But isn't the life of Socrates one of actively hunting for the truth by perpetually questioning things?[/b] — Valentinus

As I said, your comments are indistinguishable from Fooloso4's incomprehensible pronouncements.

Socrates is teaching others how to rationally examine their beliefs.

As for himself, he says:

I assume in each case some principle which I consider strongest, and whatever seems to me to agree with this, whether relating to cause or to anything else, I regard as true, and whatever disagrees with it, as untrue (Phaedo 100a)

He did not perpetually question whether to take poison. He had made up his mind from the start and he explains to Simmias and Cebes why it is the right decision.

I think there is a marked difference between Socrates' hunt for intelligible realities and the obsessive-compulsive disorder of the skeptomaniacs and aporeticists. :smile:

Cicero does not discuss Socrates’ praying to the Sun.

Strauss does not discuss Cicero.

In the whole 294-page book, Strauss mentions Cicero only once, when he addresses Socrates' endurance to the heat of summer.

Strauss says:

Cicero's Republic is a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun, and the Laws is a dialogue in summer, where they seek the shade. Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god (p. 277)

Strauss discusses Socrates’ praying to the Sun as related by Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium.

He DOES NOT discuss Cicero at all.

Strauss also says that "Plato substitutes a natural theology for a civil theology".

In the tenth book of the Laws Plato presents what one might call his theology and also his political doctrine regarding gods. It consists in a substitution of the gods of the cosmos for the gods of the city. The impiety which is to be condemned is the impiety against the gods of the cosmos, but not the impiety against the gods of the city. We can say Plato substitutes a natural theology for a civil theology

Ergo, Strauss says that "the Sun is a cosmic God" and that "Plato has a theology consisting in a substitution of the cosmic Gods for the Gods of the city".

Of course I have read Strauss since I am quoting from his book On Plato's Symposium. He is right on certain issues but on others he displays symptoms of psychological deficiency and unscholarly methodology.

Well, the mistake or misunderstanding is entirely yours. As I said before, you can try actually reading what people are saying, for a change. :smile:

Anyway, I fail to see why I would need to explain something that is perfectly obvious.

Plato is not saying that he knows the truth, he is simply suggesting the WAY to the truth.

Socrates explains it in very clear terms. He even uses the term “hunt” with reference to non-physical realities.

The philosopher, i.e. lover of wisdom or seeker after knowledge, can hit upon reality only by hunting down each reality alone by itself and unalloyed (Phaedo 66a).

How do we hunt down (thereuomai) an animal? By following its tracks until we see it. Alternatively, we lie in wait until it appears in our field of vision.

Similarly, we follow the Sun’s tracks or reflections in water, etc., then follow its light, and, when our eyes have become accustomed to its brightness, we can look straight at the Sun itself (at least for a brief time) and see it as it is in itself (99e).

The same is true of the Forms. We follow their tracks in the images of particular objects of perception, we look into the truth of arguments about them, and when we have sufficiently trained our mind to become receptive and alert, we can start looking into the Forms themselves, by using thought alone by itself and unalloyed, and separated as far as possible from eyes and ears and virtually from the entire body (66a).

Plato does no more than to put us on the right track. The Truth-hunting has to be done by each lover of wisdom or seeker after truth, personally.

Likewise, the decision to go on the hunt is entirely for the individual to take. Plato puts no obligation on anyone to look into higher truth. People can still be good citizens and enjoy a life of peace and happiness by being righteous and wise.

Platonism offers something to everyone, including materialists. And those who like to find their supreme satisfaction in doubt, “aporia”, and similar things are at liberty to do so.

At any rate, I think we are more likely to arrive at truth by actively hunting for it than by perpetually questioning things and living a life of self-imposed ignorance, uncertainty, and doubt.

Your efforts fail to support your thesis. — Valentinus

I haven't got a thesis. I simply read what Plato writes and follow Socrates' advice to make up my own mind instead of listening to Straussian aporeticists, esotericists, and skeptomaniacs.

And, as I said, the Republic does not end in or lead to "aporia".

The claim to the effect that "philosophical inquiry leads to aporia" is spurious and unfounded IMHO.

If if were true, it would make philosophy worse than science and pretty much useless. And that's why we must disagree.

Strauss discusses Alcibiades' speech about Socrates.

This is why he quotes the Symposium:

He conceived a thought there and stood from dawn considering it, and when he couldn't make any progress, he refused to let up but kept on standing considering. It was now already noon, and the soldiers became aware of it, and in amazement one said to another, 'Socrates has been standing there since dawn reflecting.' Finally, some of the Ionians, when it was evening, once they had dined, - it was then summer - brought out their bedding and slept in the cold while keeping watch on him, to see whether he would stand also through the night. He stood till dawn and the sun came up; and then he went away after he had prayed to the sun (220c3-d5)

The scene with Socrates praying to the Sun is in Plato's Symposium, not in Cicero's Laws.

Strauss' book is about the Symposium. This is why he also mentions the Forms but only to say that Plato's theory of Ideas "sounds like an absolutely absurd doctrine" without even discussing it.

Which, incidentally, demonstrates that he is as unimaginative and clueless, i.e. psychologically and spiritually deficient, as his followers ....

Unified Germany doesn't seem like this bully with imperialist aspirations, because it hasn't got them, — ssu

I think a unified Germany without a proper military is a bigger problem for Europe than a properly armed Germany with realistic foreign policies.

Germany is Europe's largest country, with the strongest economy, and sitting right in the heart of Europe. It should logically be Europe's strongest defender. Instead, it is a giant with feet of clay that gives in to China, Turkey, and others before they even ask.

This puts Europe, the world's largest economy, in the ridiculous position of a military midget and political non-entity that is being colonized and taken over by others, just like America was once colonized and taken over by Europeans.

The West is turning itself into the laughing stock and doormat of the world.

In the Republic, Socrates expresses uncertainty if he has adequately depicted the Good. — Valentinus

So what? Socrates (or Plato) explains things as best he can in a small book that addresses many different issues. I don't think this is a reason for anyone to go on a doubt or "aporia" trip.

Questions are raised, some are well answered, others less so, but at the end of the day life goes on. The point is that the Republic does NOT end in or lead to aporia.

But the Imperial glory of annexing Crimea back got to Putin, and this finally woke NATO from it's deep stupor. Before that NATO was all about international operations and nothing about deterrence and defence of it's member states. Now it's not. Crimea and the civil war in Ukraine made things worst. — ssu

I agree with your statement to some extent. But I tend to see EU and NATO expansion as the primary cause of friction between the West and Russia.

The EU's idea was to gradually incorporate all former Communist Bloc and Soviet republics into its own economic and political system. This would have isolated Russia too much, creating an intolerable situation. For many Russians it was unthinkable to lose Ukraine. And the West was beginning to meddle in Russia itself.

The EU-US should have been more restrained toward Russia. West-Russia conflict can only benefit our enemies like China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey. We can't keep attacking Russia and letting China and others get away with murder just because it's good for business. That strategy is going to cost us dearly one day and I think it's going to be very soon.

It was irrational of Britain in the 1850s not to stay neutral, let Russia try to fend off France while perhaps learning a small lesson about whatever that was about, not bolster Turkey (which would have genuinely benefitted from modernising then and not in the 1920s). — Fine Doubter

Yes, the British always had a fear of being invaded by Continentals who were secretly digging tunnels under the sea to get them. So, British policy was dictated by the "balance of power" doctrine that aimed to side with the weaker continental power against the stronger.

After the unification of Germany in 1871 the situation was reversed and Germany was seen a competitor on the Continent and in other parts of the world like Africa and the Pacific.

Russia became Britain's other chief enemy and all because of the struggle for resources. Instead of having a united Europe we got two European civil wars, America replaced England, and now China is replacing America and the rest of the Western world. I think we need to wake up a.s.a.p. before it's too late.

I answer your questions when they are directed to comments I make. I don't when they refer to arguments you are having with others. — Valentinus

Well, you are systematically siding with @Fooloso4 and your own comments are indistinguishable from his.

Here is one of your staple comments:

The inquiry does lead to aporia. — Valentinus

My question was, if philosophical inquiry leads to aporia, then why would anyone engage in philosophical inquiry?

The way I see it, and this is the traditional view, philosophy is a quest for knowledge.

According to Socrates, knowledge of higher realities can be acquired only by looking into them with the soul alone by itself.

Therefore, the true philosopher (or lover of wisdom) practices "dying" which is separation of the conscious soul from the body and the material world (Phaedo 67e). (Obviously, as far as possible and for the duration of a particular session of intense inquiry.)

It isn't my fault that Plato has Socrates make those statements. I am simply following those statements to their logical conclusion.

Others may think that Socrates and Plato are either ignoramuses of fraudsters whose only teaching is "ignorance and aporia".

This is why communication between the two sides is impossible and there is no point in getting upset over it. I don't see Plato or Socrates getting upset over anything :smile:

I challenge you to answer my question without reference to what other people might have said. — Valentinus

I fail to see on what basis you can do that when you never care to answer my questions.

Plus your comments seem to be indistinguishable from @Fooloso4's own statements.

Yes, I do emphasize a "mystical" experience in relationship to reality, but only because this seems to be the logical conclusion to inquiry into abstract realities, and because this is the mainstream interpretation of Plato.

In contrast, your and your alter ego's interpretation makes no sense to me whatsoever. There seems to be an excessive focus on "Plato's dialogues' ending in aporia" that explains absolutely nothing.

To begin with, I don't think that lack of knowledge can serve as a basis for action as taken by Plato. Would Plato found a school if all he had to teach was "ignorance and aporia"? As tradition has it, Plato sailed to Syracuse in an apparent attempt to promote his political philosophy there. I very much doubt he did this on the basis of ignorance and aporia.

Plato's discursive environment simply aims to encourage readers to examine their beliefs and accept those that make most sense when placed under rational scrutiny. Anything else is just the imagination of anti-Platonist aporeticists and esotericists.

I can accept that some readers may see dialogues like Euthyphro as ending in "aporia", but where is the "aporia" in other works like the Republic or Laws???

Pakistan, the old US ally which was both in CENTO and SEATO, then an important ally to the US when Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, is the most interesting case here. It has portrayed itself as an ally in the war on Terror and yet basically founded the Taliban. Yet it didn't fall into the category of a "Rogue Nation". Perhaps it's nuclear deterrent helped in this. — ssu

Correct. Personally, I think there is more to it and Kissinger is one of the links that connects certain US interests with China and Pakistan (in an old alliance against Russia-friendly India). I think you will find more stuff on this in the US National Archives.

But you are right that the Russians are in a much better position in the region, first because it's their backyard and second because Russia's political situation makes long-term planning much easier than the US political system where short-term objectives tend to come first and presidents come and go every few years.

Unfortunately, America and Europe seem to be on a warpath with Russia whilst at the same time leaving many weak spots exposed and allowing China, Turkey, and Pakistan to exert too much influence to the point that the situation is becoming dangerous for the whole Western world.

The Western world order took a long time to establish and once it starts unraveling it can go downhill very fast.

Westerners tend not to understand and not to care. "Human rights", "the environment", and "wild life (in the Third World)" is all that matters to most of us.

So, Turkey didn't announce what you said they announced. — hairy belly

That was what I had heard on the news, that Erdogan offered to deploy Turkish troops at Kabul if the Taliban agreed. And Khan was offering to put Erdogan in touch with the Taliban. This seems to be supported by the articles I posted. I will post more when I find them.

Of course Erdogan has plans for Afghanistan. I think @ssu understands the situation much better.

1. Strauss' book is entitled "On Plato's Symposium".

2. The incident of Socrates praying to the Sun is discussed in Chapter 12, "Alcibiades", that discusses Alcibiades' speech about Socrates in the Symposium.

3. Strauss quotes Alcibiades' speech about Socrates:

He conceived a thought there and stood from dawn considering it, and when he couldn't make any progress, he refused to let up but kept on standing considering. It was now already noon, and the soldiers became aware of it, and in amazement one said to another, 'Socrates has been standing there since dawn reflecting.' Finally, some of the Ionians, when it was evening, once they had dined, - it was then summer - brought out their bedding and slept in the cold while keeping watch on him, to see whether he would stand also through the night. He stood till dawn and the sun came up; and then he went away after he had prayed to the sun (220c3-d5)

- L Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, p. 276

4. Strauss only mentions Cicero's Republic and Laws to say that the former is a dialogue in winter when people seek the sun, and the latter in summer when they seek the shade, in order to contrast this with Socrates who seeks the sun in summer "when its light is the strongest and in accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end" and "let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god" to explain why Socrates prayed to the Sun (p. 277), after which he continues discussing the next Symposium passage (220d5-e7).

5. Nothing to do with Cicero whatsoever except to emphasize Socrates' seeking the Sun in the summer, when the Sun is at its brightest, as opposed to what people normally do. Period.

Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s and has already formed an alliance (Turkic Council) with Turkic speaking Central Asian states like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

But the idea of a Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China was in fact the idea of Kissinger who was Turkey’s and China’s best friend:

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV

The call to not accept ignorance as a final condition are the closing words of Socrates in the Gorgias — Valentinus

That's great. However, it seems to contradict the claims of your alter ego:

If Socrates is ignorant regarding the things above and the things below, namely, Forms and Hades, then nothing he says about such things can be taken at face value — Fooloso4

Socrates, in other words, is supposed to have died an "ignoramus". So, what hope do the rest of us have??? :grin:

Who is putting pressure on Pakistan? I guess nobody is. — ssu

Certainly not the West. And that's where the problem is and has been for a very long time. There is a US-Pakistan-China connection that works against Western interests and that some people refuse to see.

And yes, Erdogan tries to be active everywhere: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. — ssu

Exactly. That's his plan. This is why he got elected, to make the Turkish Empire great again. And he's got to do it (1) because he likes being a great leader, (2) because he is an Islamist who wants Turkey to be the leader of the Muslim world, and (3) because that's what his own people expect him to do. And he's got powerful allies like Russia and China.

The West's world order is falling apart and the Turkish and other vultures are circling in the sky ....

Nobody that I know of characterizes the unfolding of the Dialectic to be antithetical to contemplation of an ultimate reality. — Valentinus

Good try. Or, perhaps, not so good.

From what I see, some claim that Socrates could never have contemplated metaphysical realities (1) because he had a young son and (2) because the realities he was talking about don't exist ....

In other words, having a young son prevented Socrates from contemplating metaphysical realities, but not from endlessly talking about them, or from drinking poison.

And, anyway, the inquiry "leads to aporia". So, it's all crystal clear then :smile:

Well, what you read there is diplomatic language.

Of course Erdogan is not going to say openly what his intention is. But he's got troops in many countries and once they are in, under any pretext, they will carry out Erdogan's plan as instructed.

There are people of Turkic origin in Afghanistan that Erdogan may be able to exploit. And he may make a deal with China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and Turkic states like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan that are allies of Erdogan.

But Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said yesterday, Wednesday, in statements to foreign media in Islamabad - after talks with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar - that his country is making efforts to facilitate talks between the Taliban and Ankara.

"The best thing is for Turkey and the Taliban to have a direct dialogue, so that the two sides can talk about the reasons why Kabul airport should be secured," Khan added.

https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-08-11-erdogan--i-may-receive-the-taliban-leader-in-the-coming-period.BJGKZYa-gK.html

I for one can't imagine Erdogan staying out of it. Who's going to stop him, you?

Turkey has offered to deploy troops at Kabul airport after NATO withdraws and has held talks with the United States for weeks. In exchange, President Tayyip Erdogan has asked for financial, logistical and diplomatic conditions to be met.

In a televised interview with broadcaster CNN Turk on Wednesday, Erdogan said he could meet with the Taliban as part of efforts to end the fighting in Afghanistan.

"Our related institutions are making efforts that could extend as far as some meetings with the Taliban... I could even meet the one that will be in the position of their leader," Erdogan said

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-08-11/turkey-still-keen-to-run-kabul-airport-despite-taliban-advances-officials-say

Of course Erdogan is not going to miss the opportunity to fill some of the power vacuum created by the US withdrawal, is he?

Correct. Erdogan is the Hitler and Stalin of the Mid East.

He dreams of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire that included the Mid East, North Africa, and Southeastern Europe and has forged close alliances with other Muslim Central Asians in an attempt to create a Turkish zone from China and Pakistan to the Mediterranean and beyond.

That is translated as 'wisdom', although the 'jn-' particle is an etymological cognate with the 'gn-' of gnosticism. In Buddhism, it is understood as a real, practical insight into the principle of dependent origination. — Wayfarer

That was exactly what I was thinking myself. "Jn-/gn-" is also cognate with the "kn-" of English "know" which comes from Proto-Indo-European via Germanic and Anglo-Saxon.

The Buddhist concept of dependent origination is related to the Hindu concept of consciousness generating cognition by producing name (nama) and form (rupa) which in turn give rise to sense-perception and the sensible world. And the two concepts come very close to Platonic Forms.

Ancient Greek makes no distinction between "word" and "name". For Plato, a word acquires its meaning by there being an object of which the word is the name. And if there is a word or name for something, there is a corresponding "Form". Hence, "Name" and "Form", exactly as in the Indian concept of nama and rupa.

I think, possibly, the Platonic forms or ideas are not so remote or mysterious as many are making them out to be. One clue for me is platonism in mathematics. — Wayfarer

Those with a "mathematical mind" may indeed find it easier to grasp the idea of Forms. Plato's Forms aim, in the first place, to explain the phenomenon of identity in difference, and this requires a certain kind of abstract imagery where mathematics may be helpful.

But the metaphysical aim of the Forms is to lead the mind to their ultimate source which is the Good or the One, the cause of all things that are good. And this can only be consciousness itself. Thus, by inquiring into the Forms, the mind eventually arrives at the point where determinate cognition arises from indeterminate consciousness, and the inquiring mind merges with consciousness in the process of creating cognition and, ultimately, with transcendent consciousness itself.

This is logically the final stage of self-knowledge which coincides with knowledge of ultimate reality where all is One.

Strauss is talking about Socrates.

He says:

Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god

Obviously, "cosmic God" for Socrates (and Plato).

Strauss is discussing Plato's Symposium (that's what the book is about!) where the information regarding Socrates' praying to the Sun is provided by Alcibiades:

Immersed in some problem at dawn, he stood in the same spot considering it; and when he found it a tough one, he would not give it up but stood there trying. The time drew on to midday, and the men began to notice him, and said to one another in wonder: ‘Socrates has been standing there in a study ever since dawn!’ The end of it was that in the evening some of the Ionians after they had supped—
this time it was summer—brought out their mattresses and rugs and took their sleep in the cool; thus they waited to see if he would go on standing all night too. He stood till dawn came and the sun rose; then walked away, after offering a prayer to the Sun (Symp. 220c-d)

And Plato's "theology that consists in a substitution of the gods of the cosmos for the gods of the city" is a theology that substitutes the cosmic Gods, like the Sun, for the Gods of the city. Period.

There is nothing unclear about that at all. Not to normal people, in any case. :smile:

Regardless of the West's mistakes, I think it is important not to ignore Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan.

For decades, Pakistan has served as a sanctuary for the Afghan Taliban, who have often crossed the countries’ rugged, 1,660-mile border with ease. Officials have acknowledged that Taliban fighters maintain homes and families in Pakistan, at a safe distance from the battlefields …
Pakistan has leverage that it is not bringing to bear, government officials in other countries say. It still allows Taliban leaders free movement into and out of the country and continues to serve as a safe haven where fighters and their families can receive medical care, they say.
Some critics, particularly in Afghanistan, accuse Pakistan of actively supporting the Taliban’s offensive, saying that the insurgents could not have mounted such a large effort without assistance. On social media, the hashtag campaign #SanctionPakistan has gained popularity in Afghanistan and among the diaspora.

Pakistan Under Pressure as Taliban Advance in Afghanistan - The New York Times

Pakistan's leaders clearly see the Taliban's occupation of Afghanistan as a "victory" and a "liberation from Western slavery". Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban.

Taliban have broken ‘the shackles of slavery,’ says Pakistan PM Imran Khan – The Independent

So, the more pressure is put on Pakistan and other rogue states in the region, the better.

Regarding religious considerations, the core of the Platonic project is encapsulated in several statements in the dialogues such as the following from the Republic:

We shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil, and so we shall hold ever to the upward way and pursue righteousness with wisdom always and ever, that we may be dear to ourselves and to the Gods both here and in the hereafter (Rep. 621c)

The phrase “upward way”, ano odos, indicates that Platonism is a process of vertical progress that takes the philosopher through a hierarchy of realities ranging from the human experience to ultimate truth, and that the means of entering it are righteousness (dikaiosyne) and wisdom (phronesis}, i.e., ethical conduct and spiritual insight.

However, if we encounter Gods or other metaphysical entities on our way to the highest, we will know this as and when it happens. So, we need not be overly concerned with the Gods.

Plato has a hierarchy of divine entities consisting in ascending order of (1) Olympic Gods, (2) Cosmic Gods, and (3) Creator God who is the Good or the One. The One is the unfathomable and indescribable Ultimate Reality, and the goal on which the philosopher must fix his mind.

All we need to know about the One is that it has two aspects, one in which it looks as it were “inward” and has no other experience than itself, and one in which it looks “outward” and sees the Cosmos which is the One’s own creation.

Now, supposing someone, e.g. a Greek, is a religious person, they may choose to worship the Olympic Gods by going to the local temple, or simply reciting a hymn or prayer to them at home. If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them. But it may still help to acknowledge the Gods on a different level.

For example, starting with the astronomical facts, if you are facing north, you have the Sky above and the Earth below, the setting Moon in the west is to your left and the Sun rising in the east is to your right. By picturing that arrangement in your mind, you organize your inner world, and put yourself in touch with a larger reality. The simple acknowledgement of Sky, Earth, Moon, and Sun, already has a psychological and spiritual effect on your psyche.

In Jungian terms, you may create a mental mandala consisting of an outer circle described by the twelve Olympic Gods representing the heavens with the twelve houses of the zodiac and twelve months of the year. Inscribed in the outer circle, you visualize a square with Sky, Earth, Sun, and Moon on its four sides. Inside the square, you visualize the ocean with the Island of Paradise (the Island of the Blessed) in the center, and think of yourself as being there.

You can make it as detailed and intricate as you want, though it is best to keep it as simple and as realistic as possible. In any case, the purpose of visualizations of this type is to place the meditator in the right frame of mind, i.e., to facilitate detachment from everyday external surroundings and induce a state of consciousness in which new forms of awareness and experience may be explored. The rest is a matter of practice, always following the basic sense-withdrawal, concentration, and contemplation pattern.

The point I am making is that contemplating the Forms, e.g. the Good or the One, is an essential element of Platonism and Socrates repeatedly speaks of the need for the soul to look at intelligible or metaphysical realities “alone on its own” whilst turning away from the world of appearance (Phaedo 79d). But this is something that actually transcends religion. It is a highly flexible and adaptable procedure that can be practiced by anyone, including atheists and Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims or Jews, and using cultural elements from any tradition.

My position is, as I'm not wedded to physicalism, then I'm open to the possibility of higher states of being or higher knowledge, but I can't claim to know them as a matter of fact. — Wayfarer

I totally agree with that. Nobody should claim that they have knowledge that they either don't have or is mere belief.

But nor should they claim that other people's personal experience is just imagination.

And they certainly should not deny statements clearly made in the dialogues. For example, if the Republic says "the Sun is one of the Gods in heaven", then it is irrational to insist that it does not say so.

The issue is not whether one believes that the Sun is or is not a God. The issue is whether Socrates in the dialogue makes this statement. If he unquestionably does so, then it is unacceptable to deny it, all the more so when no rational reason or evidence for the denial is provided.

If so, I repeat my previous statement that such a view is at odds with Socrates' willingness to pursue ideas despite such difficulties. — Valentinus

But what is the point in "pursuing ideas" if that pursuit leads to "aporia"?

And, having read one dialogue that allegedly leaves the reader in a state of "aporia", why read another dialogue that leaves the reader in the same "aporetic" condition?

What I fail to see is how additional aporia can resolve the initial aporia. Or is the intention to maximize the aporetic state until all reasoning ability has been suspended?

Besides, you are not answering my question. If the text says "the soul turns out to be immortal" or "the Sun is one of the Gods", on what rational basis can we deny that it says this?

Don't you think it's also revealing that you wish to dissociate Plato from anything religious whatever? — Wayfarer

Correct. This appears to go so far as to deny that in the Republic, for example, Socrates says that the Sun is one of the Gods (something that most Greeks would have agreed with), in spite of the fact that even notorious anti-Platonists like Strauss admit that the Sun is a God and that Plato has a theology involving cosmic Gods like the Sun:

Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god ... In the tenth book of the Laws Plato presents what one might call his theology and also his political doctrine regarding gods. It consists in a substitution of the gods of the cosmos [e.g. the Sun] for the gods of the city

- L Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, pp. 38, 277

The issue is, a thorough-going secular philosophy has no imaginative domain which corresponds with 'the mystical'. In a secular system, 'the mystical' is synonymous with nothing, nonsense, non-being, it's a placeholder or a frightening vacuum which the gullible seek to fill with religious beliefs. — Wayfarer

I think the issue may be described as psychological deficiency if not pathology.

I can understand if some people have an aversion toward religion or spirituality and in particular toward Plato, and I have no problem with that. But when doubt and denial become compulsive then we are dealing with a pathological condition IMHO.

In any event, "aporia" can become a debilitating fixation, it seems, that is as toxic as religious fanaticism - if not worse. :smile:

But at the same time, whatever philosophy we have, has to be able to accomodate the genuinely novel discoveries of science since the 17th century. So we have to thread the needle between the two extremes of dogmatic belief systems on the one hand, and scientific materialism on the other. — Wayfarer

As a general principle, yes. However, when the materialists insist on denying that Plato makes antimaterialist statements in his dialogues, then it is unclear how their claims can be accommodated.

Saying that an inquiry leads to aporia is not equivalent to stating that the purpose of it has been cancelled. — Valentinus

Saying that an inquiry leads to aporia does not constitute proof that Plato's statements are not in the dialogue or that he preaches atheism, skepticism, and nihilism, does it?

I never said anything of the kind. — Valentinus

Really? What about statements like this one:

The inquiry does lead to aporia. — Valentinus

If philosophical inquiry "leads to aporia," then what is the point in philosophical inquiry?

And you are not answering my question. If the text says "the soul turns out to be immortal" or "the Sun is one of the Gods", on what rational basis can we deny that it says this?

Why would I need to defend what the text says?

I think it is for the anti-Platonists to show that the text doesn't say what it says.

But you can't do that hence you profess "aporia" and insist that this is all that Plato has to say ....

It seems like you want to cast the limits of our understanding, that Plato brings to our attention, to be actually some sort of catechism to something else. — Valentinus

Not at all. On the contrary, it seems like some people choose to deny Plato's statements and replace everything with spurious claims of "ignorance" and "aporia".

What exactly is the purpose of writing a book - actually, lots of books - that teaches that there are some things that we don't know. Don't we know that already???

Besides, my views are supported by the text of the dialogues and by a very long Platonist tradition and to my knowledge they are mainstream. And I haven't seen any evidence here that Plato teaches atheism, skepticism, and nihilism.

If the text says "the soul is immortal" or "the Sun is one of the Gods", on what rational basis can we deny that it says that?

I find that possible also. But how that construction would work for folk troubles me. What would be the fundamental base of that moral system? From where morals would come from? And how we could convince people follow it without any God "punishment"? — dimosthenis9

Well, personally, when I judge the ethical value of a particular action, I decide whether that action is "good" or "bad" on the basis of upbringing. This tends to be my primary motivation in avoiding a particular action, for example, not the thought that I may be punished by God, though I can't rule out that possibility should I choose to take a different course of action.

I think children are quite good at learning what is right and what is wrong if they have parents who are themselves good role models.

It would need to start with basic things such as discipline, self-control, and cleanliness which is something that even animals can learn without any fear of God.

In those cases where upbringing and education fail to have the desired effect, there would be fear of the law or social disapproval. But I agree that sometimes it may be easier to tell children that God will punish them to instill right behavior. And, as I said, the possibility of divine punishment cannot be ruled out.

One thing that puzzles me about this last statement is that it doesn't square with your efforts in other places to see Plato presenting a unified theory of the soul. — Valentinus

Well, maybe some people are in a perpetual state of puzzlement, which is why they seem so attached to the word "aporia". :smile:

Personally, I prefer to read Plato's dialogues at face value first and then see if anything else may be inferred from them that does not appear to be there on first sight.

For example:

But if we are guided by me we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil, and so we shall hold ever to the upward way and pursue righteousness with wisdom always and ever, that we may be dear to ourselves and to the gods both during our sojourn here and when we receive our reward, as the victors in the games go about to gather in theirs. And thus both here and in that journey of a thousand years, whereof I have told you, we shall fare well (Rep. 621c-d).

To me, this suggests belief in the soul of the kind that would have been quite widespread in 4th-century BC Greek society. And I see no indication whatsoever that Plato intends the reader to disbelieve that statement.

As regards "theories", we call them that because it has become customary practice, not because Plato himself employed that term.

And because Platonism is a practical system, things like "soul" and "Forms" are to be known or experienced personally, through reason and contemplation. The accounts or arguments relating to them serve as pointers or reminders, which is logical if we consider that the soul is real and that it is supposed to have previous knowledge of the Forms.

In contrast, the assumption that Plato spent all his life writing books, and even founded a school, for no other purpose than to preach ignorance and "aporia", seems rather unfounded and far-fetched to me.

So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions?! — dimosthenis9

I think it is perfectly possible to construct a moral system without religious beliefs. Upbringing, education, and a legal system would be quite adequate to enforce proper conduct.

However, I think the evidence to support the belief that the world would be a "better place" without religion just isn't there.

Those who think that concentration and contemplation requires "asceticism" seem to be as psychologically deficient as those who think that meditation can be practiced only in the "lotus" posture.

The same applies to those who claim that having a son precludes one from contemplating metaphysical realities but not from talking all day long about them. Their inability to see the absurdity of their claim is all too characteristic.

But nothing beats those who imagine that Plato wrote books for the sole purpose of teaching ignorance and "aporia" .... :lol:

Training by going to war is a disastrous policy as you are then spending a lot of resources. Far better to train without your soldiers getting dead. — ssu

However, military service is not mandatory. And the USD trillions spent don't just disappear, they are going into someone's pockets.

Plus, the problem still remains that Afghanistan is impossible to sort out without first addressing the problem of Pakistan and its support for the Taliban.

Don't try a military solution when you need a political solution. — ssu

1. Countries don't always deploy their military to achieve a solution. Sometimes they do it to test new weapons, train their troops, or boost their military industry.

2. I don't think any solution in Afghanistan is possible without first addressing the problem posed by Pakistan and its support for the Taliban.