle's Rhetoric]", ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref> Pyrrhonist philosophers used the term to refer to dogmatic accounts of non-evident matters. The Stoics spoke of the ''logos spermatikos'' (the generative principle of the Universe) which foreshadows related concepts in Neoplatonism.<ref>{{cite book |title= A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature |author= David L. Jeffrey |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&q=Neoplatonism+logos&pg=PA459 |location= Grand Rapids, Michigan|publisher= Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co|year= 1992|isbn= 978-0802836342|page=459}}</ref>
Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo ({{Circa| 20 BC| 50 AD}}) integrated the term into Jewish philosophy.<ref name="cdpPhilo">''Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'' (2nd ed): Philo Judaeus, (1999).</ref> Philo distinguished between ''logos prophorikos'' ("the utterer word or speaker"), logos spermatikos ("the speech") and the ''logos endiathetos'' ("the word remaining within").<ref>{{cite journal|author= Adam Kamesar|title= The ''Logos Endiathetos'' and the ''Logos Prophorikos'' in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the ''Iliad'' |url= https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Kamesar.pdf|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150507165338/https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Kamesar.pdf |url-status= dead|archive-date= 2015-05-07|journal= Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies |volume= 44|year=2004|pages=163–181}}</ref>
The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (''theos''),<ref name = "May Metzger">May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha''. 1977.</ref> and further identifies Jesus Christ as the ''incarnate Logos''. Early translators of the Greek New Testament, such as Jerome (in the 4th century AD), experienced frustration with the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the meaning of the word ''logos'' as used to describe Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of {{lang|la|in principio erat verbum}} was thus constrained to use the (perhaps inadequate) noun {{lang|la| verbum}} for "word"; later Romance language translations had the advantage of nouns such as {{lang|fr| le Verbe}} in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected {{lang|de| Zeitwort}} (verb) in favor of {{lang|de| Wort}} (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involving ''the living word'' as used by Jerome and Augustine.<ref>{{cite book |title= A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature |author= David L. Jeffrey |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&q=Neoplatonism+logos&pg=PA460 |location= Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher= Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co |year= 1992 |isbn= 978-0802836342|page= 460}}</ref> The term is also used in Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung.
Despite the conventional translation as "word", ''logos'' is not used for a word in the grammatical sense—for that, the term ''lexis'' ({{lang|grc|λέξις}}, {{transliteration|grc|léxis}}) was used.<ref name="LSJlexis">Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dle%2Fcis ''An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon'']: lexis, 1889.</ref> However, both ''logos'' and ''lexis'' derive from the same verb {{transliteration|grc|légō}} ({{lang|grc|λέγω}}), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".<ref name="LSJlogos"/><ref name="LSJlexis"/><ref name="LSJlego">Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dle%2Fgw2 ''An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon'']: legō, 1889.</ref>
In the ancient Greek context, the term ''logos'' in the sense of "word" or "discourse" also contrasted with ''mythos'' ({{langx|grc| μῦθος}}). Classical Greek usage sees reasoned argument (''logos'') as distinct from imaginative tales (''mythos'').<ref> {{cite book |last1 = Launderville |first1 = Dale |year = 2003 |chapter = Poetic Truth and the Manifestation of the Divine Source of Royal Authority |title = Piety and Politics: The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel, and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=z4oHNWUWTSkC |series = Bible in Its World |publication-place = Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher = William. B. Eerdmans Publishing |page = 32 |isbn = 9780802845054 |access-date = 7 October 2023 |quote = [... I]n Archaic Greece [...] ''logos'' was a form of discourse focused on persuading an assembly, whereas ''mythos'' was discourse linked with the authority of a wisdom figure. [...] Emerging Greek philosophical discourse defined its own sphere of authority as reasoned argument over against the imaginative tales of poets and bards: ''logos'' was pitted against ''mythos'' [...]. }} </ref>
==Ancient Greek philosophy==
{{Further|Heraclitus#Logos}} The writing of Heraclitus ({{Circa|535|475 BC|lk=on}})<!---maintain consistency throughout article re: BC vs. BCE---> was the first place where the word ''logos'' was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy,<ref>F. E. Peters, ''Greek Philosophical Terms'', New York University Press, 1967.</ref> although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way in which it was used in ordinary Greek of his time.<ref>W. K. C. Guthrie, ''A History of Greek Philosophy'', vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1962, pp. 419ff.</ref> For Heraclitus, ''logos'' provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.<ref>''The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy''</ref>
{{blockquote|text=This ''logos'' holds always but humans always prove unable to ever understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this ''logos'', humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep.|author=Diels–Kranz|source=22B1}}
{{blockquote|text=For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the ''logos'' is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.|author=Diels–Kranz|source=22B2}}
{{blockquote|text=Listening not to me but to the ''logos'' it is wise to agree that all things are one.|author=Diels–Kranz|source=22B50<ref>Translations from Richard D. McKirahan, ''Philosophy before Socrates'', Hackett, (1994).</ref>}}
What ''logos'' means here is not certain; it may mean "reason" or "explanation" in the sense of an objective cosmic law, or it may signify nothing more than "saying" or "wisdom".<ref>''Handboek geschiedenis van de wijsbegeerte 1'', Article by Jaap Mansveld & Keimpe Algra, p. 41</ref> Yet, an independent existence of a universal ''logos'' was clearly suggested by Heraclitus.<ref>W. K. C. Guthrie, ''The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle'', Methuen, 1967, p. 45.</ref>
{{Rhetoric}} thumb|upright|Aristotle, 384–322 BC Following one of the other meanings of the word, Aristotle gave ''logos'' a different technical definition in the ''Rhetoric'', using it as meaning argument from reason, one of the three modes of persuasion. The other two modes are ''pathos'' ({{lang|grc|πᾰ́θος}}, {{transliteration|grc|páthos}}), which refers to persuasion by means of emotional appeal, "putting the hearer into a certain frame of mind";<ref name="AR">Aristotle, ''Rhetoric'', in Patricia P. Matsen, Philip B. Rollinson, and Marion Sousa, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=R3iLyz9zd7cC&pg=PA120 Readings from Classical Rhetoric]'', SIU Press (1990), {{ISBN|0809315920}}, p. 120.</ref> and ''ethos'' ({{lang|grc|ἦθος}}, {{transliteration|grc|êthos}}), persuasion through convincing listeners of one's "moral character".<ref name="AR"/> According to Aristotle, ''logos'' relates to "the speech itself, in so far as it proves or seems to prove".<ref name="AR"/><ref>In the [http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html translation by W. Rhys Roberts], this reads "the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself".</ref> In the words of Paul Rahe: {{Blockquote|text=For Aristotle, ''logos'' is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil.<ref name="PaulRahe">Paul Anthony Rahe, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=Zymp_kM33ZcC&pg=PA21 Republics Ancient and Modern: The Ancien Régime in Classical Greece]'', University of North Carolina Press (1994), {{ISBN|080784473X}}, p. 21.</ref>}}
''Logos'', ''pathos'', and ''ethos'' can all be appropriate at different times.<ref>Eugene Garver, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=PoXnLHQ5mgwC&pg=PA114 Aristotle's Rhetoric: An art of character]'', University of Chicago Press (1994), {{ISBN|0226284247}}, p. 114.</ref> Arguments from reason (logical arguments) have some advantages, namely that data are (ostensibly) difficult to manipulate, so it is harder to argue against such an argument. On the other hand, trust in the speaker—built through ''ethos''—enhances the appeal of arguments from reason.{{citation needed|date=August 2023}}
Robert Wardy suggests that what Aristotle rejects in supporting the use of ''logos'' "is not emotional appeal per se, but rather emotional appeals that have no 'bearing on the issue', in that the ''pathē'' [{{lang|grc|πᾰ́θη}}, {{transliteration|grc|páthē}}] they stimulate lack, or at any rate are not shown to possess, any intrinsic connection with the point at issue—as if an advocate were to try to whip an antisemitic audience into a fury because the accused is Jewish; or as if another in drumming up support for a politician were to exploit his listeners's reverential feelings for the politician's ancestors".<ref>Robert Wardy, "Mighty Is the Truth and It Shall Prevail?", in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=QkIn37h_TMUC&pg=PA64 Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric]'', Amélie Rorty (ed), University of California Press (1996), {{ISBN|0520202287}}, p. 64.</ref>
Aristotle comments on the three modes by stating: {{Poemquote|text= Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. |author=Aristotle|title=''Rhetoric''|source=350 BC<ref>Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.mb.txt (Part 2, paragraph 3)</ref>}}
Stoic philosophy began with Zeno of Citium {{Circa|300 BC|lk=on}}, in which the ''logos'' was the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. It was conceived as material and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the ''seminal logos'' ("''logos spermatikos''"), or the law of generation in the Universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine ''logos''.<ref>Tripolitis, A., ''Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age'', pp. 37–38. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</ref>
The Stoics took all activity to imply a ''logos'' or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, the ''logos'' was ''anima mundi'' to them, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=wUF15rypDscC&dq=Anima+mundi+logos&pg=PA53 ''Studies in European Philosophy''], by James Lindsay (2006 [1909]), {{ISBN|1406701734}}, p. 53</ref> In his Introduction to the 1964 edition of Marcus Aurelius' ''Meditations'', the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote that "''Logos'' ... had long been one of the leading terms of Stoicism, chosen originally for the purpose of explaining how deity came into relation with the universe".<ref>{{cite book |last=Marcus Aurelius |author-link=Marcus Aurelius| title=Meditations |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WV7Teosv0bIC |year=1964 |location=London |publisher=Penguin Books |page=24 |isbn=978-0140441406}}</ref>
Public discourse on ancient Greek rhetoric has historically emphasized Aristotle's appeals to ''logos'', ''pathos'', and ''ethos'', while less attention has been directed to Isocrates' teachings about philosophy and ''logos'',<ref name="David M 2010">David M. Timmerman and Edward Schiappa, ''Classical Greek Rhetorical Theory and the Disciplining of Discourse'' (London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010): 43–66</ref> and their partnership in generating an ethical, mindful ''polis''. Isocrates does not provide a single definition of ''logos'' in his work, but Isocratean ''logos'' characteristically focuses on speech, reason, and civic discourse.<ref name="David M 2010"/> He was concerned with establishing the "common good" of Athenian citizens, which he believed could be achieved through the pursuit of philosophy and the application of ''logos''.<ref name="David M 2010"/>
==In Hellenistic Judaism== {{See also|Hellenistic Judaism}}
===Philo of Alexandria=== Philo ({{Circa|20 BC|50 AD|lk=on}}), a Hellenized Jew, used the term ''logos'' to mean an intermediary divine being or demiurge.<ref name="cdpPhilo"/> Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.<ref name="hpPhilo">Frederick Copleston, ''A History of Philosophy'', Volume 1, Continuum, (2003), pp. 458–462.</ref> The ''logos'' was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God".<ref name="hpPhilo"/> Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated".<ref>Philo, ''De Profugis'', cited in [https://archive.org/details/hellenismchristi00frieiala Gerald Friedlander, ''Hellenism and Christianity'', P. Vallentine, 1912, pp. 114–115.]</ref>
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the ''logos'', but the ''logos'' also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.<ref name="hpPhilo"/> In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the ''logos'' by Philo, who also said that the ''logos'' was God's instrument in the creation of the Universe.<ref name="hpPhilo"/>
===Targums=== The concept of ''logos'' also appears in the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible dating to the first centuries AD), where the term ''memra'' (Aramaic for "word") is often used instead of 'the Lord', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed as anthropomorphic.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last1=Kohler|first1=Kauffman|date=1901–1906|title=Memra (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos")|editor1-last=Singer|editor1-first=Isidore|editor1-link=Isidore Singer|editor2-last=Funk|editor2-first=Isaac K.|editor2-link=Isaac K. Funk|editor3-last=Vizetelly|editor3-first=Frank H.|encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia|location=New York|publisher=Funk & Wagnalls|volume=8|pages=464–465|url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra}}</ref>
==Christianity== {{Further|Logos (Christianity)}} In Christology, the Logos ({{langx|grc-x-koine|Λόγος|lit=word, discourse, or reason}})<ref name="perseus.tufts.edu"/> is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the preeminent expression in fulness of all the attributes, the complete thought, and the entire "knowable" reality of the infinite and spiritually transcendent Godhead{{Citation needed|date=February 2026}}. This concept is applied to John 1:1 in the Douay–Rheims (1582), King James (1604), as well as the New International and other versions of the Bible, where "logos" is capitalized in translation as "Word"; thereby rendering the verse as: {{blockquote|text=In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<ref>{{Bibleverse|John|1:1|DRA}}</ref><ref>{{Bibleverse|John|1:1|KJV}}</ref><ref>{{Bibleverse|John|1:1|NIV}}</ref>}}
==Gnosticism== According to the Gnostic scriptures recorded in the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, the Logos is an emanation of the great spirit that is merged with the spiritual Adam called Adamas.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Alexander Böhlig|author2=Frederik Wisse|title=Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2 - The Gospel of the Egyptians (the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) - Volumes 2-3|url=http://gnosis.org/naghamm/goseqypt.html|publisher=Brill|date=1975|access-date=2022-09-23}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=Primary source does not provide this definition|date=September 2022}}
==Neoplatonism== [[File:Roman sarcophagus of a reader identified to Plotinus and disciples.jpg|thumb|Plotinus with his disciples]] Neoplatonist philosophers such as Plotinus ({{Circa|204/5|lk=on}}{{snd}}270 AD) used ''logos'' in ways that drew on Plato and the Stoics,<ref>Michael F. Wagner, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=1ZJMzbtNFNsC&pg=PA116 Neoplatonism and Nature: Studies in Plotinus' Enneads]'', Volume 8 of ''Studies in Neoplatonism'', SUNY Press (2002), {{ISBN|0791452719}}, pp. 116–117.</ref> but the term ''logos'' was interpreted in different ways throughout Neoplatonism, and similarities to Philo's concept of ''logos'' appear to be accidental.<ref>John M. Rist, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=n49OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA84 Plotinus: The road to reality]'', Cambridge University Press (1967), {{ISBN|0521060850}}, pp. 84–101.</ref> The ''logos'' was a key element in the meditations of Plotinus<ref>"Between Physics and Nous: Logos as Principle of Meditation in Plotinus", ''The Journal of Neoplatonic Studies'', Volumes 7–8, (1999), p. 3</ref> regarded as the first neoplatonist. Plotinus referred back to Heraclitus and as far back as Thales<ref>Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Carlos Steel</ref> in interpreting ''logos'' as the principle of meditation, existing as the interrelationship between the hypostases—the soul, the intellect (''nous''), and the One.<ref>T''he Journal of Neoplatonic Studies'', Volumes 7–8, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University (1999), p. 16</ref>
Plotinus used a trinity concept that consisted of "The One", the "Spirit", and "Soul". The comparison with the Christian Trinity is inescapable, but for Plotinus these were not equal and "The One" was at the highest level, with the "Soul" at the lowest.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Jcg83ynsJEwC&dq=plotinus+trinity&pg=PA311 ''Ancient philosophy''] by Anthony Kenny (2007). {{ISBN|0198752725}} p. 311</ref> For Plotinus, the relationship between the three elements of his trinity is conducted by the outpouring of ''logos'' from the higher principle, and ''eros'' (loving) upward from the lower principle.<ref>''The Enneads'' by Plotinus, Stephen MacKenna, John M. Dillon (1991) {{ISBN|014044520X}} p. xcii [https://books.google.com/books?id=KyYNJqSP3OYC&dq=plotinus+logos+meditation&pg=RA1-PA3]</ref> Plotinus relied heavily on the concept of ''logos'', but no explicit references to Christian thought can be found in his works, although there are significant traces of them in his doctrine.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} Plotinus specifically avoided using the term ''logos'' to refer to the second person of his trinity.<ref>''Neoplatonism in Relation to Christianity'' by Charles Elsee (2009) {{ISBN|1116926296}} pp. 89–90 [https://books.google.com/books?id=JBE-AAAAIAAJ&dq=Neoplatonism+logos&pg=PA90]</ref> However, Plotinus influenced Gaius Marius Victorinus, who then influenced Augustine of Hippo.<ref>''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' edited by Alan Richardson, John Bowden (1983) {{ISBN|0664227481}} p. 448 [https://books.google.com/books?id=PN7UMUTBBPAC&dq=plotinus+logos+meditation&pg=PA448]</ref> Centuries later, Carl Jung acknowledged the influence of Plotinus in his use of the term.<ref>''Jung and aesthetic experience'' by Donald H. Mayo, (1995) {{ISBN|0820427241}} p. 69</ref>
Victorinus differentiated between the ''logos'' interior to God and the ''logos'' related to the world by creation and salvation.<ref>''Theological treatises on the Trinity'', by Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, p. 25</ref>
Augustine of Hippo, often seen as the father of medieval philosophy, was also greatly influenced by Plato and is famous for his re-interpretation of Aristotle and Plato in the light of early Christian thought.<ref>''Neoplatonism and Christian thought'' (Volume 2), By Dominic J. O'Meara, p. 39</ref> A young Augustine experimented with, but failed to achieve ecstasy using the meditations of Plotinus.<ref>Hans Urs von Balthasar, ''Christian meditation'' Ignatius Press {{ISBN|0898702356}} p. 8</ref> In his ''Confessions'', Augustine described ''logos'' as the ''Divine Eternal Word'',<ref>''Confessions'', Augustine, p. 130</ref> by which he, in part, was able to motivate the early Christian thought throughout the Hellenized world (of which the Latin speaking West was a part)<ref>Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Douwe Runia</ref> Augustine's ''logos'' ''had taken body'' in Christ, the man in whom the ''logos'' (i.e. {{lang|la|veritas}} or {{lang|la|sapientia}}) was present as in no other man.<ref>''De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary'', By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction</ref>
==Islam== {{Main|Logos (Islam)}} The concept of the ''logos'' also exists in Islam, where it was definitively articulated primarily in the writings of the classical Sunni mystics and Islamic philosophers, as well as by certain Shi'a thinkers, during the Islamic Golden Age.<ref>Gardet, L., "Kalām", in: ''Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition'', Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.</ref><ref name="EoI">Boer, Tj. de and Rahman, F., "ʿAḳl", in: ''Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition'', Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.</ref> In Sunni Islam, the concept of the ''logos'' has been given many different names by the denomination's metaphysicians, mystics, and philosophers, including ''ʿaql'' ("Intellect"), ''al-insān al-kāmil'' ("Universal Man"), ''kalimat Allāh'' ("Word of God"), ''haqīqa muḥammadiyya'' ("The Muhammadan Reality"), and ''nūr muḥammadī'' ("The Muhammadan Light").
===''ʿAql''=== {{Main|'Aql}} One of the names given to a concept very much like the Christian Logos by the classical Muslim metaphysicians is ''ʿaql'', which is the "Arabic equivalent to the Greek {{lang|grc|νοῦς}} (intellect)."<ref name="EoI"/> In the writings of the Islamic neoplatonist philosophers, such as al-Farabi ({{Circa|872|950 AD}}) and Avicenna (d. 1037),<ref name="EoI"/> the idea of the ''ʿaql'' was presented in a manner that both resembled "the late Greek doctrine" and, likewise, "corresponded in many respects to the Logos Christology."<ref name="EoI"/>
The concept of ''logos'' in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity). In Sufism, for the Deist, no contact between man and God can be possible without the ''logos''. The ''logos'' is everywhere and always the same, but its personification is "unique" within each region. Jesus and Muhammad are seen as the personifications of the ''logos'', and this is what enables them to speak in such absolute terms.<ref>''Sufism: love & wisdom'' by Jean-Louis Michon, Roger Gaetani (2006) {{ISBN|0941532755}} p. 242 [https://books.google.com/books?id=UVt-EvXnEC4C&dq=Sufism+logos&pg=PA243]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=BMNQNOHXKOMC&dq=Sufism+logos&pg=PA148 ''Sufi essays''] by Seyyed Hossein Nasr 1973 {{ISBN|0873952332}} p. 148]</ref>
One of the boldest and most radical attempts to reformulate the neoplatonic concepts into Sufism arose with the philosopher Ibn Arabi, who traveled widely in Spain and North Africa. His concepts were expressed in two major works ''The Ringstones of Wisdom'' (''Fusus al-Hikam'') and ''The Meccan Illuminations'' (''Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya''). To Ibn Arabi, every prophet corresponds to a reality which he called a ''logos'' (''Kalimah''), as an aspect of the unique divine being. In his view the divine being would have for ever remained hidden, had it not been for the prophets, with ''logos'' providing the link between man and divinity.<ref>''Biographical encyclopaedia of Sufis'' by N. Hanif (2002). {{ISBN|8176252662}} p. 39 [https://books.google.com/books?id=2bhpr7RTLMAC&dq=Sufism+logos&pg=PA39]</ref>
Ibn Arabi seems to have adopted his version of the ''logos'' concept from neoplatonic and Christian sources,<ref>Charles A. Frazee, "Ibn al-'Arabī and Spanish Mysticism of the Sixteenth Century", ''Numen'' '''14''' (3), Nov 1967, pp. 229–240.</ref> although (writing in Arabic rather than Greek) he used more than twenty different terms when discussing it. For Ibn Arabi, the ''logos'' or "Universal Man" was a mediating link between individual human beings and the divine essence.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dobie |first=Robert J. |year= 2009 |title=Logos and Revelation: Ibn 'Arabi, Meister Eckhart, and Mystical Hermeneutics |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rWVwT3UpthUC&pg=PA225 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=The Catholic University of America Press |page=225 |isbn= 978-0813216775 |quote="For Ibn Arabi, the Logos or "Universal Man" was a mediating link between individual human beings and the divine essence."}}</ref>
Other Sufi writers also show the influence of the neoplatonic ''logos''.<ref>Edward Henry Whinfield, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=l0vHUo0wnlgC&pg=PR25 Masnavi I Ma'navi: The spiritual couplets of Maulána Jalálu-'d-Dín Muhammad Rúmí]'', Routledge (2001) [1898], {{ISBN|0415245311}}, p. xxv.</ref> In the 15th century Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī introduced the ''Doctrine of Logos and the Perfect Man''. For al-Jīlī, the "perfect man" (associated with the ''logos'' or the Prophet) has the power to assume different forms at different times and to appear in different guises.<ref>''Biographical encyclopaedia of Sufis'' N. Hanif (2002). {{ISBN|8176252662}} p. 98 [https://books.google.com/books?id=2bhpr7RTLMAC&q=logos+jili&pg=PA39]</ref>
In Ottoman Sufism, Şeyh Gâlib (d. 1799) articulates Sühan (''logos''-''Kalima'') in his ''Hüsn ü Aşk'' (''Beauty and Love'') in parallel to Ibn Arabi's Kalima. In the romance, ''Sühan'' appears as an embodiment of Kalima as a reference to the Word of God, the Perfect Man, and the Reality of Muhammad.<ref>Betül Avcı, "Character of ''Sühan'' in Şeyh Gâlib’s Romance, ''Hüsn ü Aşk'' (''Beauty and Love'')" ''Archivum Ottomanicum'', 32 (2015).</ref>{{Relevance inline|date=March 2018}}
==Jung's analytical psychology== [[File:Carl Jung (1912).png|thumb|upright|A 37-year-old Carl Jung in 1912]] Carl Jung contrasted the critical and rational faculties of ''logos'' with emotional, non-reason oriented and mythical elements.<ref>''C.G. Jung and the psychology of symbolic forms'' by Petteri Pietikäinen (2001) {{ISBN|9514108574}} p. 22</ref> In Jung's approach, ''logos'' vs ''eros'' can be represented as "science vs mysticism", or "reason vs imagination" or "conscious activity vs the unconscious".<ref>''Mythos and logos in the thought of Carl Jung'' by Walter A. Shelburne (1988) {{ISBN|0887066933}} p. 4 [https://books.google.com/books?id=yV-ZE8pyZjkC&q=logos]</ref>
For Jung, ''logos'' represented the masculine principle of rationality, in contrast to its feminine counterpart, ''eros'': {{Blockquote|text=Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle of ''Eros'', the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is ''Logos''. The concept of ''Eros'' could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of ''Logos'' as objective interest.<ref>Carl Jung, ''Aspects of the Feminine'', Princeton University Press (1982), p. 65, {{ISBN|0710095228}}.</ref>}}
==Rhetoric== Author and professor Jeanne Fahnestock describes ''logos'' as a "premise". She states that, to find the reason behind a rhetor's backing of a certain position or stance, one must acknowledge the different "premises" that the rhetor applies via their chosen diction.<ref name="members.tripod.com">{{cite web|last1=Fahnestock|first1=Jeanne|title=The Appeals: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos|url=http://members.tripod.com/butler_s/f2002-1002/appeals.html}}</ref> The rhetor's success, she argues, will come down to "certain objects of agreement...between arguer and audience".
==Rhema== The word ''logos'' has been used in different senses along with ''rhema''. Both Plato and Aristotle used the term ''logos'' along with ''rhema'' to refer to sentences and propositions.<ref name="Dinneen">''General linguistics'' by Francis P. Dinneen (1995). {{ISBN|0878402780}} p. 118 [https://books.google.com/books?id=H8njxDzC450C&dq=rhema+logos&pg=PA118]</ref><ref>''The history of linguistics in Europe from Plato to 1600'' by Vivien Law (2003) {{ISBN|0521565324}} p. 29 [https://books.google.com/books?id=M_ooh9Q9cDMC&dq=rhema+logos&pg=PA29]</ref>
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek uses the terms ''rhema'' and ''logos'' as equivalents and uses both for the Hebrew word ''dabar'', as the Word of God.<ref>''Theological dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1'' by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Geoffrey William Bromiley (1985). {{ISBN|0802824048}} p. 508 [https://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBUW_F9ogC&dq=dabar+rhema&pg=PA508]</ref><ref>''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q–Z'' by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995). {{ISBN|0802837840}} p. 1102 [https://books.google.com/books?id=6OJvO2jMCr8C&dq=dabar+rhema&pg=PA1102]</ref><ref>''Old Testament Theology'' by Horst Dietrich Preuss, Leo G. Perdue (1996). {{ISBN|0664218431}} p. 81 [https://books.google.com/books?id=aL6ahptzNiIC&dq=dabar+word&pg=PA81]</ref>
Some modern usage in Christian theology distinguishes ''rhema'' from ''logos'' (which here refers to the written scriptures) while ''rhema'' refers to the revelation received by the reader from the Holy Spirit when the Word (''logos'') is read,<ref name="Rogers">''What Every Christian Ought to Know''. Adrian Rogers (2005). {{ISBN|0805426922}} p. 162 [https://books.google.com/books?id=W0os7ZiHsf0C&dq=rhema+utterance&pg=PA163]</ref><ref>''The Identified Life of Christ''. Joe Norvell (2006) {{ISBN|1597812943}} p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=3FAhz_eshkMC&dq=rhema+logos&pg=PA142]</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Boggs |first=Brenda |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zzHMhw7Ty2cC&dq=rhema+logos&pg=PA80 |title=Holy Spirit, Teach Me |year=2008 |publisher=Xulon Press |isbn=978-1604774252 |pages=80 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Law |first=Terry |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gnWKWYkBwMcC&dq=rhema+logos&pg=PA45 |title=The Fight of Every Believer: Conquering the Thought Attacks That War Against Your Mind |date=2006 |publisher=Harrison House |isbn=978-1577945802 |pages=45 |language=en}}</ref> although this distinction has been criticized.<ref name="Draper">James T. Draper and Kenneth Keathley, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=bqqDCn9mp3YC&pg=PA113 Biblical Authority]'', Broadman & Holman (2001), {{ISBN|0805424539}}, p. 113.</ref><ref name="JohnMacArthur">John F. MacArthur, ''[https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TnVj53uZVjkC&pg=PA45 Charismatic Chaos]'', Zondervan (1993), {{ISBN|0310575729}}, pp. 45–46.</ref>
==See also== {{Portal|Philosophy}} * Asha * -logy * Dharma * Imiaslavie * Logocracy * Logotherapy * Om * Parmenides * Ṛta * Shabda * Sophia (wisdom) * Tao
==References== {{Reflist|2}}
==External links== {{Wikiquote}} * [http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm The Apologist's Bible Commentary] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910132403/http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm |date=2015-09-10 }} * [http://philosophyterms.com/logos/ Logos definition and example] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160625012423/http://philosophyterms.com/logos/ |date=2016-06-25 }} * {{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Logos |volume=16 |pages=919–921 |short=1 |ref=none}}
{{Stoicism}} {{Theology}} {{Authority control}}
Category:Ancient Greek logic Category:Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy Category:Conceptions of God Category:Concepts in ancient Greek epistemology Category:Concepts in ancient Greek metaphysics Category:Divinity Category:Heraclitus Category:Language and mysticism Category:Rhetoric Category:Stoicism Category:Aristotle