Just in case anyone is confused by the comment above, the new thread which was started by Apollodurus, is not meant to be to replace this one of mine, meaning this one is discontinued. I think that the idea of a separate thread is because in the last few days a political discussion has been dominating, so it probably required a separate thread. — Jack Cummins

Correct. Athena and I thought the political conversation we were having should be continued on a separate thread without this in any way affecting Jack's thread. My apologies should this have caused any misunderstanding.

You neglect what is perhaps the single greatest conspiracy of all time, Christianity. — Fooloso4

Well, I suppose you could describe Christianity as a conspiracy against ignorance and evil but there is nothing wrong with that. As the OP says, conspiracies aren't always bad.

All political movements and even some religious ones aim to acquire power for themselves and they can only do so by denying power to others. But Christianity didn't come to power by force of arms but through persuasion.

As explained by St Augustine in The City of God, Graeco-Roman religion was already moving in the direction of monotheism and many leading thinkers, including Hellenistic philosophers found Christianity attractive. Conversely, many early Church leaders found Platonism attractive. Many had started off as Platonic philosophers and continued to hold Platonism in high regard. Augustine himself says that he was inspired by the writings of Plotinus to look for a higher truth (Confessions).

Interesting. Would you say the awake mind and the asleep mind would be separate from a mind that is separate from the body? Being awake or asleep of course are simply bodily necessities. — TiredThinker

It depends on how you look at it. I wouldn't call being awake an absolute "bodily necessity". Humans can live in a state of sleep or coma for a very long time.

Presumably, disembodied souls can also experience a state of sleep, or various forms of it such as dream state or deep sleep. After all, we also need mental rest, not only physical rest. But a disembodied soul would certainly be awake at least for some time, just like an embodied one.

The new thread is at Open Conspiracy - Good or Evil?

I thought we could start with the Fabians' book The Open Conspiracy and the political ideas suggested in it.

All in the former British Empire, as I said. — ssu

That's how it started. But close links with Europe's socialist parties were forged during WWII when socialist leaders fled to London and were carried on after the reestablishment of the International.

The Labour Party, Denis Healey and the International Socialist Movement

The think tank Policy Exchange was founded in 1999 by UK Prime Minister and Fabian Society member Tony Blair, another leading Fabian Peter Mandelson, Germany's Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and US Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Among many other organizations promoting globalism Tony Blair also founded The Tony Blair Institute For Global Change.

By the way, the entire leadership of the British Labour Party consists of Fabian Society members and Fabians have founded and hold key positions in many influential educational institutions, think tanks, and government advisory bodies such as the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Imperial College London, Royal Economic Society (RES), National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and many others. As stated on the Fabian Society website, there are also hundreds of Fabians politicians.

I will take up issues as they occur in the text. — Fooloso4

Great. I look forward to that.

African leaders also had links to the Fabians:

Fabian Society JOMO KENYATA

They also had a Fabian Society in India and both Nehru and Gandhi were members.

And on literature:

The Influence of Fabian Society on English Social Literature

And, of course, the Fabians were also influential on culture, the arts, etc.

Fabianism and Culture - cambridge.org

This I accept. The strong bonds are quite apparent here. Outside of that realm there come many differences and obstacles more than the language barrier. — ssu

For Fabian influence outside Europe see

J. M. Sneyder, “The Fabianization of the British Empire: Postwar Colonial Community Development in Kenia and Uganda, 1948 – 1956”, Britain and the World: Historical Journal of The British Scholar Society, March 2020, vol. 13, No 1, pp. 69-89

"the whole world" has in itself other actors than the US and the West as Putin's Russia, China controlled by the CCP, India, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Latin American countries etc. That these hold a same agenda sounds extremely dubious. — ssu

Actually, "the whole world" wasn't my phrase. It's what Wells says in the book. Personally, I tend to think the Fabian influence was more on England and America - and maybe other former parts of the British Empire like Australia which also had a Fabian Society.

I would say that this is something close to every social democratic movement that has been in power in Western Europe. All of them don't directly link to the Fabian society. — ssu

Maybe not all of them. However, the Fabians did reestablish the Socialist International after WWII which they controlled together with the Labour Party that was in charge of government in the British Empire. The SI was reestablished in London and was funded by the Labour Party (itself founded by the Fabians) so it was able to exert influence on all member parties.

Good observation. We tend to say something is a conspiracy if the agenda or the objectives aren't publicly declared about some action or policy. — ssu

Correct. Also, is it still a "conspiracy" if it involves the whole world? Wells seems to think so. Maybe his ambiguity was deliberate. In any case, he did advocate a new world order initiated by an elite group and he wanted the Fabian society to be that group.

So is globalization an agenda of the Fabian society? — ssu

Well, globalization is the agenda of many different groups. The Fabians were just one of them. There were, for example Anglo-American industrial interests (The Anglo-American Establishment by C. Quigley)
But the Fabians were among the first political movements to promote the idea of world government as can be seen from H G Wells and other Fabians. Of course, you can also go back to Marx and Engels. The main difference is that the Fabians pursued their agenda by "non-revolutionary" means even though the agenda was revolutionary in its objective.

Many slaves were white and well-educated--better educated, in fact, than their masters in some cases. — Ciceronianus the White

Correct. Most slaves were white because whites were readily available. Some became slaves through debt but, increasingly, as prisoners of war.

The very word "slave"/"sclavus" comes from the Slavic tribes members of which were often captured in war. The Romans also has many slaves from Celtic and Germanic populations which all were white.

Not only that, but slavery was an accepted element of economy and culture in the ancient world, including in Africa-Egypt, the Middle East, India, China, and the Americas. It is totally wrong and unacceptable to interpret it as a white invention.

According to some, Plato taught "animism" and "atheism". Is that true?

Wells also suggested a great central organization of “economic science” that will produce direction and function as the brain of the world community, like “a great encyclopaedic organization, kept constantly up to date and giving estimates and directions for all the material activities of mankind.”

Obviously, this sounds very much like the State in Marx and Engels’ communist society that supposedly will take care of all administrative matters, allowing the citizen “to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …” (The German Ideology).

But Wells was not a Marxist. He was a Fabian Socialist and leader of the London Fabian Society. So, could it be that Fabian Socialism has achieved through intellectual and cultural work what Marxism failed through more revolutionary means?

Incidentally, Fabian Socialism is a system that aims to implement socialism or communism by a method called “permeation” that propagates socialist ideas without openly identifying them as such.

The Fabian Society describes itself as having “been at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left for almost 140 years” and derives its name from the Roman general Quintus Fabius, known for his delaying tactics in the war against the Carthaginians.

Fabianism | socialist movement | Britannica

Fabians – Our History

Shaw and Fabianism - marxists.org

The Two Souls of Socialism - marxists.org

Edit:

Fabian methods. Fabianism’s reputation of “conspiracy” comes from the methods Fabians employed to propagate their ideology, especially what they termed “permeation”. Fabian co-founder and leader G. D. H. Cole explained that although a political organization, the Fabian Society was organized for thought and discussion and not for electoral action which it left to other organizations such as political parties while encouraging its members to infiltrate and operate from within those organizations:

“The Fabian Society has become famous throughout the world as a planner of Socialist policies and an inspirer of Socialist ideas”[…]”The person whom the Fabian Society wishes most to convert is the man or woman who is in the best position for influencing others”[…]”The Fabian Society regards each individual in its relatively tiny membership as a stone thrown into a pool, spreading rings of influence all around him”

The Fabian Society, past and present

Fabian objectives. The Fabians’ political philosophy was identical with Wells’ Open Conspiracy. Their primary objective was to establish a world government on communist lines. They set up a Fabian Research Department to do research, write reports and suggest policies on international government. They founded organizations to promote the idea, and were involved in the establishment of, the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations.

H G Wells, The Idea of a League of Nations

Celebrating H G Wells’s role in the creation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Fabian influence. Why was this “Open Conspiracy” or “Fabian Conspiracy” so influential? The Fabian founders were well-off Liberals (members of the British Liberal Party) with close links to industrial interests, such as owners of railway/railroad companies, steel plants and chocolate manufacturers. G B Shaw who was a highly influential Fabian leader, wrote “Socialism for Millionaires” in which he advised wealthy personalities of the day to use their wealth for social causes. Carnegie and Rockefeller were among those “converted”. For example, the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which was established to promote socialism, had more than 30% of its expenses covered by Rockefeller foundations while also receiving funding from the British Chamber of Commerce, bankers, financiers and other sources.

Rockefeller funding led to the LSE being dubbed "Rockefeller's baby".

LSE - Rockefeller's baby? lse.ac.uk

A History of the London School of Economics and Political Science, by LSE Director R. Dahrendorf.

LSE history - from the Fabian Society Archives at LSE

Criticism of Fabianism. Fabianism has received some strong criticism both from the right and the left. Criticism from the left revolves on the charge that Fabians are not true socialists but represent their own vested interests and the interests of their allies from the corporate community.

Leon Trotsky described the Fabians as a “tool of the ruling class”: “By this we do not at all mean that the Fabians, the ILPers and the Liberal defectors exert no influence on the working class. On the contrary, their influence is very great but it is not fixed. The reformists who are fighting against a proletarian class consciousness are, in the final reckoning, a tool of the ruling class”

Writings on Britain, Where is Britain Going?, The Fabian “Theory” of Socialism, Volume 2, 1974, p. 48

Criticism from the right focuses on the Fabian strategy of implementing totalitarian communism under the guise of democratic socialism.

Another key element that both criticisms have in common is the Fabians' close links to powerful financial and industrial groups.

A detailed account of the Anglo-American industrial and banking groups that shared the Fabians’ aims is given in The Anglo-American Establishment by C Quigley

N.B. In order to properly evaluate the Fabians’ worldwide influence it may be helpful to start with Quigley and then read R. Martin’s Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA

Harry W Laidler, an influential American Fabian, also gives a useful account of the links between the London Fabians and the socialist movement in the USA in his History of Socialism

The latest critical study of Fabianism and the industrial groups (Milner Group) described by Quigley is The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu.

A very good critique of Socialism in general is Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies by Kristian Niemietz.

By the way, The League for Industrial Democracy (LID) which the London Fabians described as their “provincial society” in their publications was one of the many conduits through which Fabians influenced political movements in the USA.

The New York-based LID was named after the Fabian book Industrial Democracy that was also translated into Russian by Lenin and used to promote Bolshevism as a “democratic” project.

Definitions are important but so is fluid progression — Benj96

Sounds good to me.

Maybe it is written that way because murder mysteries are so popular and scaring people a little might pique their interest. The communist and socialist, I have met, all want to convince everyone that their understanding of how things should be, is the best. — Athena

Well, it is a critical study. However, the point about Fabianism is that it seeks to implement socialism by stealth. This is clear from the Fabians' own statements. The method is called "permeation" in Fabian writings and it refers to putting Fabian socialist ideas into people's minds without letting them know that those ideas are socialist. It's a technical term in Fabian Socialist theory that you need to be familiar with in order to understand what the author is saying. I thought you were aware of it already.

Fabianism/socialist movement - Britannica

But I suppose we could start a separate thread on this. I'll look into it.

But at least he’s discussing the idea in terms which are understandable to current readers. — Wayfarer

I agree. I think the problem with Buddhism is that it seems to have taken reincarnation from Hinduism but it reinterpreted it in a Buddhist context that has no reference to soul. What reincarnates or is re-born is an aggregate of karmic imprints whose “transmigration” from one birth to another is difficult to explain in everyday language. In contrast, the Platonic and Hindu explanation is much easier to understand even for non-specialists.

The difficulty of the Buddhist theory has been noted by many, e.g. in this article from Psychology Today, The Problem with Reincarnation

unhealthy activities tend to give immediate rapid gratification: drugs, sex, passive entertainment — Benj96

Do you classify sex in general as "unhealthy activity", or is it just sex with unhealthy people?

And would you classify theater as "unhealthy passive entertainment"? What if some regard it as intellectually stimulating and thus conducive to better philosophizing?

Current article, just published on Aeon Magazine: Why Modern Buddhists should Take Reincarnation Seriously, Avram Alpert. — Wayfarer

To be quite honest, when I read statements like these:

“... this temporal relation is also an ethical one, because it suggests that we’re the products of other lives and the creators of other futures, and thus share a global and temporal interdependence ...”

and

“... The Buddhist ideal of ending the cycle of reincarnation has a secular corollary in the ideal of removing all traces of our past mistakes – truly living in a society without patriarchy or poverty or violence ...”,

I immediately thought how this could be used to put a political spin on it. By the time I got to the author’s views on Marx’s stance on reincarnation, it all became clear.

I should have known that the minute he mentioned Slavoj Žižek. But I suppose that's what tends to happen when you give people the benefit of the doubt ....

This is exacerbated by the fact that much modern scholarship deliberately downplays the transcendental dimension of Plato so as to present his works as more compatible with their assumed scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

Precisely. This is where I point out to critics that their presumed "scientific objectivity" is akin to (unconscious) "neo-Marxism", in view of the fact that Marxism has always used scientifically sounding language to legitimize what is otherwise material lifted straight from the more utopian brands of socialism which Marxism dismisses as "unscientific nonsense". But to admit this much would require rather more self-examination than materialists are willing to undergo. In their worldview, there is nothing higher than themselves. Thus, they prefer to take Marx's path of "criticism of everything" except of themselves. That's always the easy way out. It's intellectual laziness disguised as "science" and doesn't solve anything, but it's good for that old materialist ego that likes to worship itself.

Very interesting! I had not heard of (or had totally forgotten) the British historical link to the SLP - USA. Also hadn't heard about the Fabian - Labour Party link. — Bitter Crank

Well, I'm equally surprised that you haven't heard of it as you seem to belong to the more enlightened type of socialist (the type I normally have long and interesting conversations with, by the way).

But if you want I can give you a few links to sources that explain everything in detail. I would highly recommend Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U S A by R. Martin

Obviously, Martin's analysis is a critical one but still extremely instructive IMO, with loads of references and sources. But if you prefer a more sympathetic but equally revealing study written by a (Fabian) socialist you can try H. W. Laidler, History of Socialism. Unfortunately, I can't find a link for Laidler right now but I've got a long list of sources, mostly authored by Fabian and other socialist historians, archivists, etc. and a few by non-socialist critics.

This is one of the reasons why outsiders' attempts at discussing religious claims are bound to be abortive. — baker

I totally agree. Some pretend to take an "objective" or "scientific" approach to religion that is bound to fail given that religious experience is largely subjective. This is why, for example, you get self-appointed "scholars" and "experts" who come up with the peculiar notion that because Platonists view Ultimate Reality as indescribable, ineffable, etc., they are really "atheists". They forget that even Christian mystics often describe God in very similar terms and that all it means is simply that God is a reality above ordinary experience involving words and thoughts. Apparently, this is too difficult for "scholars" to grasp.

"Nebulous" is certainly not the word I would use. I think the Early Buddhist take on rebirth is so complex and requires one to keep in mind so much doctrine that it's just too much for the ordinary person to bother with it. — baker

Well, that's actually what I meant by "nebulous", i.e., in the sense of not easy to grasp by an ordinary person. Obviously, monks and ascetics would be a different story. In fact I find certain Buddhist practices very helpful in getting a deeper insight into certain theoretical assumptions and as I explained in the thread on Greek and Indian philosophy - parallels and interchanges I tend to see some close parallels between Platonism and Indian traditions that may be worthwhile exploring.

There is also the radical bureaucratic changes that changed education and culture. Military order needs people to obey authority. Prussian military-bureaucratic order applied to citizens brought an end to preparing everyone to be industrial and civic leaders. We tore down our national heroes who were examples of strong individuals who stepped into leadership positions, long before tearing down statues. With this change is a nanny government, subsidizing us for rent and food and medical care and now trying to change this dependency on government by insisting industry pay everyone higher wages. I think that is a mistake, but subsidizing workers is also a serious problem. And an economic system that has destroyed traditional family values is also a problem. While those educated for technology are as dependent as people in third world countries on industry to provide them jobs, because they are not educated for leadership. — Athena

I think that's a pretty accurate analysis there. However, it isn't just the military industry. The military industry depends on the corporate groups that control natural resources and raw materials such as oil and steel, starting with Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc.

It was these corporate interests and their allies from the banking and financial sector, that started taking over culture and education by funding cultural and educational institutions through their foundations and endowments. Among the groups funded by the Rockefellers was the London-based Fabian Society whose members became highly influential in education, culture and politics on both sides of the Atlantic from the early 1900s, i.e. long before WWI.

The Fabians were the original initiators of the nanny-state concept as a method of gradual implementation of socialism. They worked on it before and during WWII and implemented it straight after the war when the Labour Party which the Fabians had founded came to power.

How these corporate groups operated in close collaboration with the Fabians on both sides of the Atlantic has been described in detail by historians in

Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U S A by R. Martin
and
The Anglo-American Establishment by C. Quigley

Martin focuses on the Fabians and Quigley on Anglo-American corporations. If you haven't read them already, I would highly recommend them.

Far from being a denial of Socrates atheism, it is an affirmation of it. — Fooloso4

I think that's your interpretation of Socrates.

Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things. — Fooloso4

And some here have failed to properly distinguish "Socratism" and Platonism. They are two different things.

The single issue focus has had distorting effects on the discussion of violence and black deaths. Black on black shootings ought to be a far bigger issue within any justice group. — Bitter Crank

Correct. Black-on-black deaths are definitely something to look into without making it a "white problem". Incidentally, in the UK these groups highlight the fact that black men are "four times more likely to get killed than white men". But what remains unsaid is that the killers in these cases tend to be blacks. The overall effect is that issues of this type tend to create division in society and this is used by foreign powers (China, Iran, etc.) to destabilize Western governments.

The US Socialist Labor Party was an offshoot of Marx and Engels' London-based International. As in Europe, socialism in the US later came under the influence of Fabian Socialism as promoted by the London Fabian Society which also founded the UK Labour Party. The Fabians were supported by the big bankers and industrialists of the day (Carnegie, the Rockefellers and others) and preached a form of non-revolutionary, gradualist socialism that was convenient to capitalist interests that had the same monopolistic aims as the Fabians, i.e., the concentration of financial, economic and political power in the hands of elite groups.

The Fabians' infiltration and takeover of socialist groups from political parties to union organizations and other institutions and movements on both sides of the Atlantic has enabled corporate interests to maintain their control over economy, politics and other aspects of public life.

In the UK, for example, the whole current leadership of the Labour Party consists of Fabian Society members. Through the think tanks, research universities and other institutions they have founded, the Fabians have the resources to suppress any other socialist groups which are often driven into the arms of extremists creating problems that are then "solved" by means of policies suggested by Fabian think tanks and government advisory groups. The people as such, are increasingly excluded from the political process. This is why in spite of superficial appearances, Western society is becoming less and less democratic.

And yes, I do agree that a lot of socialists are decent people. Unfortunately, they are up against forces about which they can do very little, if they are even aware of their existence.

I think that's very much Platonism as filtered through later Christian theology. — Wayfarer

Well, I think Iamblichus, for example, would certainly qualify as highly evolved Platonism and not due to Christian influence.

My point about metempsychosis or reincarnation was that, by definition, it implies the existence of soul, for which reason traditions that deny its existence, such as Buddhism, are less suitable to justify or explain reincarnation in its accepted sense.

It is true that Platonic texts do not as a rule provide much detail on reincarnation. This is because Platonism is concerned with the ascent of the soul to higher planes of existence which is to be achieved through philosophy as a spiritual practice.

However, we can still infer from the Platonic sources that the soul who reincarnates consists of intellect and the lower psychological faculties (the psyche proper) plus an ethereal body (όχημα, ohema) resembling the physical one. This is consistent with other traditions such as those of Hinduism and shows that reincarnation isn't quite as "nebulous" as some might think.

I've read some of the enneads just to see what it was like. I mainly stuck with secondary resources during my Augustine phase. — frank

Well, I thought so. Probably not much of the Enneads at all, and definitely not with a teacher.

And how am I "defensive"? If you're saying that Platonism is "animism" which in my view is totally wrong, what am I supposed to do? Agree with you?

And note how many of his arguments come down to calling whoever disagrees with him a Marxist. — Fooloso4

Actually, people don't need to be Marxists per se, they can be Marxist-influenced or use Marxist-style interpretations of history or religion without realizing it. It should be obvious from my statements above what I mean by "Marxist".

But you ought to look at your own arguments before you criticize others. Take your "Son of God" argument for example.

The historical evidence shows that god Re was the preeminent deity in the Egyptian pantheon through most of the three millennia of pharaonic history. In almost every royal inscription from ancient Egypt, the pharaoh or king is called “the son of Re,” the sun god.

Egyptian kings had several names of which the last was the birth name and the second to last (prenomen) contained the name of the sun god Re. The prenomen was given to the king at his coronation. Thus, he became "the son of God" at his coronation.

"During the period of David and Solomon (tenth century B.C.), the most formative period for Israel’s monarchy, close ties existed between Tanis, the 21st Dynasty capital, and Jerusalem […] These seals suggest that Israel looked to Egypt for inspiration regarding kingship. Israel’s fledgling monarchy had no royal archetypes of its own to draw on, and Egypt was its closest and most influential neighbor. It seems natural that Israel would appropriate language and motifs of kingship that were compatible with its monotheistic worldview."

Son of God - From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus, Biblical Archaeology Review, 13:3, 1997

Egyptian inscriptions read:

“Re has installed the King
on the earth of the living
for ever and ever …”

and the king is called the “beloved and only Son of God”

‘AXIAL’ BREAKTHROUGHS AND SEMANTIC ‘RELOCATIONS’ IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (Egyptian Hymns and Prayers) (uzh.ch)

As I explained to you many times, this was not a literal statement as an adult king, Egyptian or Hebrew, could not be "begotten" in a literal sense. "Begotten" here is the equivalent of English "created" as in "Queen Elisabeth II created somebody a lord", i.e., invested them with the rank of lord. The way Jesus was begotten and appointed by God is a totally different story.

But it isn’t just coronation formulas, there are legal contracts and treaties, law codes, prayers, and many other religious and cultural elements that are found in Egyptian, Assyrian, and Mesopotamian texts that precede their Hebrew counterparts by centuries.

Egyptian influence was particularly strong which is not surprising. Israel was for a time part of the Egyptian Empire and as the Hebrew Bible relates, the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt. In fact, from the Bible account it is hard to distinguish between Hebrew kings like Solomon and Egyptian kings which raises the possibility that the two traditions (not unnaturally) coalesced in Hebrew national memory.

Egyptian influence certainly left a lasting legacy in the region. The Platonic philosopher Iamblichus (245-325 CE), an Arab, wrote a book on the “Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians” in Greek. This illustrates the cultural and religious situation in the Hellenized parts of the Roman Empire to which Palestine belonged and where Christianity was born.

In sum, if you try to use history to “deconstruct” Christianity and reduce it to Judaism, you’ll find that you’ve deconstructed Jewish religion long before you arrive at Christianity.

It’s a well-known fact that Christianity borrowed from the Greeks, Romans, and others and this doesn’t diminish it even one iota. On the contrary, it shows that it is a distinct religion in its own right. And what really matters in a religion like Christianity is the inner spiritual core, not external elements that may have accrued over time.

Your arguments are unsound and unfounded and they don't get you anywhere.

Of course they aren't even similar. Animism is just a belief in spirits. Platonism is an evolved philosophical system that aims to elevate the human soul to higher levels of experience leading to union with God. You need to read basic texts like Plotinus to understand that.

But anyway, if you think you can justify reincarnation on the basis of animistic belief in animal reincarnation, go ahead. I'm not holding you back.

In a way it does, animal reincarnation, for instance. — frank

"In a way" is not good enough. That doesn't make Platonism animism. They aren't even similar.

Neoplatonism does affirm the One, but that's not all there is to existence (obviously). So there is multiplicity in the emanations. There are daemons everywhere.

This belief in daemons has its roots in animism. — frank

Where belief in daemons originated is irrelevant. The point is that Platonic monism is not the same as animism.

In Platonism, the world emanates from the One and returns to the One. In animism, you have a multiplicity of spirits and that's it. They're two different systems.

Plus, animism has no bearing on reincarnation.

I've found it very interesting and helpful and I've had fun. Others have indicated that they feel the same way. That's all I ever ask. — T Clark

Sounds good to me.

There are different kinds of animism. To believe that the universe is alive counts. — frank

I've got nothing against animism. I'm only saying that Platonism is generally defined as monism. It revolves on the concept of Oneness, hence the Platonic belief in "the One". There are also different definitions or interpretations of "alive".

Plotinus did believe everything is God. You're just not accepting that as a form of animism. — frank

Well, I do appreciate your sense of humor. However, monism is definitely not animism.

Animism means a multitude of spiritual beings. Monism means everything is a manifestation or emanation of the same one God.

In one you've got multiplicity, in the other you've got unity. Big fundamental difference.

I don't know if you've read any of my OPs in the past. What I try to do is be very specific about what the terms I plan to use mean in the context I plan to use them and provide justification. I generally willing to discuss different meanings and terms, but the final decision is mine. Then I try to enforce that meaning throughout the discussion. Oh, the wonderful power of the original poster.[/quote]

lol I see. Unfortunately, I only read this OP because I found the topic of interest. How far do you think this thread has progressed in the right direction?