I think you're taking everything way too personally, and that is not a philosophical attitude. I don't want you to leave the forum, just to admit that, in the absence of any evidence, it is highly unlikely that Plato was an atheist. You've lost the argument anyway, so what's the point?

To correctly understand Plato, you need to read all his dialogues or at least the most important ones. If you do that with an open mind, you will see that monistic idealism is a much more accurate description of the ideas presented in them than "atheism".

Read the Timaeus and do some thinking about other dialogues you have read. What does Plato mean by "nous"? Are the individual minds the only form of intelligence? Could the Forms be part of a Universal Consciousness, or Cosmic Intellect? Etc., etc. There is no rush, take your time.

But I also agree that this doesn't make him an 'atheist' in the modern sense, either. — Wayfarer

That's exactly what we've been trying to explain to @Fooloso4. Unfortunately, he seems to think that we only do so because we are "intolerant" of his views.

If he had even a shred of evidence for his "atheism" theory, it would be a different story. But he hasn't. He just keeps insisting that anyone who doesn't read Plato in an atheist sense is an ignoramus and an idiot.

You posit a modern definition of atheism and then argue that it does not apply the charge of atheism against Socrates. — Fooloso4

That's what you are doing. You decide in advance that Socrates was an atheist and then try to twist the term "atheist" to make it fit Socrates. Or, you take the actual charge of "introducing or inventing new deities" and try to reinterpret it as "atheism" in the modern sense. Unfortunately, without much success as only too evident.

What do you make of the absence of God or gods in the discussion of the Good in the Republic. Why does Socrates say that the Good and not a god is the cause of all things? — Fooloso4

I've already told you why. Because Plato's monistic idealism believes in the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect (Nous) or Mind of God, as the cause of everything including the Gods.

You could be right. Maybe there is a tension there between individual struggle for survival and increased security with attendant chances of survival within a group. Or egoism vs. altruism. And even altruism may in some ways be motivated by egoism. Human psychology can be quite complex. But I tend to believe that, irrespective of its evolutionary roots, psychology does play some role in politics.

Did you miss the part where he bans the poets? Or the part where the Good and not the gods are the generative cause of all that is? — Fooloso4

Sadly, I think this once again shows how fanaticism prevents you from seeing your total lack of logic.

What Plato writes in the dialogues is monistic idealism, not atheism. Don't you understand the concept
of idealism?

It's exactly what Plato describes. The ultimate cause of everything is the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Intellect (Nous). That doesn't "ban the Gods", it only subordinates them to a higher reality which is a logical consequence of philosophical inquiry. In Platonic philosophy, that which philosophizes, viz., consciousness, is the highest reality and cause of everything, as I explained in my post on the Forms.

The city described by Plato in the Republic is just utopian imagery intended to illustrate certain points Plato was trying to make.

There was to be no laughter, no artists, no families, etc. Not a realistic situation at all. The discussion also suggested a society divided into classes and ruled by philosopher-kings.

But Plato doesn’t say there should be no Gods, he only says that human misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Gods should not be allowed.

The issue is not whether there should be any Gods but how people should think and speak about them:

“But this very thing—the patterns or norms of right speech about the Gods (literally, θεολογία theologia) what would they be?” “Something like this,” I said. “The true quality of God we must always surely attribute to him whether we compose in epic, melic, or tragic verse.” “We must.” “And is not God of course good in reality and always to be spoken of as such?” (379a).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D379a

Think of monistic idealism, and you will see how everything makes sense. Think atheism, and nothing fits.

That's why you are unable to prove your theory and all you can come up with are vague oracular pronouncements like "he says it but he is hiding it", "it's there but you can't see it", and nonsense like that. The "incantations" are yours, not mine.

You may not have read Shorey, but you sound very much like him. Writers in the 1930's were too heavily influenced by Marxism and Fabian Socialism to be capable of objective analysis. Their main objective was to deconstruct tradition to make place for "progress", and that meant attacking Christianity and Platonism. Politics never makes good scholarship.

If Plato is silent, and he is, then we cannot correctly say that Plato said this or that. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't say anything but are still talking. Not only that, but you are appealing to a mysterious "extensive literature" to "prove" that you are right and others are wrong.

I think I'm beginning to like this .... :rofl:

Think for a second. Anyone can look at the book. What they see depends on their ability to read and make connections. You have demonstrated your inability to do so. — Fooloso4

By the same token, you have demonstrated your inability to see what I and most people see, which is that Plato's writings teach a form of monistic idealism, not atheism

And since you are unable or unwilling to say what the author is "hiding", you are in no position to claim otherwise.

Indeed, you can't say anything because according to you, "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing".

You haven't even shown that "in the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms". Or anything else for that matter.

But at least you've made me laugh .... :grin:

Extensive or not, if Plato says nothing, then the literature on it can hardly be anything more than mere speculation ....

Wiki is not a scholarly source, although it has gotten better and often includes footnotes to sources. What you find on Wiki is not a consensus of mainstream scholarly sources because there is no consensus, and never has been. — Fooloso4

I never said Wiki is a scholarly source. I said it was mainstream. If you believe that Plato's alleged "atheism" is more then fringe speculation, feel free to provide evidence for that. That's what I've been asking you all this time and all you can think of is Leibniz and Warburton and some obscure anti-Platonist writers.

As I have said many times now, read a dialogues from start to finish. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I did and I came to totally different conclusions to what you are saying. That's why I asked you what translations you were using and where Socrates says that "the Forms are hypotheses".

Instead of answering, you got upset and called for help. Which I thought was a very strange thing to do.

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4

Let’s recap then:

1. Plato never says anything.

2. Socrates says he knows nothing.

3.The author (presumably Plato) has something to hide.

4. Although “hidden”, it’s “all there for all to see”.

5. But this “doesn’t prove anything”.

6. Anyway, “it isn’t about proof it’s about learning how to read an author who has something to hide”.

7. But you refuse to say what it is that the author is hiding.

8. And yet you insists that you are right and get upset when others ask you a simple question ....

You pull statements out of context and think they represent the "true teaching". — Fooloso4

Sorry, but that is totally untrue. My exact words were:

Even in antiquity, Plato's teachings were known as τᾰ̀ δόγμᾰτᾰ τοῦ Πλᾰ́τωνος “the (true) doctrine of Plato”, δόγμᾰ dogma being that which one believes to be true, i.e., true doctrine or teaching. — Apollodorus

Plato's teachings or what goes by the name of "Platonism" were referred to as "Plato's true teachings". You are claiming they are not Plato's true teachings, but offer no evidence.

In fact, I don't see what evidence you could possibly have as according to you, "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing".

You cite Leibniz and Warburton as your "evidence" for Plato's teachings even though according to you, "Plato says nothing", etc., etc.

PS I didn't notice your comment below on the other thread:

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this ... The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4

So what you are saying is this:

1. Plato never says anything.

2. The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing.

If Plato says nothing and Socrates says he knows nothing, then on what basis do you claim to know that Plato doesn't teach monistic idealism?

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this ... The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4

OK. So what you are saying is this:

1. Plato never says anything.

2. The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing.

If Plato says nothing and Socrates says he knows nothing, then on what basis do you claim to know that Plato doesn't teach monistic idealism?

If I did not know better I would think you are kidding. The arguments given in the dialogues. — Fooloso4

I see. So, you are not talking about your arguments but about the arguments "in the dialogues". Great. In that case, allow me to ask again:

In your opinion, what exactly do the arguments in the dialogues lead to? Atheism? Buddhism? Marxism? Nihilism? Or something else?

This is an example of Socrates advise to chant incantations over and over again. — Fooloso4

You seem to have some kind of fixation with "chanting incantations". You believe that Socrates' expression is the only thing Plato has to say.

Anyone who has read the literature knows that "the accepted scholarly position" does not exist. — Fooloso4

And yet you are telling us that there is an accepted scholarly position which is that Plato was an atheist. This is untrue. The consensus as shown by mainstream sources like Wikipedia is that Plato taught monistic idealism.

Each time I point to the argument you look away, repeat what you believe, and bring up those views that influenced your beliefs. — Fooloso4

My beliefs about Plato are influenced by the works of Plato and his Platonist followers. Who would you like me to read instead? The anti-Platonists?

It is all right that for all to see, except those who close their eyes and sing incantations. — Fooloso4

So, we are back to square one then. If it is "there for all to see", why don't you tell us in plain English what it is?

So, more diversion and evasion.

As I said many times before I have absolutely nothing against your interpretation.

I'm simply asking you to provide some evidence to prove that your interpretation is correct.

Instead of doing that, you retort that you have nothing to prove and that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is too intolerant or too stupid to see that you are right.

So, I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually realize what you are saying ....

Each time I point to the argument you look away, — Fooloso4

What "argument"? I see nothing but persistent diversion and evasion:

1. You have "nothing to prove".

2. You have "no theory".

3. You are "following the arguments".

4. Others are "not following the arguments".

5. And when you are asked what your argument actually is, you say it's a "secret" because the author "has something to hide". But, at the same time, it's "all there for all to see"!

Are you well? Or are you taking us for a ride?

Asked and answered. But your never ending game requires it have its place in the cycle. — Fooloso4

:grin: You're talking about me getting "tired" but I think it's rather you who is getting tired and it's still early in the morning. You are beginning to speak in parables and riddles. Maybe you think you are Socrates or Plato?

Anyway, this your own statement:

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4

You have admittedly failed to prove your theory but still keep claiming that you have proved it. And that, without any evidence whatsoever!

So, why did you start this thread if you knew that you can't prove your "atheism" theory?

Here is your own statement.

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4

You have admittedly failed to prove your theory but still keep claiming that you have proved it. And that, without any evidence whatsoever!

You do not follow the argument where it leads, you ignore the argument because you assume where it leads. — Fooloso4

I think the reverse is true. It is you who is not following the argument and is starting from the unexamined premise that Plato preaches atheism which is totally unsupported by the evidence as yourself have admitted.

There is a reason why after all this time so many books and articles on Plato are being published every year. — Fooloso4

There are many books and articles published every year on all kinds of topics. But they are not claiming or showing that Plato was an atheist.

And it is incorrect to claim that Socrates was convicted of "atheism" when the charge was "introducing new deities".

Monistic idealism is not the same as "atheism". On the contrary, it elevates God from highest authority to Ultimate Reality.

Even older than Plato is the distinction between esoteric and exoteric teachings. You point to the exoteric and remain unaware of the esoteric. — Fooloso4

Not at all, the esoteric is the ineffable Ultimate Reality. It isn't esoteric because it is secret but because it is inexpressible in language. I have said so repeatedly.

To claim that "esoteric = atheism" is as absurd as to claim that "introducing new deities = atheism".

In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms and, as the ultimate cause, the Good. And yet many even today do not see this for what it is. — Fooloso4

He doesn't "banish the Gods" at all. He was discussing a hypothetical situation.

You can't say "Plato secretly taught atheism" and at the same time claim that "he openly preached atheism in his dialogues".

It just doesn't add up.

Plato taught monistic idealism which to the ignorant may sound like "atheism" but is far from that. On the contrary, monistic idealism is more like theistic absolutism, which is why Platonism appealed to the Christians.

Socrates admonishes his interlocutors to "follow the argument where it leads". You have avoided doing this. — Fooloso4

Not at all, I demonstrated quite clearly, I think, that Plato's dialogues logically lead to monistic idealism which is the accepted scholarly position. The Forms are metaphysical realities in the Cosmic Intellect or Universal Consciousness (Nous). That's what I meant by "immaterial" but you chose not to pay attention.

And Socrates was not accused or tried for "atheism" but for irreverence (asebia) on the grounds that he was trying to introduce "new deities" (and corrupt the young).

As Olivier suggests, he may have been set up for political reasons. However, even then we must remember that the jury would have acquitted him, had he not chosen to persist and decline to refrain from preaching his new religion.

I disagree. A true zealot is always full of energy and inspiration and never tires.

Anyway, why don't you tell us the truth? Why did you start this thread? Was it just because Banno asked you to, or was there some other reason? I am curious to know. I think we can still talk to one another even if we disagree on some minor things.

Correct. Religious reform, not denial of the divine. That's why charges of "atheism" against Plato are not only inconsistent with the evidence but also positively anachronistic.

Why the need to have the last word on thread that I start? — Fooloso4

No need whatsoever. As I suggested from the start, you had no chance of proving your case.

You gave me a list of authors, which is fine. But I also suggested you read Sedley, Gerson, and others, and you refused. All I'm saying is that it would have been in your own interest to familiarize yourself with a topic that has been conclusively settled.

Plato may have taught many things. Atheism wasn't one of them.

Yes, as Frank says, we were congratulating you for finally acknowledging that we are talking about Plato, not about Socrates, and that you have not proved that your theory that Plato was an atheist is correct. Congrats! :up:

I had read that Pythagoras gave women equality. — Athena

I believe that it would have been difficult if not impossible to exclude Greek women from anything that was of importance in society.

If you read the story of Diotima as told by Plato in the Symposium, you will notice than no one is surprised to hear that Socrates received instruction into the highest mysteries of philosophy from a woman.

The job of Greek men, especially the upper classes, was to engage in military training and warfare. But they also had the duty to found a family.

To found a family they needed women. As they had little knowledge of women, it was women’s job to instruct young upper-class men in the art of love. And from there to being instructed in a highly evolved philosophy of love isn’t very far. I think it is entirely proper for Plato to have chosen a woman for his theory of love.

What I said is that Plato never speaks in the dialogues — Fooloso4

And that "proves" he was an atheist? By what logical reasoning???

It is you who are attacking the long-established, evidence-based position that Plato is an idealist, and you claim that he was an atheist.

I have no problem with your belief, I just think that the onus is on you to provide the evidence for your claim.

If you believe you are right, why don't you join Wikipedia as an editor and tell them about your new discovery and get them to classify Plato and Platonism under Atheism?

You could even write a thesis on it and publish it. Just make sure you don't exclude the inconvenient bits from your translations.

You have already said many times that you read the dialogues through the eyes of the Neoplatonists. — Fooloso4

I think that's another self-inflicted misunderstanding and confusion of yours. I have explained to you that "Neoplatonism" is a modern anti-Platonist concept. Platonists regard themselves as Platonists, i.e., "followers of Plato".

Even in antiquity, Plato's teachings were known as τᾰ̀ δόγμᾰτᾰ τοῦ Πλᾰ́τωνος “the (true) doctrine of Plato”, δόγμᾰ dogma being that which one believes to be true, true doctrine or teaching.

I'm beginning to think that it's all Greek to him :grin:

Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. Of course you can believe that Plato was an atheist if that makes you happy. All I'm saying is that if you expect people to accept that theory, you need to provide some evidence. You have failed to do so, and both the original texts and logic contradict that theory.

The fact is that Plato’s philosophy is a form of monistic idealism that holds that consciousness (nous) is the only absolute reality, and entails a hierarchy of realities ascending from the physical to the mental and from the mental to the supramental or spiritual, culminating in the ineffable One Ultimate Reality.

Because reality is an emanation of Ultimate Reality which is Consciousness, and is therefore, real, Plato’s philosophy may be described as realistic idealism: though the world is a product of consciousness, it is not the product of the individual mind but of the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect or Mind of God. Plato’s Forms are the product of the Cosmic Intellect.

This is 100% consistent with the Platonic texts and equally inconsistent with "atheism".

Even Wikipedia which is run by liberals and atheists classifies Plato and Platonism under Idealism.

Idealism – Wikipedia

The notion that Plato taught atheism is not only contradicted by the evidence and logic but it is a fringe theory introduced in the early 1900’s. I suspect you are drawing your inspiration from Shorey who also preached that Jesus was a Pagan and other similar ideas that were popular at the time under the influence of Marxist and Fabian Socialist deconstructionism.

Unfortunately, Shorey has long been thoroughly refuted by Gerson and other respected scholars. This is why I suggested you read Gerson's From Plato to Platonism. It would have clarified your doubts and would have saved all of us a lot of wasted time.

Plato’s philosophy is a form of monistic idealism that holds that consciousness (nous) is the only absolute reality, and entails a hierarchy of realities ascending from the physical to the mental and from the mental to the supramental or spiritual, culminating in the ineffable One Ultimate Reality.

Because reality is an emanation of Ultimate Reality which is Consciousness, and is therefore, real, Plato’s philosophy may be described as realistic idealism: though the world is a product of consciousness, it is not the product of the individual mind but of the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect or Mind of God. Plato’s Forms are the product of the Cosmic Intellect.

This is 100% consistent with the Platonic texts and equally inconsistent with "atheism".

Even Wikipedia which is run by liberals and atheists classifies Plato and Platonism under Idealism.

Idealism – Wikipedia

The notion that Plato taught atheism is not only contradicted by the evidence and logic but it is a fringe theory introduced in the early 1900’s. I suspect you are drawing your inspiration from Shorey who also preached that Jesus was a Pagan and other similar ideas that were popular at the time under the influence of Marxist and Fabian Socialist deconstructionism.

Unfortunately, Shorey has long been thoroughly refuted by Gerson and other respected scholars.

As already demonstrated on the other thread (on Socrates), the objective examination of the Platonic texts allows no other conclusion than that Socrates and Plato were not atheists, but religious reformers. All they did was to introduce a new category of metaphysical or divine realities or beings that would be more suitable for philosophical minds than traditional deities.

“So once more, as if these were another set of accusers, let us take up in turn their sworn statement. It is about as follows: it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings. Such is the accusation" (Apology 24b – c).

The exact phrase is ἕτερα δαιμόνια καινά hetera daimonia kaina, “other new daimons (spiritual beings)”. The charge was ἀσέβεια asebia, “impiety or irreverence”, not atheism.

Xenophon says the same:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the gods worshipped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

The exact phrase is ἕτερα καινὰ δαιμόνια hetera kaina daimonia, “other new spiritual beings/deities”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0211%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D10

In Euthyphro, a dialogue on which it seems you are an expert, Socrates says that the charge is that he "makes new Gods":

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthuphro 3b).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D24b

Plato's metaphysics is a multi-layered system starting from traditional religion and gradually ascending to higher forms of thought and experience.

Another important thing to remember is that Socrates was going to be acquitted on condition that he refrain from preaching his new religion, which he declined. All he needed to do was to moderate his language and not promote it in public. It follows that Plato had nothing to fear.

You need to be able to put things together and see that Plato was not teaching atheism but a form of monistic idealism:

Definition of monistic idealism: a system of philosophical idealism emphasizing the primacy of the One (as the Absolute or Nature) rather than of the many

I hope you agree that, as a matter of general principle, one should in the first instance read the texts one is proposing to discuss before discussing them.

You are getting closer to the problem with your comment on Ibn Sina's concern for his fate. Plato had the same personal concern and for the same reason as Ibn Sina. — Fooloso4

The "problem" is not the problem of the Platonists. It is your problem and the problem of other atheists that insist that Plato was an atheist without presenting even a shred of evidence .

Your problem is you are claiming that "secrets = atheism". So, would you mind explaining to us by what logical mechanism you arrive at that conclusion? I am curious to now.

In the meantime, you are saying that Ibn Sina, like Plato, was preaching atheism secretly for fear of being executed like al-Hallaj, just as Plato was afraid of being sentenced to death like Socrates.

The obvious problem with that claim is you have failed to show that Socrates was an atheist. Indeed, it would be hard to believe that he was, given that he was constantly talking about God and Gods.

IMHO, the objective examination of the Platonic texts allows no other conclusion than that Socrates and Plato were not atheists, but religious reformers. All they did was to introduce a new category of metaphysical or divine realities or beings that would be more suitable for philosophical minds than traditional deities.

“So once more, as if these were another set of accusers, let us take up in turn their sworn statement. It is about as follows: it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings. Such is the accusation" (Apology 24b – c).

The exact phrase is ἕτερα δαιμόνια καινά hetera daimonia kaina, “other new daimons (spiritual beings)”. The charge was ἀσέβεια asebia, “impiety or irreverence”, not atheism.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D24b

“For he says I am a maker of gods; and because I make new gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthyphro 3b).

We find the same in Xenophon:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the gods worshipped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

The exact phrase is ἕτερα καινὰ δαιμόνια hetera kaina daimonia, “other new spiritual beings/deities”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0211%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D10

Plato's metaphysics is a multi-layered system starting from traditional religion and gradually ascending to higher forms of thought and experience.

Another important thing to remember is that Socrates was going to be acquitted on condition that he refrain from preaching his new religion, which he declined. All he needed to do was to moderate his language and not promote it in public. It follows that Plato had nothing to fear.

Let's now take your other famous quote:

All ...who have spoken of divine things, both barbarians and Greeks, have veiled the first principles of things, and delivered the truth in enigmas, and symbols, and allegories, and 4 metaphors, and such like tropes.” And why should I linger over the barbarians, when I can adduce the Greeks as exceedingly addicted to the use of the method of concealment. – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 233-34 (5.4), 247 (5.8) — Fooloso4

Again, by what logical argumentation do you arrive at the conclusion that "enigmas and concealment = atheism"?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Ibn Sina was afraid of openly preaching atheism and did so covertly.

But how does this apply to Clement of Alexandria? He had been a Pagan and converted to Christianity in around 170 CE. Why would he convert to Christianity to teach atheism? He could have done that as a Pagan. According to you, he already had Platonism for that purpose.

For your theory to work, you would have to show that all the Church Fathers, philosophers and mystics were "atheists". Did the Desert Fathers withdraw from society to meditate on the non-existence of God, whilst praying seven times a day and using passages from the Bible for daily contemplation?

Aside from the total lack of evidence, and the absurdity of it, it sounds very much like conspiracy theory to me. What you are literally claiming is that, for two millennia, Christians have been secretly believing in atheism and covertly preaching it, because Socrates chose to allow himself to be sentenced to death for being disrespectful to traditional religion.

Also, please note that you are citing Leibniz and Warburton to justify your mistaken interpretation of Platonic dialogues, but you attack me for citing Platonists, which seems rather strange. Why would Leibniz and Warburton understand Plato any better than Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus?

And about Plato and the practice in ancient times:

"In their writings the most famous philosophers of the Greeks and their prophets
made use of parables and images in which they concealed their secrets, like
Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato".
– Avicenna, “On the Parts of Science,” 85
— Fooloso4

However, as already demonstrated on the other thread, that line of argument is too flawed to even qualify as an argument. It proves absolutely nothing. "Secrets" can mean anything. It certainly doesn't have to mean atheism and is in no way, form or shape "contrary to Platonism". If anything, as history shows, it means exactly what scholars like Gerson are saying.

Another Islamic mystic, Mansur al-Hallaj wrote “I saw my Lord with the eye of my heart”, i.e., exactly what Platonists and Christians had taught for centuries before him.

We have already seen that Plato taught that a philosopher had to become as godlike as possible. That meant seeing God within himself and experiencing a state of oneness with him. That was what
al-Hallaj did. He proclaimed (the Platonic doctrine) "I am the Truth/God".

In 922 CE al-Hallaj was executed by the Islamic authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

So of course Ibn Sina would say that Plato’s teachings were secret. He didn’t want to meet the same fate as al-Hallaj. It's just common sense when you live under strict Islamic rule.

Your "argument" falls like an ill-conceived and ill-constructed house of cards.

There is a long and varied history of interpretation of the dialogues. In the ancient world, prior to and contrary to Neoplatonism, we find:

"In their writings the most famous philosophers of the Greeks and their prophets made use of parables and images in which they concealed their secrets, like Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato".
– Avicenna (Ibn Sina), “On the Parts of Science,” 85 — Fooloso4

I'm afraid that proves absolutely nothing. "Secrets" can mean anything. It certainly doesn't have to mean atheism and is in no way, form or shape "contrary to Platonism". If anything, as history shows, it means exactly what scholars like Gerson are saying.

Another Islamic mystic, Mansur al-Hallaj wrote “I saw my Lord with the eye of my heart”, i.e., exactly what Platonists and Christians had taught for centuries before him.

We have already seen that Plato taught that a philosopher had to become as godlike as possible. That meant seeing God within himself and experiencing a state of oneness with him. That was what
al-Hallaj did. He proclaimed (the Platonic doctrine) "I am the Truth/God".

In 922 CE al-Hallaj was executed by the Islamic authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

So of course Ibn Sina would say that Plato’s teachings were secret. He didn’t want to meet the same fate as al-Hallaj. It's just common sense when you live under strict Islamic rule.

So, your own "evidence" demolishes your case rather nicely and conclusively IMHO.

Cameron wanted a referendum since 2005, when he wrote the Tory manifesto for Michael Howard. — counterpunch

Correct. But the question is why he wanted it.

One theory has it that he did it (1) to win the elections and (2) because he thought that the Remainer camp would win.

"Cameron had to promise a referendum on the EU issue. Without the promise of a referendum, Cameron would not have won the general election because a vast number of eurosceptic Tory voters would have voted for UKIP candidates. Cameron only became Prime Minister because he promised a referendum"

https://www.vernoncoleman.com/remaincamp.htm

"The departure of former Prime Minister David Cameron, a staunch Remainer, delayed the Brexit process from even beginning when the Tory leader announced he could not lead Britain through its exit ..."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1264069/brexit-latest-news-brexit-uk-eu-exit-remainer-boris-johnson-brexit-delay

Socrates says very clearly that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d) and that “therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise” (Thaetetus 176a – b).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D114d

He also says:

“God is in no wise and in no manner unrighteous, but utterly and perfectly righteous, and there is nothing so like him as that one of us who in turn becomes most nearly perfect in righteousness” (176c), etc., etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Apage%3D176

If you are really convinced that all the translations and/or original Greek texts are wrong, you are free to contact the translators and editors and inform them that they are "illinformed neoplatonist rants". Good luck with that. :grin: