I also am ambivalent in respect of the word 'spiritual'. The terms I'm familiar with are psyche, nous, and logos. Many of these key concepts were assimilated and transformed by the Greek Christian theologians and are now seen through that lens. — Wayfarer

Well, I think either we are using terms like "spiritual" or we are not. If we are, then we can't backtrack by saying that we are "ambivalent" about the word "spiritual".

Latin spirit is more or less the equivalent of Greek psyche. It denotes an immortal, non-physical, life-giving reality.

An equivalent Greek term would be pneuma , "spirit".

"Pneuma (πνεῦμα‎‎, Lat. spiritus) is connected etymologically with πνέω ‎‎, breathe or blow, and has a basic meaning of ‘air in motion’, or ‘breath’ as something necessary to life. In Greek tragedy it is used of the ‘breath of life’. In early Greek thought pneuma is often connected with the soul.

‘Psychic pneuma’ also constitutes the soul and underlies sensory and motor activities in a number of ancient medical theories.

Pneuma - Oxford Classical Dictionary

Whatever we choose to call it, it is still a non-physical, life-giving reality. "Spiritual" in the sense of "psychic", and "pneumatic", i.e., "relating to spirit, psyche or pneuma" is simply the English adjective for "spirit" or "soul".

This being so, in what sense may it be said that spirit is not spiritual or that soul is not soul-like?

It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that God, being all good, would want to respect the privacy and dignity of innocent others and so would not make himself aware of all that others think and desire and intend. — Bartricks

I'm not sure that would apply to God. In the same way a child's dignity is not violated by the parent's knowledge of intimate details about the child, so also, a human being's dignity is not violated if God, our heavenly father, knows all our thoughts and actions.

If God were to have no knowledge of what humans get up to, he would be unable to judge and reward or punish us, and this would go against the principle of justice that upholds human society and the whole world.

Additionally, if everything is an emanation of God and God and humans are essentially identical, then the issue of dignity does not arise in God-human relations.

Your claim was this:

Nowhere in all of this is the soul identified as "spiritual". — Fooloso4

My reply was this:

If the soul is an immortal, non-physical, and life-giving entity, I think that makes it spiritual, from Latin spiritus: — Apollodorus

The soul or spirit is, by definition, spiritual. The onus is on you to show that this is not the case.

Also, remember that you have previously made a similar claim to the effect that "nowhere do the dialogues say that the soul is immortal". As can be clearly seen, it is a false claim.

Apparently, you do not see that this is exactly what is happening. You take statements at face value and go no further, as if the truth has been revealed. It is said and thus it is. Fine for revealed religion but not for philosophy. — Fooloso4

Not at all. As usual, you seem to be alternating between diversion and evasion, on one hand and puerile ad hominems on the other, in the false hope that this is somehow miraculously going to save you even though you have already lost the argument. It looks like atheism is a form of religion after all :grin:

The fact of the matter is that Socrates advises the readers to use reason. And reason leads to noesis. Philosophy is a process of ascent from lower to higher forms of knowledge, remember?

Of course the dialogues are sufficiently self consistent. But the consistency only becomes apparent when viewed in the light of idealism, not materialist atheism and nihilism.

Funny how you rejected mention of Leibniz, but now that you think he supports your argument you appeal to him. — Fooloso4

Totally untrue. I never "rejected mention of Leibniz" at all. I rejected your preposterous claim that according to Leibniz Plato was a covert atheist as were Ibn Sina, Clement of Alexandria, and Plato himself.

I can quote your own statements anytime should you wish me to do so.

This, loosely speaking, subjective "color" consists in both dimensionality and properties of fragmentary feeling, so that organic matter is infused with rudiments of consciousness. The large array of superposition forms results in the wide variety of perceptual types: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, interoceptive and introspective. — Enrique

Organic matter being infused with rudiments of consciousness sounds entirely reasonable to me.

We can't perceive matter without consciousness anyway. So there has to be contact between matter and consciousness at some point.

Maybe there is an intermediate state where consciousness and matter intersect and intermingle to some extent?

Alternatively, matter may ultimately be a form of consciousness.

I am not sure nature programmed us for monogamy. — Athena

Monogamy certainly exists in nature, apparently among turtle doves, swans, etc.

Even when not long term, it does occur at least for one or several mating seasons.

Monogamy in animals - Wikipedia

Alternatives include situations where a single alpha male dominates a group of females, such as among gorillas, cattle or horses. Would you prefer that?

Anyway, some theories insist that monogamy is better suited for the human species:

Are humans naturally monogamous or polygamous? - The Irish Times

My personal impression is that human populations where monogamy is prevalent tend to be more successful than others. Otherwise, the world would be dominated by polygamous cultures which does not seem to be the case.

So, perhaps, the ideal society is one where monogamy prevails but some exceptions are allowed. For example, religious, political, and military leaders could be allowed more than one partner.

But, whatever system we choose, I believe it would need to be beneficial to a population and it should be chosen democratically.

A principle is an assumption, an hypothesis. — Fooloso4

I think you are confused.

Socrates says quite clearly, “there is another section in which it advances from its assumption to a beginning or principle that transcends assumption” (510b).

A principle that transcends assumption is an unhypothetical principle, i.e., a self-explicable or auto-explicable first principle.

As already stated, all knowledge and all objects of knowledge are emanations of the Good.

Then the good is not the cause of everything, rather it is the cause of the things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things. (Republic 379b) — Fooloso4

And your point is what exactly?

Of course there is no need for the Good "to be responsible for the bad things".

As explained by Plotinus, evil does not exist as a substance or property but instead as a privation of substance, form, and goodness - Plotinus, Enneads, I, 8; O’Brien, D., 1996, “Plotinus on matter and evil,” The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, L.P. Gerson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–195.

What you fail to understand is that the dialogues are just brief sketches, not encyclopedic works. As Socrates says in the analogy, just as you don't look at the Sun to avoid being blinded, you don't look at the Good but at reason in order to see things. Otherwise said, use your reasoning faculty, don't expect to be spoonfed.

I do not think any girl fancied me because of my lack of money... — Tobias

If that is the case, it must have been because of your mind. Or as the OP says, your person ....

Nowhere in all of this is the soul identified as "spiritual". — Fooloso4

If the soul is an immortal, non-physical, and life-giving entity, I think that makes it spiritual, from Latin spiritus:

"spirit A supernatural being, often but not exclusively without physical form; ghost, fairy, angel."

spirit - Wiktionary

The Good is a meta-principle that explains the function of other, subordinate principles as part of a harmonious whole, i.e., how they all fit together to form a functioning, ordered system. — Apollodorus

That the Good is a meta-principle that explains the function of other, subordinate principles as part of a harmonious whole, is evident from Socrates’ analogy of the Sun:

“The Sun, I presume you will say, not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation … In like manner, then, you are to say that the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the Good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the Good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power … Conceive then, as we were saying, that there are these two entities, and that one of them is sovereign over the intelligible order and region and the other over the world of the eye-ball, not to say the sky-ball, but let that pass. You surely apprehend the two types, the visible and the intelligible” (Republic 509b ff.).

In the same way as the Sun, by means of its light, produces the ability to see and be seen, the Good by means of the light of truth, produces the ability to know and be known. The Good is that which enables us to know the truth, making it possible for us to have knowledge.

What the Sun does in the world of the visible, the Good does in the world of the intelligible:

1. Sensible (visible) world: Sun > light > sight > visible objects.

2. Intelligible (invisible) world: Good > truth > knowledge > known objects.

3. The Sun itself is the "offspring of the Good" (507a).

Thus, the Good is the metaphysical first principle of everything from which truth, i.e., reality emanates.

This makes Plato’s system a form of idealism:

“Plato’s idealism, which asserts the reality of non-physical Ideas to explain the status of norms and then reduces all other reality to mere simulacra of the former might be considered a forerunner of ontological idealism … In contrasting Epicurus with Plato, Leibniz called the latter an idealist and the former a materialist, because according to him idealists like Plato hold that “everything occurs in the soul as if there were no body” …”

Idealism – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Does Plato identify a spiritual aspect? The spirited part of the tripartite soul in the Republic, for example, is not spiritual in the sense I think you are using the term. The chariot image of the soul in the Phaedrus does not have a spiritual aspect either. — Fooloso4

I think it is quite clear that the spiritual part of the soul is that which is immortal in it, the principle of life that animates the body-mind complex.

Socrates says:

“… since that which is moved by itself has been seen to be immortal, one who says that this self-motion is the essence and the very idea of the soul, will not be disgraced. For every body which derives motion from without is soulless, but that which has its motion within itself has a soul, since that is the nature of the soul; but if this is true, — that that which moves itself is nothing else than the soul, — then the soul would necessarily be ungenerated and immortal. Concerning the immortality of the soul this is enough”.

After which he says:

"but about its form we must speak in the following manner. To tell what it really is would be a matter for utterly superhuman and long discourse, but it is within human power to describe it briefly in a figure; let us therefore speak in that way. We will liken the soul to the composite nature of a pair of winged horses and a charioteer" 245e – 246a

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174%3Atext%3DPhaedrus%3Asection%3D246a

Socrates says that the soul is immortal, after which he describes the immortal soul by means of the charioteer analogy.

It follows that the analogy must be read in the light of the fact that the soul is an immortal, spiritual entity.

I am longing for a woman to say, I love you for your body, to hell with your mind — Tobias

Sounds like a reasonable longing to me. But would she say "to hell with your mind and your money", or just "to hell with your mind"?

You assume a certain educational background, perhaps economic status, regional bias, etc. just from how I write. — Hanover

However, the question seems to be whether you "loathe all things American" or live in the countryside, as a key criterion of classification.

You don't love a person because you love his body; you only start to love his body after you start to love his person. — Kaveski

But how do you know it is "love" and not just attraction, infatuation or something else?

Actually, if you look really closely, you'll see that the issues haven't been resolved yet. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, looking at this thread, it certainly looks that way :grin:

But I wouldn't worry too much about it. When I was in my early teens, no one at school spoke of “Platonism”. It was always individual authors like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. So, when I first read Plato’s dialogues like Timaeus, Symposium, Republic, I was unaware of the existence of a system called “Platonism”.

However, the main points I took away from reading the texts were: the creation of the world by the Demiurge, the necessity of cultivating the four virtues in the attainment of societal and personal happiness, the importance of justice or righteousness as a guiding principle, the illusory nature of the sensible world, the tripartite soul and its ascent to higher planes of existence or experience, the nous, the Forms, the Good, the One, becoming virtuous and godlike as far as possible as the ultimate goal of life, and the role of philosophy and contemplation in facilitating the achievement of that goal.

It was several years later that I learned of Platonism as an actual system and what to me felt quite natural was that “Platonism” was based on exactly what I had read in the dialogues.

Incidentally, as Gerson points out, if you were to ask any moderately well-educated person in antiquity what the goal of life is according to the teachings of Plato, they would answer “to become godlike as far as possible”. So, it seems to me that the main difference is not so much between Plato and Plotinus as it is between how Plato was understood in antiquity and how he is interpreted today by some academic authors.

If we insist that there were major changes, for example, from Plato to Plotinus, we should be able to show what those changes are and to what extent (if at all) they are inconsistent with (a) the text of the dialogues and (b) with how Plato was understood in the interim.

As Gerson says, and I agree with him, is that:

“… what we find in the dialogues is an expression of one positive, continuously refined, construct out of UP [Ur-Platonism]. Actually, as I have argued, the positive construct is properly located within the ongoing work of the Academy under Plato’s leadership and the dialogues represent in effect occasional dramatized summaries of provisional results in the course of that work … Aristotle’s own work, both within the Academy and then in his own Lyceum, represents an alternative positive construct out of UP … Plotinus did not think that a systematization of Plato’s Platonism was a novelty … As far as we know, he thought that the system was articulated by Plato, not for the first time, but most profoundly and persuasively. And by ‘system’, of course, I mean fundamental metaphysical principles, certainly not all the possible consequences that can be drawn from there … Was Plato a Platonist? My answer to this question is yes, with what I hope to have shown is a reasonable qualification. ‘Platonism’ refers to any version of a positive construct on the basis of UP. For all soi-disant followers of Plato from the Old Academy onward, Plato’s version takes the crown … As I have argued, the unification of the elements of UP into a single positive construct was of paramount importance. That is why Platonism is a metaphysical doctrine … I have argued in this book that Proclus’ praise of Plotinus as leading the way in the exegesis of the Platonic revelation is essentially correct. This is a view shared by scholars of Platonism and by Platonists, too, well into the nineteenth century …”

Gerson correctly points out that any contrary views are a recent development arising from the over-critical reading of individual dialogues independently of other dialogues which in some cases has led to the absurd inference among a few scholars that the dialogues represent no philosophical writings at all!

Gerson concludes that:

“Platonism is not primarily what we might term a ‘dialogic artifact’. It was primarily a way of life. And the focus of that way of life, at least within the Academy, was the positive construction of a theoretical framework on the foundation of UP. This does not make the dialogues irrelevant; it makes them what all Platonists took them to be, namely, λόγοι [logoi] of that way of life” - L. P. Gerson, From Plato to Plotinus, p. 309

I think that the class system has broken down a lot because people are mobile through various factors, such as education. — Jack Cummins

I must agree with that. I think that there is a working class, middle class, and upper class in every complex society. The system may be more rigid in some countries than in others, but fundamentally, it's the same story everywhere. You can only eliminate the class system by eliminating classes and classes can be eliminated only by making every citizen equal in all respects to the rest of society.

Incidentally, @JohnLocke appears to be critical of the upper and working classes, which, presumably, means that he at least partly, identifies himself as middle class.

What they choose to loath is a matter of subjective preference. From an ethical perspective, to force ideas of loathing anything British onto others is facist. Sadly, this happens in Britain too. — JohnLocke

So, it seems that in some cases, some forms of loathing are replaced by others and it comes down to which forms of loathing are preferable. Sounds like a hard nut to crack. I wouldn't like to be in a position where I would have to decide.

But I don't see how classes can be done away with unless we make everybody earn and spend an equal amount of money. I think this was one of Marx's original ideas that he later had to abandon as it was impracticable.

Maybe the state can replace employers and pay everyone equal wages. But it will also have to force everyone to spend an equal amount, otherwise some might get the idea of spending less and end up being richer than others.

And Aristotle himself is, in a way, a Platonist. The thing is, Plato had a lot of different teachings which could be interpreted in different ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Plato's own system was far from finalized. Obviously, all the essential features were already in place. But there was some debate within the Academy concerning the exact role of first principles, Forms, Mathematical Numbers, and their relation to one another, etc.

These issues were not completely resolved in Plato's times and had to be worked out later. Eventually, an effort was made to systematize his teachings and at the time of Plotinus the final touches were still in progress. Aristotle certainly improved on some of Plato's ideas and Plotinus used Aristotle for his own fine-tuning.

Even so, something like what Gerson calls "Ur-Platonism" may be identified and all subsequent modifications are essentially in agreement with it. "Neo-Platonism" is a modern concept. Platonists themselves did not call themselves that and would not regard "Neo-Platonism" as a different or "new" system.

Very interesting. I do agree that it is a matter of scale. I think "village culture" tends to be quite local.

Where would you say that class differences are greater, in rural or urban areas?

You generally find the middle class enjoy European stuff while loathing anything British, whereas the working class tend to be more nationalist and support the Royal Family and grassroots English culture — JohnLocke

So, would you say that the middle class are better than the working class?

And do you think that "loathing anything British" is OK?

Exposure to alternate accents leads to understanding and acceptance. — Banno

But people can discriminate against others on grounds of religion, political ideology, race, gender, etc. I don't know if accent is really that important. I've never seen it as particularly important myself.

Supposing it was imposed.

Presumably, it would be suggested by the authorities. Some may accept it and others may not accept it. In the latter case, it would have to be imposed.

It does this because British society is set up for this to happen as a result of social conditioning and how institutions are run and power is maintained from within. — JohnLocke

You could be right there. However, if you are talking about power, I think in every society there is a tendency to accumulate and monopolize power just as there is a tendency to accumulate wealth. And as long as this is the case, the power-holders will find ways to keep others away, if not on the basis of accent, maybe on the basis of ideology or some other criterion.

BTW, just out of curiosity, what European accent are you using? What results would you say you have achieved by using it? And would you recommend this to others living in Britain and/or other countries?

I think most countries have a "mainstream" accent that is understood across regional differences. Would a society be more equal and prosperous if greater linguistic diversity was imposed? And would that not lead to new forms of inequality? I think there are certain general norms that people have no problem with, for example, wearing a suit in the office, etc.

Acceptable to whom? — Banno

Employers and the people you are dealing with.

If you have an accent that nobody can understand, then this can give rise to communication problems. There are practical limits to how far your accent can differ from normal.

Obviously, if your job entails communicating via non-verbal means like email, then your spoken accent is irrelevant.

Nice neo-Marxist analysis. However, is there any evidence that British society is any more "unequal" than other societies like, say, India or some African countries?

My feeling is that in most cases social and economic progress tends to be connected with education, upbringing, contacts to key people, etc. i.e., factors that are not always equally distributed across society, irrespective of the country you are talking about.

As for "accent", I guess it depends on the job you are aiming to get. As a teacher, TV presenter, or working in a call center, etc., I think it would be reasonable for people to expect you to have an acceptable sort of accent.

There's nothing corresponding to a vertical axis along with the soul can be said to ascend in our culture. — Wayfarer

If Plato is correct, then the axis is always there even though we may not be aware of it.

Likewise, the ascent may be taking place without our conscious knowledge of it until we reach the higher stages.

I tend to believe that Platonic philosophy represents one system of thought that facilitates the ascent, but there may be others and, again, some people may have an innate ability and sense of direction that takes them to the goal "unaided", as it were.

How do you expand your awareness? — Transcending

Awareness can be expanded in many different ways by becoming aware or paying attention to new areas of knowledge.

But I think that being aware of awareness itself is the most important aspect of awareness expansion because in ordinary experience we pay attention to things other than awareness.

So, I tend to believe that certain (anti-materialist/metaphysical) philosophical systems help to prepare the mind for this expansion process and that meditation is another important aid in this direction.

Anyway, I have ZERO interest in Descartes, so if you want to start a thread on him, by all means do so.

I think your own exertions have been more than sufficiently productive and you've done a great job spreading it around, so there isn't much left for anyone else to do. The credit goes entirely to you.

BTW, have you finally found your evidence for Plato's alleged "atheism" or are you still looking? I'm always there to help, you know. :rofl:

I think I quite like the sound of "moonbats". It seems so have a certain resonance with "loony" (< Luna, Latin for "moon"), though I must admit "wingnut" is quite funny, too. :grin:

BTW, which of them would you say are more disruptive and annoying than the others?

There is also zero evidence that "the Platonic tradition" wasn't grossly distorted by the neo-platonists. — Olivier5

And because there is zero evidence that it wasn't, presumably that means that it was. Great logic.

On the other hand, the fact is that Aristotle was a member of Plato’s Academy and he became Alexander’s teacher in 343 BC. Alexander was a great promoter of Greek language and culture including philosophy and this tradition was continued by his successors. In addition to Athens, Alexandria became a major center of learning and the seat of a major philosophical school in the Platonic tradition.

With royal patronage, Platonism became an established philosophical system that became part of higher education throughout the Greek (and later Roman) empire. Being based on Plato and Aristotle’s own works which were transmitted unchanged, it couldn’t have undergone too many changes.

In fact, modifications were far from arbitrary and were introduced solely for the purpose of increasing the inner logical coherence within the system. Platonists like Plotinus took great care to be as faithful to the original as possible and of course copies of original manuscripts were always available for reference.

At any rate, IMHO the very fact that Plato’s works and teachings were sponsored by the state would seem to indicate that they did not promote atheism.

In mythology much is credited to the female goddesses so what is with the patriarchy that suppressed women? The reality is a young male reality when war was very much the way of life and this dominated the West. — Athena

Well, Athena, the goddess of the Athenian city-state, was certainly the goddess of wisdom, but she was also the goddess of heroes.

Men are physically stronger than women, so when armed conflict is a fact of life, men would have more authority and power in public life, whilst women would focus on child-bearing and raising a family.

But I'm sure women had ways of exerting some influence on the men. In any case, the family was important in ancient Greek culture, and I fully agree that the family unit is important. I don't believe in social engineering and in trying to "improve" too much what nature has given us.

Awfully expensive way to drown someone. What's wrong with water? — bert1

If I'm not mistaken, they only submerge the head in a bowl of milk so it doesn't take a huge quantity for a new-born to drown.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact explanation as I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. But I think it had to do with milk resembling the food of the gods or something to do with the afterlife and heaven.

There was a movie about it, Matrubhoomi: A Nation Without Women, named one of the best movies of 2003 by Time magazine.

Apparently, there is huge gap in the gender ratio caused by the killing of thousands of girls which has given rise to a system of bride-buying and trafficking, etc.

India's missing girls: fears grow over rising levels of foeticide - The Guardian

Edit. It looks like buckets of milk also are used for the purpose, but there are some other methods:

India femicide: Where girl infants face ‘pre-meditated’ murder - WNN

Wisdom nuggets — theUnexaminedMind

:up:

I said "essentially":

Of course Platonists see Platonism as essentially one system. "Platonism", "Middle Platonism", "Neoplatonism", etc., are modern concepts that make no sense to Platonists, as shown by Gerson. — Apollodorus

Of course there were some modifications or, rather, expansions of the Platonic teachings. But the original texts remained the same and any modifications or expansions of the system were essentially consistent with the original blueprint, as shown by Gerson and others.

IMHO there is no evidence that Plato was an atheist. Period/full stop.

From what I can see, you are claiming that Plato was an atheist and his writings teach atheism.

You are also saying that Plato uses secret language to conceal his atheism.

In support of your theory, you cite Clement of Alexandria and Ibn Sina who, apparently, believed that Plato and/or the Greeks in general, concealed secrets in their writings.

You are claiming that this proves that Plato was a covert atheist.

The first problem with this is that, when carried to its logical conclusion, your theory becomes an extraordinary conspiracy theory according to which Plato and his followers from Aristotle to the Church Fathers and the Christian and Islamic philosophers and mystics were all secret believers in atheism.

What I am saying in response to this is that anyone with even the most basic understanding of philosophy and logic, would ask two simple questions:

1. What do those authors mean by “secrets”?
2. Why should “secrets” mean “atheism”?

“Secrets” could mean a number of things, e.g., knowledge unknown to the general public, allegorical passages referring to metaphysical realities, etc.

There is no evidence to suggest that Clement or Ibn Sina were atheists, and even if they were atheists, this doesn’t prove that Plato was an atheist. It may perfectly well be that they chose to read Plato in an atheist sense. But there is zero evidence of that.

So, this takes us back to the dialogues. These are some of your arguments:

1. Socrates says “one must, so to speak, chant such things to oneself” (Phaedo 114d).
2. Plato bans the Gods from the ideal city discussed in the Republic.

1. In fact, “chanting to oneself” means that Socrates wants his friends to overcome their grief and fear of death with the help of his account of life after death. No more and no less than that.

2. As already stated, banning the poets’ and artists’ irreverent representations of the Gods does not equal banning the Gods.

As to the Good, I think the matter is very clear. The Good is a meta-principle that explains the function of other, subordinate principles as part of a harmonious whole, i.e., how they all fit together to form a functioning, ordered system.

Allan Silverman – Some Ways of Being in Plato

1. I have already explained how Plato's “Forms” play the role of “patterns” (paradeigmata) whereby consciousness organizes itself to generate determinate cognition.

2. The Good explains how the Forms and all other things fit together to form a unified, harmonious reality.

3. The dialogue says very clearly that the Good is “superior to and beyond being” (509b), i.e., a form of Transcendent Reality that contains all things:

“The Sun, I presume you will say, not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation.” “Of course not.” “In like manner, then, you are to say that the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the Good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the Good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D509b

Ergo, monistic idealism, not atheism.

I'm familiar with the view that Plato is compatible with later Platonists. Plotinus was influenced by Stoicism and Aristotle, so "compatible" definitely doesn't mean identical. — frank

Correct. Like other Platonists, Plotinus did his best to fill whatever gaps he could by borrowing from Aristotle and others. But we must not forget that Aristotle learned a great deal from Plato and that Plotinus did not borrow anything that was incompatible with Plato's fundamental ideas that had come down to him through a long chain of teachers.

Plato’s Academy functioned from 387 BC to 529 CE and its members were naturally in touch with philosophers from other Platonic schools in Alexandria and elsewhere. So, there is no reason to assume any major modification or distortion in the Platonic tradition, just as there were few changes in the religious sphere.

And that proves what exactly? Of course Platonists see Platonism as essentially one system. "Platonism", "Middle Platonism", "Neoplatonism", etc., are modern concepts that make no sense to Platonists, as shown by Gerson.

As already stated, followers of Plato already referred to themselves as "Platonists" (Platonikoi) in antiquity and it would be absurd to claim that they were something else. Of course there were some variations according to different schools but that doesn't make the Platonism of one historical period a different system to the Platonism of other periods.

You reject that distinction. But rather than stating that and moving on you compulsively and irrationally keep coming back to proclaim the truth of your hermetic Christian Neoplatonism. — Fooloso4

I'm sorry to have to say this but it sounds like you have some psychological issues there.

You keep talking about "putting the pieces together", but you forget to show by what logical argumentation putting the pieces together leads to atheism.

And no, preventing poets or anyone else from saying things that place the Gods in a bad light does not constitute "banning the Gods" by any stretch of the imagination.

This is the opposite of what the authors I read do. They argue that we can learn a great deal from Plato and Aristotle. — Fooloso4

Well, I disagree. I don't think that atheism amounts to "a great deal" at all. It may do to you, but not to others. All the more so when there is no evidence to support it.

And, according to you, there is "nothing to prove" and you can't prove or say anything anyway because "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing". And the "author is hiding it", but "it's all there", and "only you can see it". But what "it" is no one knows. Apparently, not even yourself.

So, yeah, I think you're definitely on the right track. Or perhaps not ....

So in that general sense, I agree with you and Frank that Plato is not an atheist in any meaningful sense, but neither does that make him 'a theist' in today's sense. — Wayfarer

I agree. Incidentally, when I think of Plato or Platonism, I think Platonism and nothing else. I take Gerson's view (and that of Platonists themselves) that there is only one Platonic or Platonist system (with some variations) stretching from Plato to the present. I am using descriptions like "monistic idealism" exclusively when attempting to explain to others how I classify Platonism.

But I fully agree with Demos. Thanks for the quote.