If the world we see is an illusion, there still has to be someone experiencing the illusion. — frank

Correct. As far as I am aware, Heraclitus believes in an immortal soul. So, presumably, the soul is the changeless element in the midst of a changing world.

Parmenides has a conception of the soul that is quite similar to Plato’s: the soul is immortal and divine and inhabits various bodies as it journeys through the cycle of death and rebirth.

Because of a belief that the truth is beyond words? — frank

This seems to be the whole point of the dialogue.

Platonic texts are traditionally interpreted on several levels of meaning, (1) literal (logos), (2) moral (nomos, typos or doxa) and (3) allegorical (hyponoia). This multi-layered interpretation was already common practice by the time of Plato.

The literal Platonic (or “Platonist”) reading of the Parmenides is that it represents Plato’s synthesis of Ionian and Italian (Eleatic) philosophical schools.

The moral interpretation is that the departure of Cephalus (the narrator of the dialogue) from his homeland in Clazomenae and arrival in Athens symbolizes the philosopher’s need to leave his native home (= the body) for the City of Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom (= intellect), in order to attain wisdom, the goal of philosophical endeavor.

The allegorical interpretation is even more elaborate and subtle. Ionia stands for the Physical World, Italy stands for Intelligent Being, Athens for the intermediate way upward that takes the awakened souls to their spiritual home in the Intelligible World. The visitors from Clazomenae represent the individual intelligences that are leaving the physical Cosmos on a journey to the One, the unifying first principle and cause of all under the guiding light of Wisdom cast by Athena (Parmenides and Zeno have come to Athens for the Panathenaea, the most important Athenian festival in honor of the Goddess).

As Proclus explains in his Commentary, Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates represent the highest principles. Adeimantus and Glaucon represent guiding deities who lead the Clazomenaeans to their brother Antiphon who leads them to Pythodorus. And Pythodorus is the divine messenger who relays the inspiring discourses (logoi) taking place between Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates. Parmenides himself stands for the Divine Intellect, Socrates as the youngest of the three represents the plurality of the Ideas or Forms, and Zeno, who is of an intermediate age between Socrates and Parmenides, the principle that unifies plurality in a drive toward the One itself (1.662).

In other words, Parmenides and Zeno, i.e., their views, are interpreted in a positive light and on par with Socrates’ (and Plato’s) own teachings. Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, remained highly valued for many centuries both in the Greek East and, through Latin translations made in the 1200’s, in the Latin West.

It must be recalled that the dialogue relates a conversation between Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates, that took place at Pythodorus’ house in Keramikos, a quarter of Athens whose notable features are an ancient cemetery and the Sacred Gate, the starting point of the Sacred Road from Athens to Eleusis, the route taken by the annual procession celebrating the Eleusinian Mysteries.

(We can see that the location already points to the metaphysical content of the dialogue, which supports its traditional interpretation.)

Zeno had written a book in defense of Parmenidean Monism and brought it to Pythodorus’ house for discussion. Pythodorus, who is said to have been Parmenides’ closest student, later related the conversation to Antiphon and Antiphon related it to Cephalus, who now narrates the dialogue.

The dialogue consists of two parts, a shorter First Part from 126a to 137c, which is between Socrates and Parmenides and revolves on the Platonic Forms.

The Second Part from 137c to 166c, is between Parmenides and Aristoteles (not Aristotle, but the similarity of name may suggest a connection) and is about the intellectual exercise needed for the correct understanding of the Forms.

When Zeno has finished reading his book, Socrates asks him about the meaning of the first hypothesis of Zeno’s first argument, “If the things that are, are many, they must be both like and unlike. But that is impossible as what is unlike cannot be like, nor what is like be unlike” (127e).

Socrates points out that Parmenides holds that “the all is one” and Zeno that “it is not many”, which is “beyond the rest of us”.

Zeno, a pupil of Parmenides who believes in the universal unity of being, attacks those who believe in a plurality of things. He says that his book intends to pay back those who criticize Parmenides, claiming that “If the all is one, many absurdities and contradictions follow” (128d).

Socrates retorts that there is a Form of Likeness and an opposite Form of Unlikeness and that the many participate in the two, which means that the many can be both like and unlike themselves and many and one, without contradiction.

On the other hand, if someone could show that separate Forms like Likeness and Unlikeness, Multitude and Oneness, Rest and Motion, could themselves be combined and separated, and demonstrate the same difficulties that Parmenides and Zeno have shown in regard of the perceptible many, then he, Socrates, would be very much astonished (129e).

Parmenides now points out the difficulties that arise from positing a world of Forms each of which exists “itself by itself” and a world of things that participate in Forms but are separate from them.

Argument 1. (130e–131e) If particular objects participate in the whole of a Form, then the whole Form is present in many objects. If the objects participate in only a part of the Form, then the Form would no longer be simple.
Argument 2. (132a–b) If we posit a Form of Largeness to explain the presence of that property in a group of large things, then we must also posit a second Form of Largeness to account for largeness in the group of things and in the first Form, followed by a third Form of Largeness to account for largeness in the first and second Forms and their corresponding objects, etc. As a result, the Form cannot be one, it must be infinite in number.
Argument 3. (132b–c) If, as Socrates suggests, a Form is just a thought in our mind and therefore single, not multiple, then each thing is composed of thoughts and all things either (a) think or (b) though being thoughts, are unthinking, which is unreasonable.
Argument 4. (132c–133a) If, as Socrates now suggests, Forms are patterns in nature of which the multitude of instances are copies or likenesses, then the Forms are like their instances and things are like by participating in the Form of Likeness, which results in another infinite regress as in Argument 2, above.
Argument 5. (133a–134e) If particular objects are separate from their corresponding Form, there can be no relation between the world of Forms and the world of perceptible particulars. Similarly, there can be no relation between knowledge of one world and knowledge of the other. God himself would be deprived of knowledge of our world, and the Gods would be unable to rule us.

Socrates admits that such an argument would be too strange to contemplate.

Parmenides says that only someone remarkably ingenious would be able to understand the Forms and even more so to teach it to another. On the other hand, if the existence of Forms were to be denied, there would be no stable concepts to turn to, and this would “completely destroy the power of discourse” (135 c).

It is clear that despite the criticism, Parmenides does not reject the Theory of Forms. His true objective is to show that Socrates has an incomplete understanding of the Forms. He has attempted to define Forms prematurely. This can be redressed through rigorous intellectual training which involves examination of the consequences of each hypothesis not only when we hypothesize “if a thing is”, but also “if that same thing is not”.

Socrates asks for a demonstration and Parmenides, taking Aristoteles for interlocutor, proceeds with his arguments. The Eight Arguments he now presents answer the problems raised by Socrates in the First Part. They revolve on concepts like Being, Unity, Likeness, Difference, etc., i.e., the critical elements that Plato uses in his definition of Forms.

Four of the Arguments (or groups of arguments) are based on the proposition that “the One is”, and four on the proposition that “the One is not”, and are constructed on the following basic pattern:

1. “If the One is, then the One is neither F nor con-F”
2. “If the One is, then the One is both F and con-F”
3. “If the One is, then the Others are both F and con-F”
4. “If the One is, then the Others are neither F nor con-F”
5. “If the One is not, then the One is both F and con-F”
6. “If the One is not, then the One is neither F nor con-F”
7. “If the One is not, then the Others are both F and con-F”
8. “If the One is not, then the Others are neither F nor con-F”

Where F = property and con-F = property contrary to the property of being F and properties and their contraries refer to parts-whole, limited-unlimited, same-different, like-unlike, motion-rest, equal-unequal, etc.:

Argument 1. (137c–142a) “If the One is” (i.e., if it is One), then the One neither has parts nor is a whole”.
Argument 2. (142b–155e) “If the One is, then the One both has parts and is a whole”.
Argument 3. (158b5-7) “If the One is, then the Others both have parts and are a whole”.
Argument 4. (154b-160b) “If the One is, then the Others neither have parts nor are a whole”, etc.
Argument 5. (160b–163b) “If the One is not, then the One partakes of both likeness in relation to itself and of unlikeness in relation to the Others”.
Argument 6. (163b–164b) “If the One is not, then the One partakes neither of the like nor of the different”.
Argument 7. (164b–165e) “If the One is not, then the Others both appear to be one and are not one”.
Argument 8. (165e-166c) “If the One is not, then the Others are neither one nor many”, etc.

In short, Argument 1 states that if the One is, then it has neither parts nor is a whole, has neither beginning nor end, neither limit nor shape, is neither in another nor in itself, is neither in motion nor at rest, is neither different than nor the same as itself or another, not equal to itself nor another, etc. but that these things cannot be true of the One.

On its part, the final Argument 8 ends in the conclusion (at 166c) that “if One is not, nothing is”.

We can see why Plato’s Parmenides tends to be regarded as something of an enigma. Key questions revolve around issues such as the identity of “One” and the meaning of negation.

Fortunately, we have traditional interpretations like those of Plotinus and Proclus that can provide valuable guidance.

One way of looking at non-being is to see it not as “nothingness” but as “otherness”. Similarly, the One itself may be distinguished from human thought about the One, etc.

In his Commentary, Proclus acknowledges the fact that some have been persuaded to take Argument 1 as meaning that the existence of the One is an impossibility. The problem with this is that it would be inconsistent both with Parmenides’ monistic views and with Plato’s belief in the One.

Proclus, therefore, writes:

This is, then, a single negation summing all the rest and added to them. The One, not being one among all things, is the cause of all. So the general negation represents at the same time the whole progression of all from the One.
….
But from another point of view one must say that he first denies everything of the One, thinking that negations are more suited to it than assertions, and keeping the hypothesis which says “is” of the One. But since, as he advances, he has taken away from it not only everything else but also participation in substance and Being, and has shown that it is neither expressible nor knowable, now at the end he rightly removes from it even the negations themselves. For if the One is not expressible and if it has no definition, then how will the negations be true for it?
….
He is therefore right in ending with the removal even of the negatives, saying that it is impossible that they should express anything about the One, which is inexpressible and unknowable. And one should not wonder that Plato, who always respects the principles of contradiction, says here that both the assertions and the denials are false of the One at the same time.
….
Next then, let us take up the fourth way of solving the problem. The soul ascending to the level of Intellect, ascends with her multitude of faculties, but sheds everything that dissipates her activities. Now going further and having arrived there she comes to rest in the One Being, and she approaches the One itself and becomes single, not becoming inquisitive or asking what it is not and what it is, but everywhere closing her eyes, and contracting all her activity and being content with unity alone. Parmenides, then, is imitating this and ends by doing away both with the negations and with the whole argument, because he wants to conclude the discourse about the One with the inexpressible (Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, 7.68K-74K).

I've told you a number of times now, "the good" as Plato uses this, is not a Form. This idea seems to really skew the way that you read Plato, resulting in your misunderstanding of Symposium 206. The passage is very explicit. It is said that Love wants the good. Then it is said: "You see, Socrates' , she said, 'what Love wants is not beauty, as you think it is'." Clearly what is described is a separation between Beauty and the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

The passage may be explicit, but I think you misinterpret or misread it.

If (a) “what Love wants is not beauty, as you think” and (b) “Love wants the good”, this can only mean that (c) what the philosopher really loves (or craves) is the Good.

The Good manifests itself as Beauty. Man craves Beauty. But when he comes to see Beauty itself, he really sees the Good, which is within himself. This is why he becomes able to give birth to things that are beautiful, good, and true. You can’t give birth to things from outside yourself, giving birth, producing, or creating is always from within.

The Platonic “Way Upward” (he Ano Odos), the way of vertical ascent, is a process of interiorization, elevation, and unification of consciousness, that proceeds from the exterior to the interior, from the lower to the higher, and from the manifold to the simple.

Accordingly, the point Plato is making is that many beauties lead to one Beauty and Beauty leads to its source which is the Good.

We feel attraction for beauty because it is a reflection of the beauty within us and beyond (above) us.

At first, we are unaware of our soul’s beauty, therefore we crave the beauty in the external other.

But as we turn our attention away from physical beauty to beauty in institutions, laws, and knowledge itself, we interiorize, elevate, and unify our experience of beauty, and begin to realize the presence of beauty within us in the form of knowledge.

Eventually, we realize the beauty of the knowledge-holder, the soul itself, and we understand that the source of all knowledge is intelligence which is the essence of life in general, and of our soul in particular.

So, what Diotima’s Ladder of Love does is to turn the philosopher’s focus of attention from external material things to inner spiritual realities in order to live his life from that inner center, which is the creative wellspring of life, experience, and all things beautiful, good, and true.

In the final stages of philosophical endeavor, the seeker after truth no longer derives beauty from sources outside himself, but with his gaze fixed on the Highest, he manifests beauty externally from within. At that point, he becomes like the Gods and is loved by them for being divine, like themselves.

Becoming as godlike as possible or “likeness to God” (homoiosis Theo - Theaet. 176b), is the central aim of Platonism and Plato’s dialogues must be read with this aim in mind.

The accomplished philosopher creates things that are beautiful, good, and true following a higher model in the same way the Creator-God creates the Universe after a perfect divine model.

But this is wrong, and a problem which philosophers have grappled with for millennia. It is well described by Aquinas. The human intellect is deficient because of its dependency on the material body. The supposed Creative Intelligence has no dependence on material existence, being prior to it. Therefore individual intelligences cannot be made of the same stuff as the Creator Intelligence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, philosophers can grapple all they want if they have nothing better to do. :smile:

Personally, I think the “problem” is artificial and stems from reading Plato through an Aristotelian or Christian Platonist lens. I am taking the traditional Platonic view here.

On this view, Plato has a clear hierarchy of intelligences:

Ultimate Reality a.k.a. “the One” or “the Good”.
Divine Creative Nous a.k.a. “Creator-God”.
Cosmic Nous.
Cosmic Gods.
Olympian Gods.
Minor Deities and semi-divine beings (nymphs, daemons, etc.).
Humans.
Subhuman animals and lower forms of life.

However, all intelligences are forms of Intelligence. Intelligence or Spirit does not depend on Matter, but Matter on Spirit.

Plato says that the Creator-God first made the Soul of the Universe and then its Body, and the same is true of the human soul which preexists the physical body.

It follows that if human intellect is in any way deficient, this is neither because it depends on material things nor because it is made from something other than Intelligence, but because it is a limited form of Intelligence.

Were human intelligence essentially different from Divine Intelligence, it would have no chance of ever becoming godlike or knowing anything higher than itself.

But Plato tells us not only that the human intelligence is essentially divine but that it has innate latent knowledge of divine realities like the Forms.

When the soul follows the Platonic Way Upward, it acquires full knowledge of the Forms, it sees God’s Creative Intelligence face-to-face, and realizes its identity with it.

Creative Intelligence or Creator-God (Demiurgos) is Intelligence cognitively identical with the Forms it contains within itself. It is the Paradigm of Knower with which human intelligence is essentially identical.

Knowledge begins with God’s Creative Intelligence which knows the Forms it contains within itself and the Universe it creates according to the Forms.

Before Knowledge, there is no knowledge. There is just Intelligence and Consciousness, i.e., the Self-Awareness Supreme Intelligence has of itself:

1. Ultimate Reality = Pure Undivided Intelligence.

2. Consciousness = Intelligence divides itself into two in an act of Self-Awareness, becoming Divine Mind.

3. Knowledge = Self-Awareness further divides into a more defined subjective element (Creative Intelligence) and its objective content (Forms).

So, the highest knowledge is at the level of Creative Intelligence or Creator-God. But the source and cause of a thing is prior to or higher than the thing itself. Therefore, the Source of Knowledge is above Knowledge and above the Creator-God, at the level of the One or the Good which is Pure Intelligence and Consciousness.

It follows that Ultimate Reality or Supreme Intelligence has two aspects, (1) a higher one which is Pure Intelligence and Consciousness (i.e., Self-Awareness), and (2) a lower one which is Creative Intelligence or “Creator-God”.

To these we may add a third aspect, the Cosmic Intellect or Soul, which we may take to contain all other souls, including human souls.

This way we obtain three items comparable to Plotinus’ three hypostases - (1) the One (the Good), (2) Intellect, and (3) Soul – if we wish to harmonize Platonism with Christianity.

But from a Platonic perspective there is no need to do so, not least because Plato’s, Plotinus’, and Christianity’s sets of three principles or hypostases are not exactly identical.

I think I see what you are trying to say. However, I see it differently.

The reflection may not be a true representation in a scientific sense, but it is sufficiently true for everyday purposes.

For example, if you see a moving shadow getting closer to you, you know that something or somebody is approaching even if you don't yet know exactly what or who it is. So it is wrong to describe the shadow (or reflection) as "deception" in all cases.

When Plato speaks about the philosopher's need to see himself in another soul, this is meant metaphorically, as one soul cannot directly see the other soul. But it can see qualities such as intelligence, and recognize its own identity as intelligence, etc.

The Creator-God possesses faculties associated with intelligence, such as awareness, joy, will-power, knowledge, action. As he has no body, he must be Intelligence only. And the content of that Intelligence are the Forms.

Consciousness has two elements, a subjective and an objective one. The objective element is the content of consciousness. The Forms are the content of the Creator-God's Consciousness.

The Forms cannot exist independently of one another or of the Intelligence that organizes and holds them together.

When we imagine something, e.g., a series of images, it is our own intelligence that creates, organizes, and observes the images, and we know this to be the case.

In the case of the Supreme Intelligence, which is (ontologically and conceptually) above the Creator-God, the content of its consciousness is itself. The "mirror" in which it sees itself is Intelligence itself.

Before "dividing" itself into a subjective and an objective element, the Supreme Intelligence is simply Awareness. After dividing itself, it becomes the Creator-God (consisting of Creative Intelligence as the subjective element and Forms as the objective element) who generates the Universe consisting of Spirit (subjective element) and Matter (objective element).

In other words, Ultimate Reality or the One is Undivided Intelligence. The Creator-God or Creative Intelligence is ontologically and metaphysically below Ultimate Reality.

Diotima is actually establishing a separation between the good, and Beauty, and proposing that the good is what is desired and wanted by people, — Metaphysician Undercover

The "separation" is only apparent. What Plato means is that Beauty is an expression of the Good. It cannot be otherwise as the Form of the Good contains all the Forms that participate in it. By pursuing Beauty, the philosopher arrives at the Good. This is the true meaning of Diotima's instruction.

we have no reason to believe the Creator is an "Intelligence", just like we have no reason to believe that the unity of five fingers is a "Finger": A hand is something completely different from a finger, therefore we ought to also believe that the Creator is something completely different from an intelligence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course the unity of five fingers is not a Finger. And the hand may or may not be "completely different" from a finger. However, five fingers are still part of the same one hand. And they are made of the same stuff, viz., skin, muscle, bone, blood, etc.

Similarly, individual intelligences are made of the same stuff as the Creative Intelligence. It doesn't mean that they are identical with it in all respects.

As far as I can tell, there are two issues:

1. Change itself. For example motion. [Changes]

2. The cause of change: The laws of motion. [Does not change] — TheMadFool

Sure. It is difficult to tell what Heraclitus taught exactly. But if everything is in constant flux, then the flux itself qua flux must remain the same.

The water in a river may change between the times you step in it, but the river itself as a riverbed with flowing water is the same river - or changes its course sufficiently slowly to qualify as the same for practical purposes.

Heraclitus’ position, if our understanding of it is correct, seems to be similar to the Indian Theory of Momentariness (Kshanika-Vada).

Plato would agree that the physical world is in constant flux, but the intelligible world is changeless. Hence his theory of eternal Forms which Pamenides seems to endorse in the dialogue.

Another pre-Socratic approach was to say that the Parmenidean One exists but there happen to be lots of them. Each 'den' ("thing" - made-up word, opposite of 'ouden' = no-thing) is indivisible, without parts, absolute being without specific properties such as colour or taste. They buzz around in the vacuum and make up the familiar world of sensible objects and properties. The result is Atomism. — Cuthbert

Correct. It’s amazing how the “findings” of modern science were already anticipated thousands of years ago.

The only problem with Atomism is that, though it makes sense at atomic level, it takes something more than just atoms to explain anything bigger like, say, the Universe. That’s why Plato isn’t very fond of Atomism. And his Parmenides doesn’t seem to be a follower of Atomism, either.

Most philosophers and that includes Socrates, Plato, et al were, my hunch is, uncomfortable with the Heraclitean position because it has sophist written all over it. — TheMadFool

One way of looking at it is that there were two forms of Heracliteanism. The "extreme" one held that everything was in flux in every way, which meant that things could not have properties. The "moderate" one held that there must be some permanence, otherwise the "eternal flux" itself would be impossible.

Plato obviously rejects extreme Heracliteanism. But he nevertheless holds that sensibles are always in some way becoming. This is why he contrasts the world of Becoming and the world of Being.

The Platonic world of Becoming (the world of sensibles) is similar to the Heraclitean world of flux and, therefore, less than real. The real world is the world of Being which is the world of unchanging intelligibles.

Personally, I think that the Parmenides is one of Plato’s most interesting dialogues and it has held a central position in the Platonic tradition from antiquity into modern times.

Unfortunately, it isn’t the easiest to interpret and this has led to controversial views among scholars and ordinary readers of Plato alike.

The main strands of interpretation have been divided along logical versus metaphysical lines. The first tends to read the dialogue as an exercise in logical argumentation. The second takes it to contain some of Plato’s most profound thoughts about the structure of the suprasensory world of Intelligence. This is why Platonists like Plotinus have regarded it as a treasure trove of invaluable metaphysical insight.

One of the sources of confusion and misunderstanding seems to be the points raised against Platonic teachings like the “Theory of Forms”. Young Socrates is made to defend his (and Plato’s) position against Parmenides and Zeno’s objections and isn’t doing too well (129 ff.)

But it is Parmenides who declares that there must be Forms, because otherwise we will have nowhere to turn our thoughts to and this will totally destroy the power of dialectic (135b-c3).

Then comes Aristoteles’ turn (137c) and the discussion – consisting of eight arguments - revolves on the One and the Many. The final conclusion is that “if the One is not, nothing is” (166c).

So, I think that on the whole, the criticism is ultimately constructive and the dialogue is consistent with Plato’s position on the Forms and on the One as a first principle of all.

The metaphysical interpretation makes more sense in a Platonic context than the logical one.

Five fingers does not make one finger, it makes something different, one hand. So by your analogy a multitude of intelligences would not make One Supreme Intelligence, it would make something different. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fingers are part of the hand (or extensions of the palm). The multitude of individual intelligences are part of the Supreme Intelligence or extensions of it just as fingers are of the hand. The analogy may be less than perfect but I think it does give an idea of what is meant.

Well, if "seeing oneself in the other" is metaphorical for something which involves only one, that would be very very strange. — Metaphysician Undercover

In his dialogues, Plato uses the imagery of reflection multiple times to point either to the individual self or to the Universal Self/Ultimate Truth.

For example, in the Phaedo, he compares looking for truth in theories and arguments about things, to studying the image of the Sun reflected in water “or something of the kind” (Phaedo 99e). The phrase “something of the kind” is Plato’s way of alerting the reader to the fact that this is not an exact comparison, analogy, or account.

The metaphor refers to one seer or cognizing subject. Hence the illustration of the mirror. What Plato is saying is that the philosopher must look at himself, i.e., at his own intelligent soul, using his own intelligence as a mirror. This is the path to self-knowledge as well as the path to knowing the Ultimate.

And if this, "seeing oneself in the other", is, as you said, the source of all knowledge, then knowledge cannot be derived from One, it requires more than one. — Metaphysician Undercover

That which “sees itself in the other” and "is the source of all knowledge", is Ultimate Reality which reflects itself in itself. The “Other” and resulting “Many” here is conceptual. When Ultimate Reality which is Pure Intelligence reflects itself in itself it recognizes the “Other”. i.e., its own reflection as itself, not as some other reality different from itself.

In the world of Being, the Creative Intelligence that contains the Forms, for example, is cognitively identical with the Forms and is aware of this identity. The sense of real difference only arises in the world of Becoming, where things are not perceived as different manifestations of one cognizing intelligence but as separate and independent of one another and of the cognizing subject.

But the point I was making was that as Plato does not present his philosophy in a very systematic manner, it is essential to systematize our understanding of it starting from a few basic principles.
In the first place, we need to familiarize ourselves with the wider cultural, religious, and philosophical background behind the Platonic project.

As shown by Lloyd Gerson, Plato and his followers operate within the framework of “Ur-Platonism”, a general philosophical position that combines antimaterialism, antimechanism, antinominalism, antirelativism, and antiskepticism.

Though it emerged before Plato, Ur-Platonism was given shape by Plato and was further developed by later Platonists, especially Plotinus, in line with the blueprint sketched by Plato.

Platonism does not offer a decisive answer to all the problems raised either by itself or by its opponents. However, it does offer a theoretical framework within which philosophical inquiry and practice can be conducted along the lines suggested by Plato in his dialogues.

If we follow the pattern established by Plato and developed by later Platonists, we can avoid most of the misunderstandings or misinterpretations that have arisen especially in more recent times.

The relation between the Good and the Beautiful is a case in point, showing how two apparently distinct things can be ultimately one.

In Ancient Greek, the word “beautiful” (kalos) was already often used not just in the sense of “aesthetically pleasing” but also of “good” in the sense of “useful”. Plato himself states that the divine is Beauty, Wisdom, and Goodness and that by these qualities the wings of the soul are nourished and grow, enabling it to ascend to higher planes (Phaedrus 246e).

This is exactly the meaning of the “Ladder of Love” described in the Symposium. Though the ascent starts as a quest for Beauty itself, what the philosopher ultimately attains is the Good which is Ultimate Truth:

Do but consider, that there only will it befall him, as he sees the Beautiful through that which makes it visible, to breed not illusions but true examples of virtue, since his contact is not with illusion but with Truth. So when he has begotten a true virtue and has reared it up he is destined to win the friendship of Heaven; he, above all men, is immortal (Symp. 212a)

Now, if “beautiful” were to mean “aesthetically pleasing” and nothing else, then “seeing the Beautiful” would be the final goal. But this is obviously not the case. Having seen the Beautiful, i.e., the Good, the philosopher must now “beget virtue”, i.e., good. Only then will he or she become loved by the Gods.

Beauty here is treated as an expression of Good. This practical value of Beauty and its identity with Good is consistent not only with Ancient Greek Weltanschauung but also, and above all, with Platonic philosophy.

Having come into contact with Beauty which is also Good and Truth, the philosopher becomes “pregnant in the soul” with things that are beautiful, good, and true, and “gives birth” or produces them.

Thus birth itself has a dual meaning. The philosopher is born to a new world of beauty, goodness, and truth, and in turn, gives birth to things that are beautiful, good, and true.

Socrates himself must somehow be in contact with Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, because he acts as a midwife to those whose minds are “pregnant with fine ideas” (Theaetetus 150b ff.) and (according to Alcibiades) begets beautiful speeches about virtue.

It follows that, as Diotima says, love of Beauty is really love of Good (Symp. 206a): We love Beauty because it is in some sense Good. Love of Beauty is the desire not only to behold Beauty, but to hold it for ever and to manifest it in everything we do in every way we can. The Gods do not judge man by what he sees but by his actions.

Plato clearly equates Beauty with Good and with Truth. Hence the quest for Beauty, Goodness, and Truth and their practical application become central to Platonic philosophy. The philosopher who has attained this triple goal becomes “beloved of the Gods” (theophiles) and “immortal” (athanatos).

The question of Plato’s causality is another problem that can prove intractable if we ignore the wider Platonic framework.

As discussed, Aristotle says that Plato recognizes two causes only: formal and material. The formal one is represented by the One and the material one represented by the “Great and the Small” a.k.a. “the Dyad” (which despite its name is a single principle of materiality).

But this is not supported by the dialogues where there is an efficient cause as well as a final cause. The Forms seem to be efficient causes in the Phaedo, but in later dialogues the efficient cause is Soul, Nous, or Creator-God (Laws 896a). Indeed, it stands to reason that the efficient cause of the Universe is the Creative Intelligence that contains the Forms, rather than the Forms themselves. And the Good is the final cause.

So, Plato has at least four causes. In fact, Proclus identifies six causes: three primary (efficient, paradigmatic, final) and three accessory (material, formal, instrumental) and believes that a detailed analysis would yield as many as 96 (a number with cosmological connotations).

However, all causes are closely interconnected and ultimately one. As Proclus himself puts it:

But let it be the case that multiplicity has its ordering centred on the monad and diversity centred on the simple and multiformity centred on what has a single form and diversity centred on what is common [to all], so that a chain that is truly golden rules over all things and all things are ordered as they ought to be (On the Timaeus 2.262.20).

This is why Platonic tradition refers to Ultimate Reality (or first principle and cause of all) as “the Good” or “the One”. Identifying Ultimate Reality with the Ultimate Good and the Irreducible One is consistent with Plato’s commitment to the reduction of fundamental principles of explanation to the absolute minimum. Insisting that they are not identical, tends to unnecessarily raise problems that are difficult to resolve. Hence even Proclus (who often likes to make complicated analyses of everything) uses the Homeric golden chain as a symbol of the hierarchy of reality ultimately depending on one Supreme Cause.

In any case, it is clear from Socrates’ statements in the dialogues that sciences like mathematics are not to be studied for their own sake but for a higher purpose. The same applies to logic and to philosophy itself.

The Platonic project is not about becoming lost in endless discussions about details. It is about elevating human knowledge and experience to the highest possible plane.

What is particularly interesting about Plato in this regard is the fact that his dialogues can be read or interpreted on more than one level.

For example, we know that seeing occupies a central place in the Ancient Greek worldview where it is closely connected with knowledge.

Aristotle begins his Metaphysics with the following statement:

All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of this is our esteem for the senses; for apart from their use we esteem them for their own sake, and most of all the sense of sight. Not only with a view to action, but even when no action is contemplated, we prefer sight, generally speaking, to all the other senses. The reason of this is that of all the senses sight best helps us to know things, and reveals many distinctions (Meta. 1.980a)

Plato’s Forms are literally, “things seen”. Not seen by sense-perceptions, imagination or thought, but by pure intelligence. And since according to Plato Creative Intelligence generates the Universe by means of Matter and Form, it may be said without exaggeration that Creative Intelligence “sees” or projects the Universe into existence.

Another important faculty is the faculty of hearing, i.e., of perceiving sound. Plato calls the primary elements of matter (fire, earth, water, air) that make up the material world, “stoicheia”. “Stoicheia” also means elements of knowledge in general, as well as units of speech (including the letters of the alphabet), in particular.

Speech is a form of sound and sound is the product of motion. Plato tells us that the Primordial Matter of the Receptacle has a certain motion like a kind of “shaking” (seismos) or vibration comparable to that produced by a winnowing basket or sieve that makes particles separate or coalesce according to certain patterns (Tim. 52e).

Since for Plato, motion is always associated with soul or spirit, i.e., intelligence, this subtle, inner vibration of Primordial Matter must be caused by the Divine Consciousness itself.

In other words, though motionless, the Universal Consciousness produces an imperceptible vibration and sound that crystalizes into the fundamental elements that form the objects first of intellection and then of sense-perception, that together make up the Universe: the Universe is a manifestation of sound which in turn is a manifestation of the imperceptible inner vibration of the living Divine Intelligence.

However, these are concepts that take human intelligence to the limit of thought, to a point beyond which there is no thought and no language.

This is why Plato refuses to be dragged into details. In the Timaeus he explicitly leaves the first principle of all out of the discussion. Having described the primary elements of matter, he says:

But the principles (archai) which are still higher than these are known only to God and the man who is dear to God (Tim. 53d)

For the same reason, later Platonists like Plotinus refer to the Ultimate as “above being” (hyperousios) and “ineffable” which can mean “forbidden to be spoken”, as in the secrets of mystery rites (Phaedo 62b) or “inexpressible” (Soph. 238c).

At this point, some may be inclined to dismiss Platonism as “mysticism” or whatever. However, if we think about it, there is no reason why we should expect the human mind which deals with limited, measurable, and expressible things, to grasp something that is ultimately unmeasurable, at least by normal standards.

So, Plato’s dialogues are not treatises of pure or formal logic. They are literary pointers to higher truths that the reader must discover for himself and using his own intelligence.

How do you account for the fact that there are many different people with consciousness and awareness, when you say that consciousness and awareness is more compatible with One? — Metaphysician Undercover

Very simple. Take the example of the five fingers of one hand. They are different extensions of the same one hand. Different intelligences are products of One Supreme Intelligence as Plato says in the Timaeus.

You never did demonstrate why the "First Cause" ought to be consider to be some sort of awareness or consciousness. All we have to go on, is that the so-called First Cause, is a movement toward a good, a final cause. But we see that all sorts of living creatures, with or without consciousness and awareness, engage in this type of movement toward a good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Plato’s Creator-God is clearly an Intelligent Being. As he has no body, he is just Intelligence. And intelligence presupposes awareness:

1. Awareness, state of being awake or watchful, ability to directly know or perceive. E.g., heightened or dimmed awareness.
2. Consciousness, self-awareness, awareness of oneself, awareness of one’s surroundings, etc.
3. Intelligence, capacity for understanding and information processing.

As a general term, intelligence can be used in senses 1, 2, and 3, individually or collectively.

Look at the inconsistency you have presented here. You start off saying, "Not knowledge, but that which knows, the subject of the known objects", and you call this "One". Then you proceed to talk about "us". But "us" does not refer to one, it refers to many. Further, you talk about a soul seeing itself in another soul. Obviously this is not a feature of one soul, but of a number of souls. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see no inconsistency whatsoever.

Human cognition involves a cognizing subject and a cognized object. This doesn’t mean it is two human beings.

Similarly, the Good or the One which is Awareness, can have awareness of itself.

However, at the stage prior to creation, the Good or the One is simply Awareness, without even self-awareness. So, it is absolutely simple and One.

As regards “we”, I am following Plotinus and other Platonists in using “we” (hemeis) in the sense of “I” taken collectively, because this is how it was mostly used in Classical Greek. What is meant is the feeling of self-identity which refers to one entity only. You could call it “I”, “ego”, “individual persona” or whatever you prefer.

Again, this "seeing oneself in the other" requires more than one. So if this is "the source and cause of all knowledge", then knowledge cannot be derived from One, it must be derived from Many. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can see no connection between your first sentence and the second.

Of course seeing oneself in the other requires more than one. But this is just a metaphor.

Plato uses metaphorical language, e.g., the Cave, the Line, the Sun, etc. Reflection points to a higher truth. The Sun reflects itself in many reflective objects but it remains one Sun above all objects.

The focus is on the seeing subject which is one.

The point Plato is making is that by seeing itself reflected in a being that is similar to itself, the soul becomes aware of its own identity.

What matters is the soul’s identity as a divine being. In other words, if the human soul were to see God face-to-face, it would recognize its own divinity reflected in the Divine and, ultimately, its identity with the Divine.

Regarding Knowledge and the One, Knowledge is derived from the One indirectly if you will: Knowledge is derived from the One via the Many. But the “Many” are just a manifestation of the One.

The One (1) starts as Pure Undivided Awareness, then (2) divides itself into Awareness and Self-Awareness or Consciousness in a kind of self-reflexive cognition, and next (3) through the interaction of the two, knowledge is produced in the form of Intelligence and Forms or Ideas, etc.

You could think of it as an infinite expanse of Awareness comparable to the ocean or sea:

1. Ocean itself (= the One).
2. Invisible Currents within the ocean (= Forms within Divine Intellect).
3. Visible waves (= individual human beings).
4. Drops of water, mist, etc. (= physical bodies and inanimate objects).

You might say that the drops are derived from many waves, but the waves are derived from the ocean. In fact, they are part of the ocean.

So, Many products of the same One Source.

The Good or the One is the ultimate cause of all things (hapánton arché).

Using your own common sense and intuition, don't you find that awareness and consciousness is more compatible with Many than with One? Isn't the world full of distinct instances of awareness and consciousness? Why would we say that the many consciousnesses which make up the reality of human existence is One, when it is very clear that it is Many? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don’t find that “awareness and consciousness is more compatible with Many than with One” at all. On the contrary, my common sense and intuition is that awareness and consciousness is one, not many. So, unfortunately, this is where we will have to disagree.

Of course, we experience many moments of sensory perception that involve many brain cells, but the brain itself is one.

Similarly, there are many instances of awareness and consciousness, but they are at the level of human cognition. What I am talking about when I say “the One”, is the Divine Awareness or Consciousness prior to the creation of the universe, i.e., in its role as First Cause of all, when no world full of distinct instances of awareness or consciousness existed. At that stage, Knowledge itself is One as there is nothing to divide it into many.

As we have seen, philosophy for the Ancient Greeks in general, and for Plato in particular, is a quest for knowledge.

Knowledge is of three kinds (1) knowledge of the world, (2) knowledge of oneself, and (3) knowledge of a higher reality that may be referred to as “the Good”, “the One”, “the Highest”, “Truth”, etc.

Real knowledge starts with self-knowledge. Therefore, the “self” (2) and the “higher reality” (3) may be regarded as situated at the two extremities, one lower and one higher, of the same cognitive continuum.

Taking the “self” to be the lower extremity, we must ask the question of Who or What is the “self”?

Plato identifies the human self with the soul (psyche) which uses the body as an instrument.
The soul or self has three different aspects which in descending order are:

1. Noetic self or nous, the divine part of the self, which is the subject of intellection, intuition, and contemplation.
2. Dianoetic self or logismos, the reasoning “man within” (entos anthropos), the “we” of ordinary human identity.
3. Physical self or “beastly” (theriodes) aspect of the self, that is tied to the physical body and is the subject of bodily impulses and concerns.

Man’s true self is the noetic self which is essentially identical with the Divine Intellect.

As Socrates puts it:

There is in the universe a by no means feeble Cause which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may most justly be called Wisdom (sophia) and Intelligence (Nous) (Phileb. 30c)

And:

All the wise agree that Intelligence (Nous) is king of heaven and earth (Phileb. 28c)

Socrates next makes a very important point in which he connects human soul with Universal Intelligence.

In the Timaeus, it is said that God or Creative Intelligence created the Universe as a living being endowed with body and soul and that he made human soul from the same stuff as the Soul of the Universe:

God, however, constructed Soul to be older than Body and prior in birth and excellence, since she [the Soul] was to be the mistress and ruler and it the ruled … (Tim. 34c).

Socrates now draws attention to the fact that human soul derives from Universal Soul:

Shall we not say that our body has a soul? Where did it get it, unless the body of the universe had a soul, since that body has the same elements as ours [fire, water, air, and earth] only in every way superior? (Phileb. 30a)

Socrates also points out that Zeus himself, the supreme Olympian God, whose titles include “King of Kings” and “King of the Gods”, has a kingly soul (basilike psyche) and a kingly mind (basilikos nous) given to him by the Divine Creative Intelligence or Universal Cause:

Then in the nature of Zeus you would say that a kingly soul and a kingly mind were implanted through the power of the Cause, and in other deities other noble qualities from which they derive their favorite epithets (Phileb. 30c-d).

Plotinus (Enn.V.3(49)4,1) draws the logical conclusion by saying that “We, too, are kings” (or “We, too, rule”). In other words, we too are rulers of our own body and mind. This is the first lesson to learn. Equally important, however, given our descent from the King of the Universe, we too are royal and divine.

“Royal” (basilikos) and “divine” (theios) imply a higher nature or status. Moreover, our descent from the Universal Intelligence can only mean that our own intellect (our true self) is essentially identical with the Intelligence of the Universe.

It is worthwhile recalling at this point that according to Plato, the telos or goal of human life is to become as “godlike as possible” and that “to be godlike is to be righteous, holy, and wise”. The word “wise” connects us with the Universal Intelligence which is also said to be “Wisdom” (Sophia).

It is this essential identity of the personal and divine nous that makes it possible for man to elevate himself to the highest plane of experience or level of intelligence.

Plato uses similes, allegory, and myth, to constantly remind us of this fact.

The “Ladder of Love” of the Symposium, the “Allegory of the Sun”, “the Cave”, and the “Divided Line” of the Republic, etc., etc. all point in the same direction.

In the Republic Plato provides us with another illustration. Socrates and his interlocutors have come to the conclusion that their arguments and other proofs (discussed in the Phaedo, Phaedrus, etc.) have shown that the human soul is immortal. Socrates says that if we use our reason to consider the soul once it has been cleansed of all mental and physical impurities, it will be more beautiful than it currently appears.

He then compares the soul with the Sea-God Glaucus who is so covered in barnacles and seaweed and his body so mutilated by the waves that he appears much “wilder” than he actually is.

Similarly, Socrates says, the soul has been marred by countless evils. But if we consider its innate wisdom, its immortality, and its divinity, then we might see it as it really is.

Consider what it might be if it followed the gleam unreservedly and were raised by this impulse out of the depths of this sea in which it is now sunk, and were cleansed and scraped free of the rocks and barnacles which cling to it in wild profusion of earthy and stony accretion (Rep. 611e-612a).

The cleansing process consists in the development of basic civic virtues (self-control, courage, wisdom, righteousness), followed by intellectual virtues or skills such as discrimination or discernment (diakrisis), logic, intuition or insight, and contemplation.

For Plato, of course, the importance of virtues lies not only in their moral and civic value. They are a form of knowledge and, therefore, they are conducive to knowledge.

Plato tells us that material objects cannot be known because we know about them only through our senses and the senses are unreliable. He believes that the materialist approach that aims at attaining knowledge by studying matter proceeds in the wrong direction.

Therefore, the only way to attain knowledge is by turning our attention inward and examining the realities within us.

Initially, our thought processes turn out to be as chaotic and unreliable as our sense-perceptions. In order to see with any degree of clarity, we must first bring some order to our inner life. We must control our physical urges, our emotions, and our thoughts.

When we have done that, and the wilderness within has been cleared, we discover a totally new world illumined by a new light, and crucially, we acquire a new identity and a new experience of life. Our center of gravity shifts from physical objects and preoccupations with them to the intellect and abstract thought and, beyond that, to an intuitive grasp of the primary building-blocks of cognition (the Forms) and their source, Creative Intelligence (Nous Poietikos) itself.

So, starting from the level of sense-perception, the philosopher must rise to Awareness itself.

This is why it is important to understand that consciousness or awareness is higher than knowledge.

Not knowledge, but that which knows, the subject of the known objects (whatever and however many they happen to be, including Forms), is the highest reality which is One. This is the true focus of Plato’s philosophical quest and the true meaning of “source and cause of knowledge”.

The cleansing or purification process (katharsis) is nothing but the elimination of everything that is not “us”. This is the only way to discover our true self. If we mentally strip or chisel away all the accretions of sense-perceptions, emotions, and thoughts, we arrive at a new type of non-discursive, image- and concept-free, intuitive knowledge.

But it is important to understand that this knowledge itself must be transcended. And as we transcend it, we get to the consciousness we have of this knowledge, and beyond that, to pure awareness itself. It is this awareness that is the ultimate self, not the knowledge. The knowledge belongs to the self but is not the self. It is at the most an extension of the self in the same way thoughts, emotions, and sense-perceptions are extensions or “accretions” of the nous.

The key to the correct understanding of this is provided in the First Alcibiades.

Already in the Charmides (164d ff.) Socrates discusses the Delphic inscription “Know thyself” and the possibility of there being any such thing as knowledge of knowledge (episteme epistemes).

The discussion is carried on in the First Alcibiades (132c ff.) where Socrates proposes substituting “see” for “know” and gives the example of seeing oneself in a mirror.

He next compares this with seeing oneself in the eye of another, the only part of another person in which one can see oneself. The same is true of the soul: if it wishes to see itself in another soul, it must look at that part of it that most resembles it, namely the seat of wisdom (sophia).

Socrates and Alcibiades agree that the seat of wisdom (the nous) is the most divine part of the soul, and that a soul can truly know itself only by looking at God himself:

Then this part of her resembles God, and whoever looks at this, and comes to know all that is divine, will gain thereby the best knowledge of himself (Alc. 1 133c)

It follows that true knowledge of oneself is, in the first place, awareness of oneself as a divine soul, i.e., as a higher form of intelligence.

Indeed, if knowledge has a source, then the source is different from and higher than knowledge. This source can only be Intelligence. And Intelligence as the source of all knowledge is the Good or the One.

In itself, this supreme Intelligence that we call “the Good” or “the One” must be Awareness. Awareness on its own is motionless. However, when Awareness sees itself reflected in itself as in a mirror, it is stirred into activity that is creative, resulting in the Creative Intelligence that brings forth the Universe.

The Universe is brought into being by Creative Intelligence according to Forms or Ideas. The term “Form”, “Idea” or Eidos (lit. “thing seen”) suggests that the Universe is “seen” into existence by Creative Intelligence.

As Awareness, the supreme Intelligence is “the Same”. As its own reflection in the mirror of itself, it is “the Other”. Seeing oneself in the other is “the best knowledge of oneself”. And that self-knowledge is the source and cause of all knowledge and all things.

The concept of a pair of opposites resulting in a harmony that is creative is deeply ingrained in Ancient Greek thought. In Greek mythology, Ares, the God of War, is coupled with Aphrodite, the Goddess of Beauty and Love. Zeus and Mnemosyne beget Harmonia who in turn gives birth to the Muses, the Goddesses of artistic creativity, etc. (Different versions exist.)

Plato expresses the very same idea put in philosophical language. Ultimate Reality, Being or Existence, first manifests itself in two ways, as Unlimited and Limited, Indivisible and Divisible, Same and Other.

The same Reality next unifies Sameness and Otherness into a harmonious whole. As Plato states in the Timaeus, the Creator-God (Creative Intelligence) makes the Soul of the Universe and the human soul from a blend of “Same”, “Other”, and “Being” (Tim. 35a, 41d).

Intelligence (which is what Being or Reality ultimately is) itself is the medium that brings Sameness and Otherness together. Similarly, in the human soul, the rational part controls and organizes the emotional and sensual aspects (corresponding to the Same and Other on the Cosmic plane) into a harmonious, healthy, and happy whole. The human self, which is one in itself, is literally a mirror image of the Divine Self, which also is One.

As Plato says, the higher, rational aspect of the soul must rule over the other two (Rep. 441e). And in the Phaedrus he compares the intellect with a charioteer whose control over two winged horses (the emotional and sensual aspects) enables him to rise to the world of the Gods:

Now when the soul is perfect and fully winged, it mounts upward and governs the whole world … (Phaedr. 246c)

The ascent to a higher mode of experience enables the soul to attain to the Good or the One, which is One Reality.

You are absolutely right. Capitalism can have its negative sides, too. No system is perfect. But unless we revert to pre-capitalist or pre-industrial conditions, and seeing that socialism or communism is not an option, I think we are stuck with capitalism - until someone comes up with a better idea. :smile:

As regards the family, the mainstream definition of “traditional family” seems to be a nuclear family, i.e. “a child-rearing environment composed of a breadwinning father, a homemaking mother, and their (normally) biological children” (Wikipedia).

Of course, there are also “extended families” where close relatives like grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc., all live within one household.

It may be argued that the extended family provides a wider network of support than the nuclear family.

But considering that child-rearing is the defining element, values that are related to and supportive of this would qualify as family values and policies promoting child-rearing families would be family-friendly policies.

One important aspect of this though would be culture. You would need to have a culture that is family-oriented in the first place.

Economic factors can play a role. But people on a higher income don’t necessarily have more children than those on a lower income. So, I think you would need to start with a family-oriented culture and education system in the first place.

And then support political parties that promote this. Also start your own campaign group.

Since women are the child-bearers, it would probably be best to start as a women’s initiative in which men can be enrolled gradually.

But I think you would first need to organize your thoughts on the topic and make them part of some kind of integrated belief system and political program.

So maybe begin with a discussion group that can grow into something bigger once a clear ideology has been developed and its appeal to the wider public has been assessed?

I think Plato reject this nonsensical sophistry concerning "the One" and moved on to a much more intuitive principle, "the good". — Metaphysician Undercover

You could be right. However, if Plato thinks it is “sophistry”, why would he write a whole dialogue on it? Why would Aristotle say that for Plato the One is the cause of the essence in the Forms and the Forms are the cause of the essence in the other things?

Moreover, how is it sophistry to say that the One and the Good are identical?

It is generally acknowledged that Plato is an eclectic writer and that much of his philosophy is borrowed from others.

I think the influence of Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Heracliteanism, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Socrates and others on Plato’s writings is quite clear.

It is true that Plato in the dialogues tends to be hostile toward the Sophists, but there is no reason to believe that his general rejection of Sophist teachings and practices means that he rejects absolutely everything they say.

Certainly, the Stranger’s claims in the Sophist are not refuted. His classification of things according to Being, Rest, Change, Sameness, and Difference, etc. is not unsound. This is what the mind does with things in general, anyway. There is no reason why it cannot be applied to Forms. Discussing the relation of Forms to one another is not “sophistry”. Becoming lost in endless discussions about the Forms is, of course, another story.

But the fact of the matter is that, though on the whole correct, Plato’s original Theory of Forms (as presented in the Phaedo) that defines particulars as things that participate in the properties of the Forms, is not sufficient to explain the exact nature of particulars. Plato, therefore, introduces new concepts like Limit, Matter, and Receptacle (Philebus, Timaeus).

There is no denying that Forms do have some common characteristics such as One and Being. So, it is not incorrect to say that the One is the cause of the essence in all Forms and, therefore, above both essence and Forms.

This also leads to the question of how the first principle of all can be both One and Many. The problem of One and Many is a key issue discussed in the Philebus. And the whole purpose of it is to explain how the Good, which is one, or undifferentiated unity, can generate multiplicity.

This is explained by introducing the Dyad of Limit and Unlimited that is at once “One and Many” and, through its interaction with the One, brings forth multiplicity. Limit being that which imposes form on what is unlimited, is the principle of Form. Unlimited is the principle of Matter. The two are used by Creative Intelligence (which is a manifestation of the One or the Good) to impose Form on Matter and thereby generate the Physical Universe.

Incidentally, Creative Intelligence itself is both one and many or “one-many”. As a self-directed activity proceeding from the One or the Good, it is one. As Intelligence consisting of many Forms and performing various acts of cognition in relation to the Forms, it is many.

Plato himself makes Socrates say:

A gift of Gods to men, as I believe, was tossed down from some divine source through the agency of a Prometheus together with a gleaming fire; and the ancients, who were better than we and lived nearer the Gods, handed down the tradition that all the things which are ever said to exist are sprung from one and many and have inherent in them the finite and the infinite (Phileb. 16c).

The Finite (peras) and the Infinite (apeiria) or Limit and Unlimited are later said to be the principles that Intelligence (Nous) uses to arrange and order the Universe (Phileb. 30c).

Plato here uses a Pythagorean theory that he barely modifies to fit his own system.

So, it is clear that when Plato takes up a theory that appears to be inconsistent with his own, he does not necessarily do so in order to eliminate one of those two theories. On the contrary, his tendency is to combine them into a new or improved theory that is superior to both and serves to provide additional support to the general Platonic framework.

The very same procedure is employed by Plato’s later followers like Plotinus in their attempt to develop and systematize Plato’s philosophy. We may or may not always and unreservedly agree with all their innovations, but we must concede that they are, after all, Platonists. And it is the Platonists, not the Sophists, that identify the One and the Good.

The fact is that one is prior to many. When we reduce a multiplicity to the absolute minimum, we reduce it to one, not to “good”.

So, Ultimate Reality is One.

The One is characterized by Being and Awareness. First is must Be, and second it must be Something. Prior to Universal Creation, when nothing else exists, the One cannot be anything else aside from Being and Awareness or Consciousness.

This is why Plotinus says that the One (or the Good) has (or is) a kind of awareness or consciousness. For the same reason, Plato calls it the source and cause of all knowledge: knowledge presupposes awareness or consciousness. This ultimate Awareness or Consciousness that is the source and cause of all knowledge, is the One or the Good.

Though being good, it is not the One (or the Good) that desires the Good. The Good has no reason to desire itself. It is the Intellect that, having proceeded from the Good, desires the Good and wishes to make the Universe as beautiful (and as good) as possible.

At the same time, though being beautiful and good, creation represents a departure from real being. Things can only be truly real when they are identical with the Real. Having proceeded from the Good or the One, all things ultimately desire to return to the Good or the One in accordance with the triadic cycle of abiding-procession-return (mone-proodos-epistrophe). The One always abides in itself. The Many proceed from the One and eventually return to the One which is their source.

The desire to return to the One is the root of “love”. We love things that make us feel one with them and with ourselves. This is why we call them “beautiful” and “good”. But their beauty and goodness come from the Forms which in turn come from the One. Therefore, our love must be redirected to its true object. Love of the beautiful and the good, when practiced as indicated in the Symposium, takes us to the direct vision or experience of the Good or the One that is the Higher Self of all.

In other words, intelligence comes to rest and is truly at peace and happy only when it is at one with itself.

As Socrates puts it:

And you will act with your eyes turned on what is divine and bright. And looking thereon you will behold and know both yourselves and your good. And so you will act aright and well. If you act in this way, I am ready to warrant that you must be happy (Alcibiades 1 134d).

But these are different things. These distinct causes are described, and named, as distinct and different things, To say that different things are one, requires a principle of unity. — Metaphysician Undercover

They are described and named by us, humans, when we want to logically analyze reality. Reality itself does not do that because if it is aware of itself it is also aware that it, and no one else, is the ultimate cause of all things.

Therefore the thing which unites the Forms as one, must be something other than a Form. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. The One or the Good is not a Form. It is the "cause of the essence in Forms and the Forms are the cause of the essence in all other (subordinate) things", as Aristotle quotes Plato as saying.

Do you see that Beauty and Good, as the motivation for action, exist prior to this first becoming aware of itself? And this is why Beauty and Good are prior to One. — Metaphysician Undercover

First of all, "kaloskagathos" ("beautiful and good") is not used to draw a clear distinction between "beautiful" and "good" in general, but to stress the fact that both beauty and goodness are harmoniously combined in the same one person.

"Beautiful" and "Good" may be distinct, but they also overlap. Something that is beautiful is also good in some practical sense. This is why in Ancient Greek "beautiful" can also be used in the sense of "good".

In fact, beautiful and good have a lot in common, both being associated with right proportion, order, harmony, etc.

This is why the Divine Creative Intelligence or Creator-God wants the world to be "as beautiful as possible" (Tim. 30a). "Beautiful" here is clearly identical with "good".

Regarding ontological and metaphysical priority, the way I see it, the correct order is: (1) awareness itself, (2) self-awareness a.k.a. consciousness, and (3) intelligence or intellection.

Beauty and Good are properties that logically belong to stage (3).

Regarding the perceived "distinction" between the Good and the One, I think that if we insist on it, we will find it very difficult to place the One in Plato's hierarchy.

So, I think this is a misunderstanding like the distinction between the Receptacle and the Ultimate Cause (the Good or the One).

The Receptacle's mistaken "independence" arises from reading the creation story in the Timaeus as saying that principles like the Receptacle are prior to everything else.

A more careful reading shows that this is not the case.

The actual text reads:

We shall not now expound the principle of all things—or their principles, or whatever term we use concerning them; and that solely for this reason, that it is difficult for us to explain our views while keeping to our present method of exposition (Tim. 48c).

What Plato is saying here is that the creation myth is only a narrative or “likely account” and that the first principle (that is not expounded in the dialogue) is to be ascertained through philosophical inquiry.

Given that the first principle – the One or the Good – is left out of the discussion, the affirmation that the Receptacle existed prior to creation, does not mean that it has independent existence of the first principle.

Aristotle clearly states that Plato employs two causes, the formal, which is essence and is the One, and the material, which is matter and is the “Great and the Small” a.k.a. the Dyad.

He also says that (in descending order) there are Forms, mathematical objects, and physical or sensible objects.

He further says that the Forms are the cause of the essence in everything else, i.e., mathematical objects and physical objects, and that the One is the cause of the essence (ousia) in the Forms.

The One being the first principle or cause of essence, it must itself be above essence and above Forms.

As for the Receptacle, Plato’s description of it indicates that it is actually the space that contains the fundamental stuff of Matter and that is governed by Necessity.

Obviously, if there is Matter, there must be Space where Matter is located.

And this Space must operate in conjunction with Time in order to make cosmic creation possible.

But before creation, i.e., before Time and Space, there are the Forms which are themselves contained within the Creative Intelligence that generates the Cosmos or Universe.

As we saw earlier, the One, the principle of essence, is unlimited and without beginning or end.

In order to bring about the physical Universe which is limited, certain limitations must be imposed on what is unlimited. Hence Limit, Time, Space, and Necessity.

There being no other reality than the One, it is the One itself that imposes Limit on the Unlimited. The interaction of Limit and Unlimited results in the third principle, the Mixed (= Being). Together, the three constitute the Intelligible Triad.

This Intelligible Triad is nothing but the One divided into (1) formed Matter and (2) formless Spirit or Intelligence. As Intelligence must have a content, the content of Intelligence are the Forms (Ideal Ratios or Proportions).

Therefore, the Triad is simply the One’s aspects of Matter, Intelligence, and Forms.

The Creative Intelligence, i.e., the One as Nous, is the efficient cause of the Universe:

There is in the universe a plentiful Infinite and a sufficient Limit, and in addition a by no means feeble Cause which orders and arranges years and seasons and months, and may most justly be called Wisdom (sophia) and Mind (nous) (Phileb. 30c)

Intelligence (Nous) uses both Matter and Spirit to create the Material Universe. It forms Soul by blending the Greatest Genera, Kinds, or Categories of “Same”, “Other”, and “Essence” (or “Being”) into a living, intelligent being (Tim. 35a, 41d). The ability to cognize identity, difference, and being, is what characterizes all souls and forms the basis of all intelligibility.

The Divine Creative Intelligence also forms material bodies and objects by shaping the primordial material stuff of the Receptacle into the four primary elements, fire, water, earth and air, and then forming these into bodies and objects using the Forms as paradigms.

In other words, the whole Material Universe consists of five primary elements: fire, water, earth, air, and space. The latter being at once the stuff of which the first four are composed and the medium in which they have their existence, it has ontological priority over the others.

An important thing to understand at this point is that the Primordial Matter of the Receptacle is not unqualified matter. As stated in the Timaeus, it has a certain motion like a kind of “shaking” (seismos) or vibration comparable to that produced by a winnowing basket or sieve that makes particles separate or coalesce according to certain patterns (Tim. 52e). And for Plato, motion is always associated with soul or spirit.

This means (1) that everything, from Ultimate Reality down to inanimate objects is a manifestation of the One and, in consequence, is endowed with at least traces of spirit, soul, or intelligence, and (2) that the One in its different aspects is the efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, and (as the Form of the Good) final cause. Otherwise said, the One uses the Creative Intelligence as its instrument, and Creative Intelligence uses Soul as its instrument.

Soul is nothing but embodied intelligence. Pure, Creative Intelligence, referred to as “Creator-God” or “Maker of the Universe” is intelligence without body a.k.a. nous. When intelligence is embodied, it is referred to as “Soul” (psyche). This can be (1) the Soul of the Universe, (2) the souls of the Cosmic Gods (e.g., the Sun), demigods, and other spiritual beings e.g. nymphs etc., and (3) the souls of humans and other living creatures.

We must also bear in mind that the Greek word psyche has a much wider connotation than English “soul” and includes the totality of a living being’s vitality.

In any case, what the Divine Creative Intelligence does is to place an increasingly greater limit on Intelligence in order to generate intelligences that are subordinate to itself in the ontological order. As indicated in the Timaeus, the Divine Creative Intelligence possesses the powers of Being, Joy, Will, Knowledge, and Action. These powers are incrementally limited or reduced in the case of the Cosmic Soul and all other souls lower down the hierarchy until the stage of “inanimate” matter is reached.

It follows that the One is the first principle of all things. The One is not only unlimited and without beginning or end. Together with Being, it is the reality on which all things depend. Therefore, the One is at the top of Plato’s ontological hierarchy that describes the various aspects of the One and Only Reality.

Whilst the Republic deals primarily with that aspect of Ultimate Reality referred to as “the Good” and its ethical import, the Parmenides deals with the metaphysical aspect proper and accordingly focuses on “the One”.

In the Parmenides, Plato presents Eight Arguments or Deductions designed to establish the status of the One as an example of philosophical inquiry leading to truth.

Four of the Arguments are based on the proposition that “the One is”, and four on the proposition that “the One is not”.

Among the conclusions, the following are of special interest.

When investigated “itself by itself”, the One is neither a whole nor with parts; it has neither beginning nor end; it is beyond limit, shape, time, movement or rest; it is beyond description, knowability, or belief (Parm. 142-143).

When investigated in association with Being (“One-Being”), the One is the reality of which all other things that have being partake and on which they therefore depend (Parm. 160).

When investigated without the One (“If the One is not”), the others have no existence.

“If the One is not, nothing is” is the final conclusion (Parm. 166c).

This establishes the pivotal position that the One occupies in the Platonic ontological order.

In fact, we may even say with the Eleatics that “the All is One” or with the Sicilians, that "Being is both Many and One" (Parm.128a; Soph. 242e), without contradiction.

Some potential is seen to be good, so it is brought into existence, caused to be. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Seen to be good, brought into existence, caused to be, etc. by the same one Reality that acts as efficient, material, formal, and final causes. There is nothing else apart from that one Reality. Referring to the One as “formal cause” does not preclude the possibility of its being the other causes, including the ultimate cause.

We obviously have very different understandings of Plato. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. Very different and very obvious. :smile:

You possibly read Plato through a more Aristotelian lens than I do.

Things have been caused to exits because their existence is good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. They have been caused by the Good a.k.a. the One.

Anyway, as I was saying, it was a well-known fact among the Ancient Greeks that the essence of wisdom was knowledge of oneself. This was encapsulated in the celebrated maxim “Know thyself” (gnothi seauton) that was inscribed at the Apollo temple of Delphi.

Plato himself mentions the Delphic maxims in the Hipparchus (228e) and the Protagoras (343b), and says that they “are on every tongue”.

[Indeed, the Delphic maxims (numbering 147 in total) were known as “the Commandments of the Seven Wise Men” and were taken to other parts of the Greek-speaking world, as far as Egypt and Afghanistan, by none other than Aristotle’s notable pupil Klearchos of Soli. As a testimony to their enduring importance to Greeks, including Christians, the maxims served as a first school book for the Greek world into modern times. See Sentences of the Seven Sages]

The Platonic equivalent to the Delphic maxim, that itself became famous throughout the Greek and Roman world, is “to become as godlike (homoiosis Theo) as possible” (Theaet. 176b).

As Plato (through Socrates) explains, to be godlike means to be “righteous, holy (sinless), and wise”.
Being a thoroughly Greek philosophical school, Platonism combined the two goals into one: for Plato, to know oneself is to know the divine within us. To be truly good we need to know the Good. To know the Good absolutely means to be the Good. And the Good is God, the possessor and embodiment of all knowledge.

Therefore, the Platonic philosopher’s goal is to be righteous, holy, and wise like God himself. In the Greek tradition, all Gods are wise.

Accordingly, the philosophical quest in Platonism revolves on knowledge of the Good which in the absolute sense means being the Good.

As stated in the Republic, the Good is the source of all knowledge. Therefore the Good is the “highest lesson” or the “highest thing to learn”.

By definition, philosophy is love of wisdom (philo-sophia). This means that the philosopher is a lover of and seeker after wisdom or knowledge. The philosopher is one who, having become aware of his own ignorance of higher things, undertakes the journey from ignorance to the highest wisdom.

Similarly, in the Symposium, the goal of philosophy is to attain a vision of the highest. But the journey that takes the philosopher to his goal here is powered by the love of Beauty. Beauty evokes in us a feeling of wonder or amazement (thaumazein) and, as Socrates says, “wonder is the only beginning of philosophy” (Theaet. 155d). The love of Beauty is really an expression of the love of the Good which is the same as love of Knowledge or Truth.

The journey has six stages:

1. Love of one beautiful body.
2. Love of all beautiful bodies.
3. Love of beauty in souls.
4. Love of beauty in institutions and laws.
5. Love of beauty in sciences.
6. Love of beauty in one single knowledge.

This enables the philosopher to attain a vision of a single thing, Divine Beauty itself (Sym. 211c) which is the goal of the philosophical quest.

However, it is important to understand that the Greek word “beautiful” (kalos) also means “good”. The Greek ideal of human perfection is “good and beautiful” or, rather “beautiful and good” (kaloskagathos). Beauty is inseparably connected with Good and Good is inseparably connected with Knowledge. Beauty leads to the Good and the Good is Knowledge or Truth.

We can see that the philosopher’s ascent described in the Symposium takes a subtle turn from love of beauty (step one) to love of knowledge (step six). And Knowledge has the Good as its source (as has Beauty). Indeed, the Symposium’s subtitle proposed in antiquity was “On the Good” (Peri ton Agathon).

Contemplation or knowledge of Beauty itself enables the accomplished philosopher to know the Good. And knowing the Good itself in the absolute sense means being the Good. By being good as much as humanly possible, the philosopher “touches” or “grasps” the truth (cf. Timaeus 90c). He becomes good, real, and true, and everything he does from now on is by participation in the truth which is the Good.

He has achieved his goal and has become godlike and immortal. He is also perfectly happy, as the limited happiness he earlier derived from beautiful bodies has given way to the infinite and unceasing happiness derived from contemplating and being the Good. Human happiness has been replaced with divine Happiness. He is now perfectly and eternally happy like the Gods.

We can get an inkling of this from the psychological fact that when we are good in any sense, we feel good about ourselves and are accordingly happy. This happiness that derives from our own goodness is more direct, more powerful, and more real than happiness that is derived from any external things (i.e. things other than ourselves) such as material possessions.

As Socrates’ teacher Diotima puts it:

In that state of life above all others, a man finds it truly worth while to live, as he contemplates essential Beauty [lit. “Beauty itself”]. This, when once beheld, will outshine your gold, your vesture, and your beautiful boys … (Sym. 211d)

Incidentally, Greek telos (“goal” or “end”) is related to teleos (“accomplished” or “perfect”) which is what the mystery rites are called (telea or teletai, literally, “perfections”) that enable the initiated to attain perfection. (telos can also mean “death” in the literal sense or in the sense of “death to ignorance”.) Diotima refers to the philosopher ascending the ladder of philosophical love (the ladder to Truth) as one who is properly initiated in the rites (telea) and aims to attain the final goal (telos).

The Republic itself is constructed in the style of an Orphic mystery rite: it begins with Socrates’ descent to Piraeus and the vision of the Thracian Goddess, proceeds through several key allegories (of the Sun, the Divided Line, and the Cave), and ends with the uplifting vision of the column of light at the center of the world (616b).

Mystery rites are also mentioned in the Phaedo in connection with philosophy and are, of course, about union with the God or Truth which is one. Everything in Plato suggests a hierarchy of meaning, experience, and truth, culminating in the singular reality of the One.

The Republic’s Analogy of the Sun, that compares the Good with the Sun, points in the same direction of a single absolute Reality (one Sun, one Truth, one Ultimate Reality).

When Plato says that the Good is the “source of all knowledge”, or “above essence”, etc., this cannot be taken to mean that the Good is above the One, given that the One is not knowledge but pure, objectless Awareness, and as we have seen, the One is unlimited, without beginning or end, and without it nothing can exist (Parm. 137d, 166c).

This is also evident from the fact that One and Being are inseparable and that everything that has being participates in both Being and One, which includes all the Forms, even the Form of the Good.

So, I think there can be little doubt that the Good is just another name for the One, the ultimate first principle and supreme cause of all. The main difference is that “the One” properly applies to Ultimate Reality in and of itself, and “the Good” to Ultimate Reality in relation to Creation and the World of Becoming.

For Ultimate Reality to conceive the will to create a universe that is good like itself, this presupposes some form of consciousness or self-awareness and intelligent activity. But at the highest level of reality there is no such activity or consciousness, there is just pure, non-relational awareness, comparable to an infinite, perfectly still ocean of living light.

That infinite mass of luminous awareness must first become aware of itself. This is what produces the first subject-object dichotomy, or the One and the Dyad, where subject and object are experienced as one yet “distinct”.

Next, by the interaction of the One and the Dyad, the Forms are produced like currents within that ocean of awareness, and with them, the Divine Intellect or Creative Intelligence (Nous Poietikos) that contains, holds them together, and organizes them into a coherent whole that is to serve as a model for the Material World.

In the final phase, the Creative Intelligence produces the Material World shaped according to Forms, like waves on the surface of the ocean that are at once “separate” from it and one with it. “Separate” as seen from the “external” world of appearance or Becoming, one with it as seen from the inner world of reality or Being. And this means that the unity or oneness of Reality remains One at all times.

Plato has left us the sketch of a general metaphysics that is for us to complete by following its inner logic.

We could, of course, take the One and the Good to be two distinct realities if we really wanted to. But (a) there is no evidence that this is what Plato does and (b) I don’t see what could be gained from it.

I am not entirely sure what it means to say God is eternal. — Bartricks

I don't think anyone knows, to be honest. I'm guessing it refers to an entity that is unaffected by time?

This reminds me of the comparison with a magician that performs some trick in front of an audience like, say, sawing someone in two. The audience know it's just a trick, but they don't know how the magician does it and it looks very real. In contrast, the magician knows what he is doing and remains unaffected by the whole thing.

Something similar may occur in the case of time. If God creates time, then he must be aware of this and he remains unaffected by it, though he may see it as an "optical illusion" that affects others.

But from the others' perspective time is real and it affects them profoundly in many respects.

Socrates said something like that and he wanted us to be aware of each other. In the US textbooks prepare the young for life, not to be products for industry as it started doing in 1958. I think it is obvious that was not a good change in education. We have improved by eliminating the old prejudices but without shared values and principles we are in big trouble.

The breakdown of family comes with education for a technological society with unknown values and that worries me. I can see the benefits of weak families but I think the problems are much worse.

Thank you for acknowledging forcing women into the workforce takes away their right to be mothers, and caring daughters and granddaughters. :lol: If everyone were aware of what it is like to give birth to a child and get up several times during the night to feed the child, there might be greater acceptance of giving her time to be a mother. And I hear there is a reluctance to give family time off the care for older members or sick members of the family. Seriously? What are our values? Humans succeeded because of their willingness to care for each other and shouldn't a civilized society encourage that? It is not just an inconvenience to find someone to care for a family member, but it is anti-family to be put in the position of finding someone else to do caregiving.

We had family fidelity when women stayed home to care for their families and that is being destroyed as now they must have fidelity with their employer, and sorry family, you all must fend for yourselves. It is not gays destroying family values. I think, what you have suggested is socialism can strengthen the family instead of weakening it. Have I interpreted you correctly? I was not thinking of socialism in that way but I really like that idea. — Athena

Are you suggesting democracy is about being full human beings? Not just voting? I wish we all understood democracy as a way of life and an experience of being empowered to fully actualize ourselves. Government is one aspect of democracy. Individualism and family are other aspects of the democratic way of life, and if we replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model, we could better manifest the democratic way of life. — Athena

Being full human beings is one aspect of it. But we need human beings in the first place.

Overpopulation does not refer to the number of people in one country. It refers to a country's capacity to sustain its own population.

Africa, China, India, have large populations, but if they manage their resources efficiently, they can sustain their populations.

China has a large population but it is also a large country with sufficient resources. Israel has a very small population but in terms of natural resources, etc. may find it more difficult than China to sustain itself.

But what I was talking about was for example countries in Europe, especially Russia, where population levels are stagnating or falling and if this trend continues, their populations will inevitably shrink to dangerous levels and with that their economies, their military and political power, etc.

The problem is that once a country's population has peaked, it will decline faster and faster until over time only remnants are left that are insufficient to sustain a thriving democracy. And hostile powers like China or Turkey are waiting to strike.

I don't think that socialism strengthens family values. This is why I gave the example of Socialist/Communist Russia where divorce, abortions, and extremely low fertility are a big problem.

"Fidelity" has always been problematic. I suppose infidelity is in a way part of human nature. But culture can act as a counterweight. In the old days the house wife could pass her time with the milkman or plumber, and the husband with the maid or mistress. But there was a tendency to stay together all the same for the sake of the family. The current trend is for relationships to last six months at the most or to have "open relationships", which is OK in principle but does not seem to promote family values.

I agree that gays are a small minority that poses no threat to families. Besides, there is nothing to stop gay people from having children. The threat to the family comes from the materialism and egotism of mainstream culture.

And yes, if women are forced to work instead of having children, then we are taking away their right to have children, their power, and their future. A society without children is a society without a future.

A woman who only works, buys goods, and goes to political rallies, is a tool in the hands of economic and political interests. If that's what she wants to do, that's fine. But then she can't claim that she cares about society, because if all women did what she does, then society would cease to exist within a few decades.

And without society, we can't have democracy. So, we need to decide whether we want democracy or not.

I interpret that to mean you are opposed to socialism. I can see socialism going either way, supporting families or destroying them. What is the goal of socialism? Is it possible it can be harmful or beneficial depending on the determined goal? — Athena

I am opposed to socialist policies as already explained. I am not saying that all socialist policies are bad.

However, I think the main goal of socialism is total state control over society, economy, and politics. And that isn't very democratic.

I think it could be different to a degree, but not totally different. The reason being that it is by means of our experiences of time - our temporal sensations - that we are aware of time. Yet for those sensations to give us an awareness of time, they would surely have to resemble it? The image on a canvas created by a portrait painter needs to resemble, at least to some degree, the image that staring at the sitter itself would create in us if it is to qualify as a portrait 'of' the person in question. — Bartricks

Time is the background or context in which human experience takes place. If God is eternal, then his experience cannot relate to time in the same way as human experience does.

However, if God is omnipotent, then I think he should be able to experience things both in and outside of time.

"The good" is the final cause in Aristotle, and is prior to all the other causes. That you relate "the One" to formal cause is further evidence that the One is distinct from the Good. The good is the final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Final cause" simply means the purpose for which something is caused.

The same thing can logically function as efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, and final cause.

Like the Good, the One provides essence to the Forms, but is itself above essence.

Since intelligence is dependent on intelligible objects, and the intelligibility of intelligible objects, we ought to conclude that in Plato's metaphysics, intelligence and knowledge are secondary to the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. Intelligence may be dependent on intelligible objects in ordinary experience. But this is not the case with regard to the One or the Good. The One or the Good may perfectly well be a form of "objectless" intelligence.

For example:

1. Pure objectless Awareness.
2. Consciousness or Self-Awareness.
3. Intelligence or Awareness of intelligible objects perceived as part of itself.
4. Intelligence or Awareness of intelligible objects perceived as other than itself.

If we think of the ultimate first principle as pure objectless awareness, that at the time of creation becomes first consciousness or self-awareness, i.e. awareness having itself for object, and then intelligence, i.e. awareness containing and organizing intelligible objects, e.g. Forms, then we can see that there is a big difference between Divine Intelligence (levels 1, 2, 3) and human intelligence (level 4).

I think the easiest way to understand Plato and Platonism is to look at Creation as a diversification or “multiplification” of what is absolutely one.

Therefore, to discover the absolutely one or “the One itself” we must apply a reverse process of simplification or reduction of multiplicity to its first causal principle.

Dialectics is the only process of inquiry that advances in this manner, doing away with hypotheses, up to the first principle (arche) itself in order to find confirmation there (Rep. 533c).

The literal meaning of arche is “beginning” or “origin”. To obtain true knowledge of anything, the philosopher must rise above assumptions or hypotheses to the first principle itself. In relation to knowledge, the philosopher must rise to its very origin or source.

Hence we are told that the Good is the source of all knowledge:

This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the Form of the Good (Rep. 508e).

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 (Rep. 509b).

Here we have all the elements of knowledge (and of reality):

Object of knowledge.
Knowledge of the object.
Means of knowledge.
Knowing subject.

(Human) knowledge itself consists of (a) sensory data and (b) reasoned thinking that uses the principles of Sameness, Identity, and Difference, to organize the sensory data in a way that makes the world intelligible.

These principles enable us to classify everything according to certain essential and immutable universal properties called Forms.

The various classes of Forms are known by the Form of Knowledge (to Eidos tes Epistemes) itself (Parm. 134b).

But (as we are told in the Parmenides) we do not possess the Form of Knowledge.
Therefore, the Form of the Good and Beauty and the others that we conceive as Forms themselves are unknown to us, even though our knowledge depends on them.
And if anything partakes of Knowledge itself, there is no one more likely than God to possess this most accurate knowledge.
[This is consistent with the Timaeus where God is the Divine Creative Intelligence that contains the Forms and creates the universe using the Forms as a model.]
But if God has Knowledge itself, he will not have knowledge of human things if there is no relation between the world of Forms and the human world.
Therefore he who hears such assertions is confused in his mind and argues that the Forms do not exist, and even if they do exist cannot by any possibility be known by man; and he thinks that what he says is reasonable, and he is amazingly hard to convince.
Only a man of very great natural gifts will be able to understand that everything has a class and absolute essence, and only a still more wonderful man can find out all these facts and teach anyone else to analyze them properly and understand them.
On the other hand, if anyone, with his mind fixed on all these objections and others like them, denies the existence of Forms, and does not assume a Form under which each individual thing is classed, he will be quite at a loss, since he denies that the Form of each thing is always the same, and in this way he will utterly destroy the power of carrying on discussion or dialectic.
To train ourselves completely to see the truth perfectly, we must consider not only what happens if a particular hypothesis is true, but also what happens if it is not true.
For example, we should inquire into the consequences to the One and the Many on the supposition that the One or the Many exist or not.

The conclusion, as we saw, is that “If the One is not, nothing is” (Parm. 166b).

In other words:

Intelligible Forms must exist in order for the Material World to be intelligible to us.
There must be a relation between the Forms and the Material World.
The relation between Forms and material objects is one in which the latter participate in the former.

Similarly, the Forms participate in the One and the Dyad.
The Dyad participates in the One.
The One is the ultimate first principle of all.

Otherwise said:

The One generates the Dyad.
The One and the Dyad generate the Forms.
The One, the Dyad, and the Forms generate Creative Intelligence.
The One as Creative Intelligence generates the Material Universe consisting of Soul and Matter.

Soul derives from the One, Matter derives from the Dyad or Receptacle, a form of Primordial Matter that the Creative Intelligence, using the Forms as patterns, forms first into the four primary elements, fire, water, earth and air, and then forms these into the objects of the universe from heavenly bodies to a lump of earth.

The One itself and all its products being a form of Intelligence, the Material World consists of various forms of intelligence from the World Soul down to the souls of intelligent living beings to inanimate things.

It follows that Intelligence is the only reality. Or, Reality is intelligence. And because it is one, it is called “the One” (to Hen). Because it is good, it is called “the Good”, etc.

So, we can see that the theory in its fundamental principles is not unsound. What remains to be addressed is whether any of this can actually be known to us. Plato in this regard clearly states that the Form of the Good which is the source of all knowledge can be known:

This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the Form of the Good, and you must consider it as being the cause of knowledge and truth, and an object of knowledge (Rep. 508e1-4).

When Plato says that truth is “unknown” or “unknowable” to us, he does not mean this in an absolute sense. If he did mean it in an absolute sense, then philosophy as inquiry into truth would be futile. Therefore, what Plato obviously means is that truth cannot be known by ordinary means such as sense-perception.

As Socrates (Plato) puts it in the Phaedo:

If we are ever to know anything absolutely, we must be free from the body and must behold the actual realities with the eye of the soul alone” (Phaedo 66d–e).

When the soul inquires alone by itself, it departs into the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and the changeless, and being akin to these it dwells always with them whenever it is by itself and is not hindered, and it has rest from its wanderings and remains always the same and unchanging with the changeless, since it is in communion therewith. And this state of the soul is called wisdom (phronesis) (Phaedo 79d).

Detaching itself mentally and emotionally from the material world, physical body, sense-perceptions, and thoughts associated with these, the soul’s (or man’s) pure intelligence (nous) uses dialectic, recollection, and contemplation to obtain a direct experience of reality.

And because reality itself is intelligence, it stands to reason that intelligence can know reality. In fact, human intelligence already knows this subconsciously or intuitively. All it needs to do is to bring this latent intuition to the fore so that it becomes an actual experience.

To take an illustration from physics, matter is said to consist of components that are not only increasingly smaller and therefore “immaterial”, but that also behave in an ordered and “purposeful” manner that resembles a rudimentary form of intelligence.

If we break cognition down into its primary components, we obtain a similar result leading to intelligence, consciousness, or awareness itself. This is the objective of Platonic philosophy.

But if God created time, then time was not needed for that initial act of creation. We can conclude, then, that there can be creation without time, for otherwise time itself could not have been created. — Bartricks

Good point.

But I think the crucial question is who it is that experiences time.

God's experience of time may be (totally) different from human experience of it.

And if there is an equality in principles of a hierarchy then it might not be possible to give priority to one "first principle". — Metaphysician Undercover

But it isn't necessarily impossible.

The way I see it, in Plato’s metaphysics everything is secondary to intelligence and knowledge which presupposes a subject. Starting with the dictum “Know thyself”, Plato proceeds from the philosopher’s own individual intelligence to that intelligence which encompasses everything and is the cause and source of all knowledge and all intelligence. And this ultimate source and cause must be one. If it isn’t one, the philosopher must carry on his quest until he discovers that which is the ultimate one.

So, I think it is important to understand that despite the originality of later Platonists, they had the highest regard for their master and took great care to make sure that their own developments of Plato’s ideas were in line with the fundamental metaphysical principles found in the dialogues.

Philosophers like Plotinus not only spoke Greek and studied Plato’s works in the original (as did all philosophers in antiquity and even in later times), but also were in close touch with interpretative traditions going back to Plato himself, and, crucially, had access to texts that are now lost.

It would be beyond the scope of this thread to demonstrate that Plotinus correctly identifies the Good with the One, but I think it can still be briefly shown that he is more likely than not to be right. Moreover, Plotinus, following Plato and Aristotle, proposes an integrated metaphysical hierarchy that traces both the “Indefinite Dyad” and the “receptacle” to the One as the ultimate case of all things.

As already stated, Aristotle says:

And of those who hold that unchangeable substances [or immovable essences/realities] exist, some say that the One itself is the Good itself (Aristot. Meta. 1091b13)

Personally, I think he is referring here to the Platonists (and Plato) and this is confirmed by a number of scholars. But even supposing that he isn’t, there are other statements that when taken together, amount to the same thing.

Aristotle:

“The One, then, is the first principle of the knowability for each thing” (Aristot. Meta. 5.1016b20)

Socrates (Plato):

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 (Rep. 6.509b)

Further evidence is provided by the Parmenides:

“Then the One, if it has neither beginning nor end, is unlimited.”
“Yes, it is unlimited” (Parm. 137d)

It must be remembered that in the dialogue, Parmenides takes young Socrates to task over the Forms (129e-130a). Socrates can’t answer all the questions. It is Parmenides who saves the day by declaring that there must be Forms, because otherwise we will have nowhere to turn our thoughts to and this will totally destroy the power of dialectic (135b-c3).

The discussion eventually turns to the One and comes to the following conclusion:

It is impossible to conceive of many without one.”
“True, it is impossible.”
“Then if One does not exist, the Others neither are nor are conceived to be either one or many.”
“No so it seems.”
“The Others neither are nor appear to be any of these, if the One does not exist.”
“True.”
“Then if we were to say in a word, 'if the One is not, nothing is,' should we be right?”
“Most assuredly.” (Parm. 166b)

So Plato, through Parmenides, is saying that nothing can exist without the One.

The “Others” are what Aristotle refers to as the “Indefinite Dyad” or “the Great and Small”. In Metaphysics, he says:

Now since the Forms are the causes of everything else, he supposed that their elements are the elements of all things. Accordingly, the material principle is the "Great and Small," and the essence <or formal principle> is the One, since the numbers are derived from the "Great and Small" by participation in the One … This, then, is Plato's verdict upon the question which we are investigating. From this account it is clear that he only employed two causes: that of the essence, and the material cause; for the Forms are the cause of the essence in everything else, and the One is the cause of it in the Forms. He also tells us what the material substrate is of which the Forms are predicated in the case of sensible things, and the One in that of the Forms—this is the Dyad, the "Great and Small" (Aristot. Meta. 987b19-988a14)

I think it is obvious that Aristotle here is referring to the Parmenides where the discussion of the participation of “the Others” (hoi Alloi) in the One takes place:

“And yet surely the Others are not altogether deprived of the One, but they partake of it in a certain way.”
“In what way?”
“Because the Others are other than the One by reason of having parts; for if they had no parts, they would be altogether one.”(Parm. 157c)

It follows that Plato sees the One as the ineffable ultimate first principle, followed by the Dyad of the “Unlimited and Limit” a.k.a. the “Great and Small” or “the Others”.

As stated by Aristotle, the One is the essence and formal cause and “the Others” are the material cause.

The Forms, Numbers, and the material universe are derived from the material cause (“Dyad” or “Others”) by participation in the efficient and formal cause (the One) that generates and gives shape and life to all things:

1. The One (= the Good).
2. The Dyad (= “the Others”/”Great and Small”/”Unlimited and Limit”).
3. Divine Creative Intelligence containing Forms.
4. Ensouled Material Universe.
5. Embodied human soul.

I think the confusion or misunderstanding stems from overinterpreting Aristotle, underinterpreting Plato, and failing to see (a) that the criticism presented by characters like Parmenides is ultimately constructive and (b) that Socrates actually agrees with the points made by the critics.

IMO Socrates’ approval and the inner logic of Plato’s philosophy (which is reflected in the solutions proposed) are the key to the correct understanding of Plato’s true message.

We must avoid perfect agreement at all costs. What would we talk about if we agreed? And if we didn't argue with each other, our minds would not expand. That would be a terrible thing! — Athena

Not only that, but if I agree too much with you, people might start imagining me in a ten-gallon Stetson hat and cowboy boots made in El Paso, or something. :grin:

But I think one aspect of the issue may be formulated something like this:

Individuals depend on the population of which they are a part.
Therefore social and economic progress must take into consideration both individuals and the wider population.
If social and economic policy ignores, neglects, or harms the wider population, then it is a harmful policy.
A policy that results in the social and economic progress of individuals on one hand, and the decline of the wider population on the other hand, is harmful to the wider population.
Since individuals depend on the population of which they are a part, policies that are harmful to the wider population are ultimately harmful to the individuals within that population.
Therefore policies that are harmful to the wider population are unacceptable.

And the equality aspect:

Men and women should enjoy equality in the sense of having the same rights in law, the same opportunities, being treated with equal fairness and respect, etc.
Having children is a basic right of both men and women.
Policies that force women to take up employment at the cost of having children, means placing them in a position where they are unable to manifest their right to have children.

If socialism or socialistic ideologies and policies result in any or all of the above problems, they are harmful to women and to society at large and therefore are unacceptable.

That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. How about returning to education for democracy and well-rounded individuals? — Athena

That's hardly going to happen if people think that North Korea is "democratic", though, is it? If that's what the educated think, what can we expect from the uneducated?

I wonder if those with degrees in political science see any resemblance between North Korea and the Democratic Party?

But I agree that the issue does revolve on democracy in a crucial sense. True democracy means that power belongs to the people. But making people rightless and childless means making them powerless. And robbing a population of its future seems plain anti-democratic and anti-people. I think this encapsulates the socialist or socialistic problem. An ideology that aims to "socialize" a population out of existence or otherwise promotes policies with that result seems highly suspect to me.

The belief in one ultimate first principle, is distinct from the belief that the One is the ultimate first principle. I think the former is compatible with Plato, the latter is not. This is because Plato believed in "the good" as the ultimate first principle, and in his writings he treated "the One" as something other than "the good". — Metaphysician Undercover

As already stated, the word “the One” (to Hen) can have many meanings. Aristotle himself points this out at the very beginning of Book 10.

The way I see it, not just Platonism but philosophy in general as inquiry into truth, must lead to an ultimate first principle or arche which, by definition, is one. Therefore, it is not incorrect to call the first principle “the One”, in the same way it is not incorrect to call the Good “one” or “the One”.

Once an ultimate first principle of all has been admitted, everything else is secondary. The ontological structure from the first principle down and the nomenclature can be debated and in fact it was debated within the Academy and has been debated within the Platonic tradition and among scholars ever since.

However, for the above reasons, the first principle must remain non-negotiable and non-debatable. And I think Plotinus and others are correct in (a) calling the first principle “the One” and (b) in identifying it with the Good.

To say that particulars result from an interaction between forms and a receptacle is not the same as saying that particulars have no existence. "Existence" and "essence" are Latin terms, and there is a clear distinction between them. To say that a particular could have no essence is not to say that it would have no existence, and vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. The Greek terms are einai (“existence”) and ousia (“essence”). The fact that a thing has no essence does not mean that it has no existence.

The Form and the sensible object both exist, but not in the same way. The Form is a thing that is what it is in virtue of itself, i.e., in virtue of being its own essence. The Form is an auto kath’ auto thing, a thing that is just itself.

In contrast, the sensible object is what it is in virtue of participating in a Form’s essence. Therefore, the sensible object is dependent or relative, pros ti.

This is why Forms have ontological and metaphysical priority (and greater reality) in relation to sensibles.

Aristotle’s objections may or may not be valid. If they are valid, then they are so from Aristotle’s perspective, not necessarily from Plato’s.

For example, Aristotle’s objection that if Forms are paradigms (which they are), then they are useless as they cannot act as paradigms of their own accord. But this objection is baseless as it is not the Forms themselves that act as paradigms but the Divine Creative Intelligence that uses them as paradigms to give shape to material objects as suggested in the Timaeus. The agent is the Divine Intelligence, not the Forms.

The objection makes sense and may be valid from an Aristotelian perspective that rejects a Creator-God. From a Platonic perspective that admits a Creator-God/Creative Intelligence, it doesn’t make sense and it isn’t valid.

This is why anti-Platonists use Aristotle to attack Plato, as we have seen. It is a strategy designed to blur the distinctions between Plato and Aristotle and to propagate Aristotle’s misinterpretations of Plato in an attempt to denigrate Plato, Platonism, and Western philosophy in general. I think there is a clear political and ideological agenda there.

But I do think that, metaphysically, the universe is an living entity in itself, so I believe that there are certain things that it can do beyond our human understanding. — Lindsay

I think the universe would be quite able to do things that are beyond our human understanding even without it being a living entity.

Though it possibly is a living entity, it is difficult to determine in what sense. And given the materialistic society and culture we currently live in, not many think of the universe, let alone of it as a living being.

But I agree that both fate and free will play a part in human existence.

Unfortunately, Plato's logic could be renamed early logical or pre-logical argument. — magritte

We are talking about 4th-century BC. I don't think we can apply modern standards to Ancient Greece.

Besides, Plato is using logical argumentation and other devices for the purpose of conveying a moral, political, and spiritual message. If the message gets through to the reader, then the writer has done a good job IMO.

When I split an idea then I have nothing. — magritte

That may be due to the fact that you'd need to catch the idea first before splitting it.

I bet you haven't caught any yet.

As for Plato, I think he is not even trying .... :smile:

An education in the Political Sciences teaches one to not confuse what countries say about themselves with what they really are. — James Riley

If political science teaches that we must not call countries what they call themselves, then why should anyone "acknowledge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic or a republic"?

One has to be able to parse or conflate (depending on their rhetorical goal) the economic from the political use of these terms, each of which can have cross-over. — James Riley

I think people are free to parse or conflate as much as they want. The fact still remains that communism is a form of socialism:

Communism, on the other hand, is a branch of socialism

https://www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-vs-communism/

Communism is thus a form of socialism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism

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

As to North Korea, which you call “democratic”, Wikipedia makes the following interesting observation:

According to Article 1 of the state constitution, North Korea is an "independent socialist state". It holds elections, though they have been described by independent observers as sham elections, as North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship,

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

“Sham elections” and “totalitarian dictatorship”, doesn’t sound particularly “democratic” to me.

Oh, and after the introduction of socialism, North Korea’s fertility rate dropped from about 5 children per woman in the 1950’s to currently less than 2, i.e. below replacement level.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/north-korea-population

In the old days, we used to call the Soviet Union "Communist" not "Socialist." — James Riley

I think the main reason for this was cultural and political. Socialism was seen by some in the West as “acceptable” whereas communism – due to the East-West antagonism – was not.

But the fact of the matter is that communism or Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism.

Marx and Engels and their followers like Lenin taught that Socialism was a transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Communism was the utopian ideal to be achieved in the future.

This is why so-called “communist” states like Russia officially called themselves “socialist”: they were ruled by an officially communist party, i.e. a party that had the establishment of communism as its official program, but for the time being the system was socialist not communist.

Hence “communist” Russia’s official name, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

If your poly sci class made the distinction along these lines, then it was probably right.

Well, your post was a pleasant surprise. That is the most supportive statement I have had in several years. Normally people attack what I am saying. It helps that you are working with information and just your opinion. — Athena

Yeah, apparently I am full of surprises, or so I am told! :grin:

I can't say I agree with everything you say, but I think you are making some valid points. Not everything in life is about things like advanced technology or “equality”.

Imperial Russia was backward in some ways, but it was a prosperous nation with a lot of potential.

In contrast, though Socialism had some good points, we can imagine how disastrous its impact must have been on the Russian people to experience such extraordinary rates of corruption, alcoholism, divorce, abortion, low fertility, and rapidly declining population. We must also take into consideration that Russia has been kept alive by its large oil and gas reserves without which God only know where it would be now.

The way I see it, when a nation loses interest in having families and children, and is unperturbed by a falling population, i.e., its own slow but sure demise, then something must be fundamentally wrong with that nation.

In other words, the supporters of Socialism are too eager to stress what they see as positive outcomes of that system, and in the process, they ignore the negatives. In some ways it is like a religious belief system that blindly follows its own unverified claims.

Obviously, capitalist society is beginning to experience some of the problems seen by former socialist states. So, presumably there are some shared causes somewhere. In any case, the future of the Western world doesn’t look very good at the moment and I don't think Socialism is in a position to offer any real solutions.

At 1.7 children per woman, Socialist China has a fertility rate well below replacement level. In contrast, Africa has the world's highest fertility rate with an average of 4.27 children per woman. This could be an indication that technological, economic and social progress comes with gradual extinction. In which case, "progress" isn't necessarily what it seems ....

Gerson also insisted that Plato was an Aristotelian ! — magritte

Well, he also says that Aristotle was a Platonist.

However, this needs to be understood in the right context. What Gerson is talking about is what he calls "Ur-Platonism".

He argues against some scholars' opinion that there is no philosophical position in the dialogues, and proposes that Plato does have a philosophy, that the dialogues are the best evidence of this, and that Plato's philosophy is part of broader philosophical developments that were already underway before Plato. Hence "Ur-Platonism".

He describes the elements of Ur-Platonism as "antimaterialism, antimechanism, antinominalism, antirelativism, and antiskepticism", i.e. tendencies that coalesce to form the basis of Plato's own philosophy.

After all, Plato did incorporate and synthesized much of the philosophy available at the time, but he did not do so uncritically or indiscriminately. On the contrary, Plato was widely recognized as a philosopher precisely because he offered a reasoned rejection of some philosophical positions and modified others in a way that made sense to his audience.

Let's not forget that Aristotle himself was a member of the Academy and developed his own ideas of "Unmoved Mover", "soul", etc., that do show Platonic influence despite differences.

In any case, Gerson expressly says that his proposal is a "theoretical framework for analysis" not a history of philosophy.

You are willfully ignoring what I wrote, how Aristotle describes what Plato said, at 987b. This is where the detailed report of what Plato said on this issue is found. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not ignoring it. I am simply making the point that we cannot automatically dismiss all the statements made in the dialogues or elsewhere on the grounds that they are "not Plato's teachings". After all, Socrates himself often agrees with his interlocutors. So, the latter are not always telling lies or talking nonsense.

This is particularly evident in dialogues like the Sophist and we need to think twice before dismissing something just because it comes from the mouth of a sophist. As I said earlier, ever liars may say some things that are true.

At the end of the day, the actual author is Plato, using his characters to convey a message to his readers. Hence the need to focus on him at all times, not get distracted by the characters or anything else.

The way I see it, Plato’s idea of reducing sensible particulars to intelligible Forms and intelligible Forms to one irreducible first principle makes perfect sense. This idea was taken up by Speusippus, who certainly believed in the One as a first principle of all as acknowledged by Aristotle (though he may have disagreed on other points).

Aristotle mentions Speusippus at 12.1072b and repeats his views several times. At 5.1092a he says:

Nor is a certain thinker [Speusippus, according to the translator and other scholars] right in his assumption when he likens the principles of the universe to that of animals and plants, on the ground that the more perfect forms are always produced from those which are indeterminate and imperfect, and is led by this to assert that this is true also of the ultimate principles; so that not even unity [lit. “to hen auto” i.e. the One] itself is a real thing [i.e. it is above being] (Meta. 14.1092a)

Gerson comments:

So Speusippus evidently takes the One to be the first principle of all and also takes it to be in some sense “beyond being” or “beyond essence,” the position that Aristotle claims Plato holds as well

- From Plato to Platonism, pp. 135-6

When Aristotle says:

And of those who hold that unchangeable substances exist, some say that the One itself is the Good itself but they consider that its essence is primarily the One (Aristot. Meta. 1091b13-15)

this could well be a view held in the Academy.

I think the belief in one ultimate first principle followed by Forms followed by sensible particulars is compatible with Plato.

Once we admit this principle, the main problem that presents itself is the precise relation (1) between the First Principle and Forms, (2) between Forms themselves, and (3) between Forms and particulars (or Being and Becoming).

As we have seen, Plato taught that particulars have no existence (or essence) of their own. They depend for their existence on “copies” of Forms whose properties they instantiate.

He later developed this idea, introducing the view that sensibles result from the interaction of “form-copies” (homoiotes) and the “receptacle” (hypodoche), which is a form of all-pervading space that serves as a medium for the elements out of which material objects are fashioned. So the objects are made of primary elements shaped by form-copies.

The Forms themselves first seem to be separate both from the material objects and from each other, but are later said to combine with each other in various ways that are classified under certain groups or genera that are in turn subordinate to a higher principle.

Finally, the principles of Limit and Unlimited are introduced to explain how the material Universe or Cosmos is generated: Limit imposes Ideal Ratios (Forms or Shapes and Numbers) on uninformed or unlimited Primordial Matter (the “receptacle” containing the precosmic elements).

However, this is done “through participation in the One”, which may be interpreted to mean that the One, the ultimate first principle, imposes limit upon itself in order to bring forth the world of multiplicity.

Plato may or may not have explicitly held this position, but his teachings, as far as they are known, seem to point in this direction and they were interpreted in this sense by later Platonists.

The writings of Aristotle and other authors indicate that Plato was a serious philosopher, not a novelist, and that members of the Academy took the wider Platonic project seriously.

At the same time, the apparent plurality of views within the Academy suggests that Plato was not a dogmatic teacher and that he allowed some freedom of interpretation.

Given that Plato’s own teachings were not static but were developed by him over time, there is no reason why they cannot be further developed by Plato’s followers, provided that this is consistent with Plato’s own general views.

Certainly, the people who first domesticated the horse would not have objected to the introduction of saddles and stirrups. The inventors of the wheel (originally a solid disc) would not have objected to the introduction of spokes. The inventors of the stone ax would not have objected to the development of axes made of steel, etc.

What Plato really believed is impossible to know with absolute certitude. But the Way Upward he sketched in his dialogues clearly tells us that philosophy consists in inquiring into truth through a constant transcendence of knowledge and experience, whilst always aiming for the absolute highest.

Plato shows us the way or direction and offers us his philosophy as a vehicle for making the journey. It is for us to learn how to drive it, to make improvements on it as required, and for us to decide how far we travel ....

Your previous proposal, "the Platonists", allows for the reality of "some", but the "Platonists" at that time, taught by Pseusippus, were closer to the Pythagoreans than Plato. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no reason to think that Plato would have held different views at the time.

"The Platonists" is not my proposal. It is in the English translation at 1087b:

But the Platonists treat one of the contraries as matter, some opposing "the unequal" to Unity [or the One](Aristot. Meta. 1087b)

Aristotle himself refers to Plato at 988a25.

Aristotle says that Plato recognizes only two basic causes:

1. The cause of essence which is the One.
2. The material cause which is the “Great and the Small”, a.k.a. the “Indefinite Dyad”.

Aristotle also says that according to Plato the One is the cause of the Forms and the Forms are the causes of everything else.

I see the character of the sophist differently. My position is somewhere between yours and Fooloso4’s.

Plato deliberately blurs the distinction between the philosopher and the sophist to make a point. And for this purpose, he must reverse some of the characters' claims, in order to show that the philosopher can appear as a sophist and the sophist as a philosopher.

Accordingly, the three basic alternatives in order of correctitude are:

1. Some of the things the sophist says must be right.
2. The philosopher is always right.
3. The sophist is always right.

The art of philosophical discrimination or discernment (diakritike) is to identify the statements that are most likely to be consistent with truth as seen by Plato.

This is what makes the issue as presented in the dialogues appear so complex. However, if we work on the premise that (a) Plato’s philosopher is committed to finding the truth, and that (b) the truth is one, then it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the One is the ultimate truth.

There is no reason for you to insert "the Platonists" here. I see footnotes mentioning Pseusippus in this section, but it's well known that he was not consistent with Plato. — Metaphysician Undercover

The reason for my insertion is the translator's (Hugh Tredennick's) own note:

And of those who hold that unchangeable substances exist, some 5
....
5 Plato; cf. Aristot. Met. 1.6.10.

Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 14, section 1091b

Tredennick actually says "Plato".

Do you see the problem which you are developing here? Plato clearly used "One" in the sense of a principle of number, ("abstract mathematical idea"). And, "ultimate principle" clearly refers to "the good", for Plato. Nowhere do we find Plato using "One" in the sense of "ultimate principle". — Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, "one" can and does mean different things in different contexts.

However, the fact remains that Aristotle says that:

1. According to Plato the One is the cause of the Forms and the Forms the cause of everything else.

2. According to Plato the numbers are derived from the "Great and Small" by participation in the One (Meta. 978b).

3. Some (presumably Plato and his followers) say that the One itself is the Good itself. The Greek text is “αὐτὸ τὸ ἓν τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸ εἶναι” (auto to hen to agathon auto einai) = literally, “the One itself is the Good itself”. This sounds very much like Platonic language to me.

Additionally, Plato himself says that the One is without beginning nor end and unlimited:

“Then the One, if it has neither beginning nor end, is unlimited.”
“Yes, it is unlimited” (Parm. 137d)

The way I see it, this can only mean that the One is the first principle of all. Like everything else, the numbers too ultimately derive from the One. The one does not exclude the other.

The problem arises only when we take the One to be the cause of numbers and nothing else. IMO it is a stance that tends to turn everything upside-down and muddle the issue instead of solving anything.

OK, so you corrected the "28e" bit.

However, I can’t find a single English translation that has “poet”. All of them have “maker”:

Lamb’s translation says:

And that which has come into existence must necessarily, as we say, have come into existence by reason of some Cause. Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible (Timaeus 28c).

The primary meaning of poietes is “maker” from poieo, “to make”.

Greek-English lexicons like Liddle & Scott explicitly give Plato’s Republic 597d and Timaeus 28c as examples:

ποιητής
A maker, μηχανημάτων Id.Cyr.1.6.38; κλίνης Pl.R.597d; τὸν π. καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντός Id.Ti.28c

https://lsj.gr/wiki/ποιητής

A poietes is someone who makes things, for example, a maker of furniture, a law-maker, a speech-maker, etc. and by extension, as a secondary meaning, a verse-maker or poet.

In the context of Timaeus 28c it cannot mean anything other than Maker. At 76c it says:

Making use, then, of the causes mentioned our Maker (poion) fashioned the head shaggy with hair … (Tim. 76c)

Conceivably, the Creator-God could create the Universe through poetry if he so desired. But this is NOT what he is doing.

Clearly, we cannot substitute “poet” for “maker” in this context. The Creator is described as a craftsman and architect, hence “demiurge”, not as a “poet”. It doesn’t make sense to say “the Poet of the Universe” when no “poetic” activity is involved in the process described.

If you insert concepts into the text that are not there and then construct arguments based on them, then I think you should inform us that this is what you are doing.

The rate of abortions and divorces went up, and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It didn't take long to realize state-paid child care was essential to this economy. John Dewey an American education expert was dismissed as the USSR education advisor, in favor of education for communism and loyalty to the state. — Athena

Correct. Communist Russia’s population growth dropped by more than half from 1.8% a year in the 1950s to 0.8% in 1980-1981, due mostly to declining fertility.

The Soviet Union: population trends and dilemmas – NIH

A major cause was the abortion rate that was the highest in the world. The abortion rate in Capitalist America (and in the West in general) was much lower.

Abortion rate in the U.S. and Soviet Union 1970-1989

So, it seems that Socialism did have a major problem. In fact, the economic, cultural, and psychological impact of Socialism was so severe that former Socialist countries like Russia never recovered even decades after the collapse of Socialism.

Timaeus introduces the divine craftsman he calls “poet and father'' of all that comes to be. (28e)

He does not attempt to demonstrate or prove or defend the existence of the craftsman. We are led to ask how Timaeus knows of him. The suspicion is that Timaeus is the craftsman, the poet and father, of the divine craftsman. — Fooloso4

Interesting post.

A few questions though:

Where did you find “Timaeus 28e”?

Is this from any particular translation, or your own?

From what I understand, Timaeus is a literary figure. If there is any "suspicion" or doubt regarding the authorship of the story, should it not be put to rest by the fact that Plato is the author of the dialogue?

That's how Aristotle greatly simplified this type of description, in On the Soul, by naming these activities as potencies of the soul. So he lists some of them, self-nutritive, self-movement, sensation, intellection. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Plato provides his “tripartite division” of the soul by way of explanation and because it serves his purpose of comparing the soul’s three aspects or elements (eide) to the three social classes of the ideal city. Aristotle himself calls them “parts” (moria), which can give rise to all kinds of misunderstandings.

However, we need to use our judgement and see that the soul really is indivisible. We may classify its functions logically, but in reality, they are simply the soul’s powers, or activities of the soul (psyches energeiai), by means of which it perceives and interacts with itself and the world. In other words, they are the means by which human intelligence manifests its powers in the same way Divine Intelligence manifests its own. This is why intelligence in the Platonic perspective is the underlying substratum to look for.

It makes me wonder how accurate this account of Plato's metaphysics, which Aristotle presents, really is. Aristotle presented it to refute it, so it's likely a bit of a straw man. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, Aristotle definitely needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And the problem is compounded by the fact that anti-Platonists tend to use Aristotle to attack Plato and Platonism, so extra care is needed to avoid being dragged down murky side alleys from where it may be difficult to find our way back to the safety of the main road.

Fortunately, the problem has been taken up by a number of scholars who have thrown a lot of fresh light on Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato, especially his “Theory of Forms”. Gail Fine’s On Ideas, named after Aristotle’s Peri Ideon, is one of the classics that offer a valuable analysis of the subject.

This does not mean that Aristotle’s testimony is valueless, though, only that we need to read him carefully, avoid falling into the trap of questionable translations, and use our own judgement.

After all, even someone who is lying will normally say some things that are true or otherwise provide you with subtle clues that together with other clues may amount to an actionable lead. And I’m not suggesting that Aristotle is lying.

As Socrates puts it, if we want to find the truth we must actively pursue it like a hunter hunting down an elusive quarry - no easy task and requires lots of effort and skills! Sometimes we may have to proceed like a police detective or military intelligence officer. :smile:

In any case, I believe that Aristotle can throw some light on certain aspects of Platonic doctrine, but only to the degree that his testimony is supported by that of other authors.

In the context of what has been discussed, he does make some important statements, e.g.:

And of those who hold that unchangeable substances exist, some [i.e., the Platonists] say that the One itself is the Good itself (Aristot. Meta. 1091b13)

Here we can clearly see the equivalence of the One and the Good which is supported by other sources showing that the One and the Good are not only identical but prior to nous and ousia. If to this we add statements to the effect that the One is the cause of the essence of Forms and Forms are the cause of everything else, i.e., sensible particulars, then everything begins to fall into place.

We also need to take things in the right context.

For example, the word “one” (hen) can have many meanings. The most important of these is “One in the sense of ultimate principle beyond being”. The second-most important is “One in the sense of Monad as a principle of Number”. The third is “one as a number”, etc.

Obviously, these are not identical meanings. “The One” (to Hen) is not the same as “a one” or “a henad” (he henas).

Numbers may, indeed, be said to be “between Forms and sensibles” but only in the sense of abstract mathematical ideas, i.e., in the domain of reason, which is certainly not what the One as ultimate principle is.

It is true that there are Pythagorean elements in the dialogues but it is important to remember that (1) for Plato everything is a means to an end and (2) he is under pressure to show that his own system is superior to others. So, what Plato is doing is to incorporate from other systems what he thinks is not only the best but also most consistent with his own views, and most useful in enabling the philosopher to attain his goal.

But it is clear that despite the Pythagorean aspects of Plato’s doctrine, numbers are not the key to understanding Plato. The key is intelligence itself, how it works, how individual intelligence mirrors a higher intelligence, and how it makes Plato’s philosophy a practical method of elevating human cognition from the most basic to the highest possible:

And, further,” I said, “it occurs to me, now that the study of reckoning has been mentioned, that there is something fine in it, and that it is useful for our purpose in many ways, provided it is pursued for the sake of knowledge and not for huckstering.” “In what respect?” he said. “Why, in respect of the very point of which we were speaking, that it strongly directs the soul upward and compels it to discourse about pure numbers [lit. “autoi oi arithmoi”, i.e. “numbers in themselves” that, like Forms, are within the Divine Creative Nous]( Rep. 525c-d)

.
If there are “numbers in themselves”, there must be awareness of them. And that awareness can only be the Divine Intelligence that contains them.

Plato is a very complex writer who uses metaphor, allegory, myth, logic, mathematics, astrology, harmony theory, and even humor to convey a message. But his personality and life show that he also is a writer who is dead serious about his overarching philosophical project. And I think those who take him seriously have more to gain than those who don’t.

Placing the One as the first principle is inconsistent with the passage from Aristotle. Aristotle describes Plato as positing the One as the first principle of Number, but Number is in a place intermediate between the Forms and sensible things. So the Forms are prior to the One, and Number. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle says:

From this account it is clear that he [Plato] only employed two causes: that of the essence, and the material cause; for the Forms are the cause of the essence in everything else, and the One is the cause of it in the Forms (Aristot. Meta. 987b19-988a14)

(A) A Cause is prior to that of which it is the cause.
(B) The One is the cause of the essence in the Forms.
(C) Therefore the One is prior to the Forms.

If (A) The Forms are distinct from the Good
and (B) The Forms are the causes of everything else (apart from themselves),
then (C) The Forms are the causes of the Good.

If we take Aristotle’s statement, “the Forms are the causes of everything else” in an absolute sense, then they will be the cause of the Good, not only of the One.

Therefore the Forms are not the causes of absolutely everything else, only of what is posterior to them, i.e., the sensibles.

As I said, I was looking at it from a Platonic perspective. Of course the Good is prior to all Forms. I just don't see why the One should be a Form, or a Number.

But maybe we should look into this first:

So this doesn't really make sense to me. The human soul has an intellect as an attribute. And the human soul has a connection to something Divine, the independent Forms. We might even say that the soul uses the intellect as a means toward understanding the Forms. But the connection is between the soul and the Forms, not the intellect and the Forms, and this is why the Forms are so hard for the intellect to understand. Furthermore, the intellect creates its own forms, which are categorically different from the independent Forms, and since they both have the same name "forms", this confuses the matter. So as much as the human soul has a direct connection to, or relation with, something Divine, which we call "Forms", I don't think it's correct to call this Divine reality an "intellect". — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that calling the Divine reality an “intellect” does not seem right. Personally, I think “intelligence” or “mind” (cf. French “intelligence” or German “Geist”) would be preferable. But even better would be to leave the Greek nous untranslated. After all, Plato has been read in the original language for many centuries, and it can’t do any harm to familiarize ourselves with a few Greek words.

Unfortunately, in the English-language literature it tends to be translated as “intellect”, probably under the influence of Latin “intellectus”. Another typical example is translating “phronesis” as “prudence” which not only sounds like cringe-making Victorian nonsense, but in some cases it amounts to an unacceptable distortion.

Having said that, the Greek “nous” itself, as used from the time of Homer and others, has two main meanings that are relevant here. It can mean something like (1) the faculty of “intuition” or “insight” in the sense of direct inner vision or grasp of a thing or situation or (2) the faculty of reasoned thinking.

Plato describes the human soul (psyche) as having three basic aspects:

1. Logistikon: reasoning aspect.
2. Thymoeides (thymos): volitional and emotional aspect, responsible for states like anger; shame; outrage; offended sense of justice; desire to assert oneself and to be effective; self-esteem; courage; sexual passion.
3. Epithymetikon (epithymia): the seat of basic bodily needs and urges such as hunger, thirst, sexual desire.

However, this is not the whole story. There is something missing there and this is that aspect of the soul that is responsible for the five sensory faculties of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and feeling by touch.

There is an additional aspect responsible for motor faculties such as locomotion, etc. But the relevant part here is the sensory or sensual aspect that we may provisionally call “aisthetikon” (from aesthesis, sensation).

And, of course, the nous which is often used interchangeably with logos. Though according to Plato, it is the faculty that perceives the Forms, it can also mean the reasoning faculty.

This suggests that the two are actually one, with the nous as the higher, “spiritual” part, representing the innermost core of the soul, responsible for intuition or insight. This being a more fundamental form of intelligence than thinking, the nous is that part of the soul that could be termed awareness or consciousness.

So, basically, the soul or psyche refers to the whole psycho-mental apparatus with the nous at its very center and therefore inseparable from it. Otherwise said, the nous is the soul proper and reason, etc. are an extension of it.

In terms of Divine Intelligence, it is evident from the Timaeus that the Creator or Maker (ho Poion) of the Universe possesses the powers of consciousness, joy, will, knowledge, and action. This logically makes it an Intelligence in the first place, though it does have some characteristics normally ascribed to the human intellect.

By analogy to the human soul, I think it wouldn’t be wrong to say that the One is something like pure, infinite, and undivided awareness that at the time of creation first becomes consciousness, i.e., self-awareness, as a form of “duality” or pair of opposites (Dyad), followed by multiplicity.

This would correspond to Plato’s Dyad of “Unlimited and Limit” that gives rise to the third principle of “Mixed”, completing the “Intelligible Triad”, i.e., the Creative Intelligence that in turn brings forth the world of multiplicity.

This Intelligible Triad is analogous to “the Same, the Other, and Being” from a blend of which Plato in the Timaeus tells us that the Creator-God made the Soul of the Cosmos, and from a diluted form of which he made the human souls (Tim. 35a, 41d).

The human soul being a creation of Divine Intelligence, it has something of that within itself. And that something is the nous. This means that the soul’s primary connection with Divine Intelligence is the nous.

Naturally, the Forms are another connection. Though they are not the ultimate reality, they may take the soul to the Divine Intelligence that contains them, and from there it may attain a glimpse of the infinite awareness of the Absolute or the One.

Bearing the above in mind, the hierarchy of intelligence may be arranged in the following order:

1. The One or the Good.

2. Nous as Divine Intelligence containing Forms.

3. Nous as human intelligence capable of directly grasping the Forms.

4. Logistikon, “reason” or intelligence capable of conceiving mathematical or ideal objects like the Forms.

5. Aisthetikon, intelligence capable of sensory perception and imagination.

The same human nous that is capable of grasping the Forms is equally capable of recognizing its essential identity with the highest Nous that is its source. It is the essential identity between the two that makes the soul’s return to the One possible: if the Divine Nous contains the Forms within itself, then the human soul by means of its own nous is potentially capable of grasping the Forms - once it has freed itself from the limitations of body, mind, and the material world.

And the path to freedom, that is, the Platonic Way Upward, is dialectic or the art of “dividing and collecting” (dieresis) discussed in the Philebus, that is based on the principles of Sameness, Identity, and Difference, and that elevates the soul to the original Intelligent Triad which is the gateway to the One, the first principle of all.

Personal faith is fine, as I've said all along. But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. — Janus

Sure. However, to be fair, Socrates does say that justified belief or "right opinion" (orthe doxa), though not knowledge as such, is nevertheless as good as, for practical purposes.

For example, if somebody knew the way to Larisa without himself having traveled there, his knowledge would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion that can serve as knowledge for oneself and as a basis for guidance to others:

Socrates
And so long, I presume, as he has right opinion about that which the other man really knows, he will be just as good a guide—if he thinks the truth instead of knowing it—as the man who has the knowledge.
Meno
Just as good (Meno 97b)

I agree that faith does not constitute knowledge but (a) it may correspond to fact and (b) it may serve as a basis for right action.

In the Cave Analogy, having faith that there is an outside world, may prompt the prisoner to find a way out. Without that faith or belief, there would be no reason or motivation to try to get out. And I believe this would go against human nature, indeed, against intelligent life which is to constantly inquire, discover, and explore. Plato would probably say that this is the very essence of philosophical life. Hence the analogy :smile:

A particular is not necessarily an instance of a universal. — Metaphysician Undercover

But it can be one, no?

My point is that you choose to see the One as a “particular”. I choose not to. And I doubt that Plato does.

You asked me to “demonstrate” that the One is the Good.

I explained to you how I see it. And this is how it is normally seen in the Platonic tradition.

The One is mentioned in the dialogues and it was well-known within the Academy that Plato believed in a first principle of all called “the One”. We have the testimony of Plato’s successor Speusippus and Aristotle among others.

Aristotle himself says:

Now since the Forms are the causes of everything else, he supposed that their elements are the elements of all things. Accordingly, the material principle is the "Great and Small," and the essence <or formal principle> is the One, since the numbers are derived from the "Great and Small" by participation in the One … This, then, is Plato's verdict upon the question which we are investigating. From this account it is clear that he only employed two causes: that of the essence, and the material cause; for the Forms are the cause of the essence in everything else, and the One is the cause of it in the Forms. He also tells us what the material substrate is of which the Forms are predicated in the case of sensible things, and the One in that of the Forms—this is the Dyad, the "Great and Small" (Aristot. Meta. 987b19-988a14)

(A) The One is the cause of the Forms and the Forms are the cause of everything else.
(B) There are only two causes: that of the essence, and the material cause.
(C) There is a material principle called the “Great and Small” and an essence or formal principle called “the One”.
(D) The “Great and Small” or “Dyad” is traditionally identified with what is elsewhere called the “Unlimited and Limit” and with the One.
(E) Therefore the One is the ultimate cause of everything.

The mainstream Platonic position is that: (1) there is a first principle of all and (2) Plato reduces sensibles to Forms and Forms to a first principle called “the Good” or “the One”.

This is also the scholarly opinion:

Plato was in principle committed to the reductivist tendency found in all Pre-Socratic philosophy, and, indeed, in all theoretical natural science. This is the tendency to reduce the number of fundamental principles of explanation to the absolute minimum.

- L. Gerson*, From Plato to Platonism, p. 117

[* Executive Committee, International Plato Society (1998-2004); Board of Directors, International Society for Neoplatonic Studies (2004-2010); Board of Directors, Journal of the History of Philosophy, (2007- ).]

As regards the Divine Intelligence, Plato makes the following statements:

The Creator-God is ever-existing and possesses the powers of joy, will, thought, and action (Tim. 34a, 37c).

He is “good” and the “supreme originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos” (29e).
He desires that all should be, so far as possible, “like unto Himself” (29e).
He uses an “Eternal Model” that is “self-identical and uniform” (29a) to create the Soul of the Cosmos from a mixture of the Same, the Other, and Being (35a) which are the basic ingredients of intellect.
Having created the Soul of the Cosmos, the Creator-God creates the Corporeal part and fits the two together. And the living Cosmos “began a divine beginning of unceasing and intelligent life lasting throughout all time” (36e).

So, to begin with, I think it is reasonable to regard the Creator-God as a form of Intelligence. And since he creates the Cosmos from the Same, Other, and Being, and according to certain eternal patterns such as Goodness, Order, and Beauty, it stands to reason that these patterns or Forms are within this very Intelligence itself.

The way I see it, it is the Divine Intellect that holds within itself all the Forms in a unified and ordered whole. Without this, the creation of a living, intelligent and ordered Universe emulating a perfect divine model, would be impossible.

As regards the identity of the One and the Good, both are described as “beyond being” or “beyond essence”.

In addition, Aristotle says:

“It is impossible not to include the Good among the first principles” (Aristot. Meta. 1092a14)

For it is said that the best of all things is the Absolute Good, and that the Absolute Good is that which has the attributes of being the first of goods and of being by its presence the cause to the other goods of their being good; and both of these attributes, it is said, belong to the Form of good (Eudemian Ethics 1217b4-5; cf. 1218b7-12)

(A) The Creator-God is above the Cosmos.
(B) The One/the Good is above the Creator-God.
(C) The One is the first principle and cause of all.
(D) Therefore the Creator-God is a manifestation of the One.

Of course, it is arguable that the One being ineffable, unfathomable, and above Being, the designation “the Good” is, strictly speaking, inappropriate for it and that the One becomes “the Good” only in relation to Being and Becoming. In this sense, the Good may logically be said to be subordinate to the One. Ultimately, however, the two are one and the same thing.

It follows that:

When we speak of the Ultimate on its own, we may refer to it as “the One”.
When we speak of the Ultimate in relation to Being and Becoming, we may refer to it as “the Good”.
When we speak of the Ultimate in relation to the Cosmos or Universe, we may refer to it as “Creative Intelligence”, “Divine Intellect”, Creator”, “Father”, etc.

Why do you first say here, that they are participating in Beauty itself, then you say Beauty itself is the unparticipated? — Metaphysician Undercover

They participate indirectly through the likeness of Beauty itself. Beauty itself remains unparticipated, in the realm of intelligibles. The only thing that is participated in in the sensible world is the visible likeness or "enmattered form".

Diotima in the Symposium is talking about the philosopher who has reached the highest level of knowledge. Only he can "see" Beauty itself.

And I can't find your reference in Phaedo. — Metaphysician Undercover

The reference was to the Quality "itself" (e.g. Greatness or Largeness) as opposed to the quality "in us".

Substitute Beauty for Greatness/Largeness.

A Form is not only "one over many" but also "one and many", hence its explanatory function. As itself in itself, the Form is one. As likenesses, copies or instantiations of itself in the particulars, it is many. By analogy, the Sun is one, the reflections of its light in water and other light-reflecting objects are many.

In the Timaeus, Plato clearly distinguishes between (1) imperceptible "self-subsisting Forms" that can be grasped by reason only and (2) their visible counterparts or "copies" (mimemata) in the sensible world that are accessible to the senses and to opinion based on sense-data. The original Forms are eternally unparticipated:

This being so, we must agree that One Kind is the self-identical Form, ungenerated and indestructible, neither receiving into itself any other from any quarter nor itself passing anywhither into another, invisible and in all ways imperceptible by sense, it being the object which it is the province of Reason to contemplate; and a second Kind is that which is named after the former and similar thereto, an object perceptible by sense, generated, ever carried about, becoming in a place and out of it again perishing, apprehensible by Opinion with the aid of Sensation (Tim. 52a).