Well, I disagree. The Stranger is talking about dividing things by classes or genera.

Here is Jowett’s translation (p. 179):

Stranger:
And as classes are admitted by us in like manner to be some of them capable and others incapable of intermixture ….
Stranger:
Should we not say that the division according to classes, which neither makes the same other, nor makes other the same, is the business of the dialectical science?

And it doesn't say that Forms are "kinds".

It is important not to confuse one with the other. That's why the Stranger emphasizes the importance of the art of discrimination (diakritike) (Soph.226d) ....

Are there examples of division and recognition of forms in the Dialogues that depart from this use? — Valentinus

What use?

Fowler's translation has;

Stranger
Now since we have agreed that the classes or genera also commingle with one another, or do not commingle, in the same way, must not he possess some science and proceed by the processes of reason who is to show correctly which of the classes harmonize with which, and which reject one another, and also if he is to show whether there are some elements extending through all and holding them together so that they can mingle, and again, when they separate, whether there are other universal causes of separation?
.......
Stranger
Shall we not say that the division of things by classes and the avoidance of the belief that the same class is another, or another the same, belongs to the science of dialectic? (Soph. 253b-d)

He is talking about the division of things by classes or genera (gene).

The Forms do not play an essential part in this Socratic dialogue on knowledge. — Fooloso4

What "Socratic dialogue"?

You were talking about The Sophist just a minute ago.

In the Sophist, the Stranger identifies the Socratic school as the "friends of the Forms" (oi philoi ton eidon) (Sophist 248a).

So, obviously, Forms are important. Plato never mentions anything for no reason, least of all Forms.

Plus, the Forms are central to Socrates' philosophy.

And you raised the issue of Forms yourself:

Eidetic numbers are relations of eidos or Forms. Their order is determined by kind. — Fooloso4

I see from another of your responses that you reject 'kinds'. You seem unaware that Forms are Kinds. — Fooloso4

And in the OP:

Plato’s concern is the Whole. Forms are not the Whole. Knowledge of the Forms is not knowledge of the whole. — Fooloso4

Forms may or may not be the "Whole". But they are an important part of it, and an important part of Plato's metaphysics!

And they are definitely not "kinds" or "universals".

Eἶδος (eidos) comes from the verb "to see" and its primary meaning is "that which is seen", i.e. shape or form:

Noun
εἶδος • (eîdos) n (genitive εἴδους or εἴδεος); third declension

1. That which is seen: form, image, shape
2. appearance, look, beauty (comeliness)
3. sight
4. fashion, sort, kind
5. species
6. wares, goods

Eἶδος - Wiktionary

This is precisely why eidos is translated as "Form"!

I think that to say that a Form is a kind, is a misunderstanding of Forms. I am not saying that a philosopher would not divide things into kinds. I am saying that an argument which proceeds in this way could be deceptive. Because of this we have to be very careful to analyze, and carefully understand the proposed divisions, and boundaries, to ensure that they are appropriately created. — Metaphysician Undercover

The misconception of Forms as “kinds” or even “universals” is a standard device employed by anti-Platonists who use Aristotle to attack Plato. Lloyd Gerson correctly calls it “an enduring urban myth in the history of philosophy”.

Moreover, if we pay attention to Plato’s wider theoretical framework we can see that he uses all fields of human knowledge and activity in the service of a higher goal, which is “to become godlike (homoiosis Theo) as far as possible”:

Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible (Theaet. 176a – b)

Plato uses religious beliefs and ethical principles to elevate the would-be philosopher’s mind to an intellectual and moral level where he can begin his philosophical practice. Similarly, mathematical disciplines are not studied for empirical purposes, but with a view to acquiring an ability for ordered and abstract thinking. The same is true of logic or dialectic. The ultimate telos or goal is always the One. The philosopher can fully understand the world and himself only in the light of the One which is the source of all knowledge and all truth.

If the philosopher is to become “as godlike as possible”, then he must make his mind as similar to the mind of God as he can. The intellectual training he has undergone in the preparatory stages has served the purpose of lifting him out the morass of ordinary human condition. But that training itself must be transcended. He must leave logic and everything else behind in order to have an experience of intelligence itself.

We can see why some forms of logic may be fruitful. Trying to grasp how divine intelligence creates the world, for example, by means of Ideas or Forms that impart their properties and, therefore, being to particulars that make up the sensible world, may help the philosopher to understand how divine intelligence works.

But other forms of logic may be less helpful in what the Platonic philosopher is aiming to achieve. Doing too much dividing and classifying, asking too many questions, raising too many doubts, etc., does not seem to be the best way to make one’s mind godlike.

In other words, there must come a time when thinking or any other mental activity becomes counterproductive. If a higher intelligence does exist and it is changeless, then, in order to catch a glimpse of it, it is necessary to make our mind equally changeless and still, as Socrates says in the Phaedo:

But when the soul inquires alone by itself [i.e., undisturbed by body, sense-perceptions, and thoughts and emotions associated with these], 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)

It is the wisdom acquired through a grasp of the One that enables the philosopher to approach philosophical problems by appealing to first principles. And we can arrive at Plato’s One only through a process of simplification or reduction: the multiplicity of sensible particulars is reduced to intelligible Forms, and Forms are reduced to the One. This is the inner logic of Plato’s metaphysics. Hair-splitting mental exercises may be intellectually interesting, but they lead in the opposite direction, i.e., the direction aimed at by the sophist who (covertly or overtly) denies the existence of metaphysical realities ....

Many of the ancient myths which Plato refers to are concerned with the good. The difference between good and evil has been an issue for thousands of years. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. There is no doubt that “good” (kalon or agathon) was central to Greek thought, together with truth, justice, and beauty. Hence “good and beautiful” (kaloskagathos) as the Greek ideal of human perfection.

Diogenes of Apollonia, whom Socrates probably knew of, taught that everything was disposed for the best by divine dispensation. The very concept of a Cosmos was based on the idea of a cosmic order that was good and upon which everything else depended.

So the lesson to be learned from Plato here, is that the sophist is well disguised, and the logical arguments of sophistry may appear infallible, but the sophist is best revealed as a hypocrite, — Metaphysician Undercover

So well disguised that some may even mistake him for a “philosopher” and a “god”.

As we have seen, the philosopher is described as divine and as looking on the life of men from a higher place (Soph. 216c). And as we know from the Republic, it is through contact with real being that the philosopher has understanding, truth, and knowledge (Rep. 490b).

In contrast, the sophist is a disputer (antilogistikos) and one who imitates those who have knowledge, i.e., the genuine philosophers, but has no knowledge himself (Soph. 268e). This is confirmed by his name which, as pointed out by Theaetetus, is a derivation of “sophos” (“wise”).

Another important point is that the philosopher uses hypotheses to elevate his thought out of the confusion of nonphilosophical existence to abstract or “mathematical” concepts and render it sufficiently refined to grasp higher realities. Ultimately, however, he transcends all hypotheses to arrive at the unhypothetical first principle, the source and cause of all knowledge.

On the other hand, the sophist, who is a “disputer” (Soph. 232b), not only becomes lost in the multitude of philosophical questions but multiplies them by means of hair-splitting arguments and counter-arguments. And this goes against Plato for whom the questions raised by intelligence are just the bridge or ladder that takes the philosopher to intelligence itself.

Being an obstacle to that which is at once the truth and the good, the sophist and his method may be described as the opposite of good, i.e., evil.

Are you sure about the former, given the rise of rightwing politics? — baker

I think places like China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey are definitely far-right.

The picture in the West is a bit more complex. BLM, Extinction Rebellion, Environmentalism, and many other movements that are on the rise here are not far-right. I think what is really happening is that Western society is undergoing a process of fragmentation, cultural and economic decline, and rising politization and polarization, probably exacerbated by the pandemic.

The West trying to control China is like a drug addict trying to control his drug dealer — baker

This isn't entirely true. The West could start buying goods from Japan, Russia, India, Latin America, Africa, Turkey, and other places. Some industries may take time to relocate but it can be done if there is a political will to do so. In fact, with China becoming more and more oppressive at home and militaristic and expansionist abroad, I think this is what is going to happen in the near future.

By the way, you seem to look a bit worried of late. Are you OK? :smile:

In this context, the role of the Sophist as a whole dialogue can be sought after. In what way does it impart the art of the philosopher? — Valentinus

Of course it is the whole dialogue that matters. The question as to who the philosopher or sophist is is secondary, especially in view of the fact that the attempt to construct Socrates as the sophist has failed.

What Plato is doing in the dialogue is to show that logical argumentation can be used by philosophers and sophists alike and that both can advance arguments that contribute to the discussion

However, we must not forget that, at the end of the day, the writer is Plato, and what really matters is Plato's teachings. On the whole, the dialogue does not contradict what Plato says in earlier dialogues.

For example, philosophers are said to be "divine", they "look on the life of men from a higher region", they "devote themselves through reason to the Idea of Being", etc. (Soph. 216c; 254a-b).

I think it would depend on the degree to which you are prepared to take "contentment" and the extent it is applied to the whole of mankind. It may have worked in preindustrial or prehistoric times but sounds like utopia in this day and age where "self-actualization" (or self-promotion) is all the fashion.

Oh, and the West is heaven on earth, right. — baker

I never said it was.

So why not just, you know, stop importing low quality products from China? — baker

That's exactly what I'm saying. This would be part of the "economic measures" I am talking about.

If the Westerners are unable to control their own greed, their own lowly impulses, how on earth are they going to control the greed of others?? — baker

The world doesn't always work on Buddhist principles. If the West controlled Hitler and Stalin, why not Xi?

As shown by the Sophist, among standard elements in the anti-Platonist method, we find the tendency to deliberately misinterpret statements, exaggerate ambiguities, or read things into the text that are not there.

Plato’s classification of things, for example, is not as mysterious as some are claiming.

His Theory of Forms is not (pace Strauss) “very hard to understand”, “utterly incredible”, or “absurd”. The human mind has a natural tendency to look at things in a way that unifies separate entities into categories in order to provide ordered relations within a harmonious and meaningful whole. This enables us to process reality in ways that are essential to life. The Forms reflect the mental processes that make things “intelligible”. As such they are the very essence of cognition and the basis of “intelligibility”. Hence their utmost importance in Plato’s scheme.

According to Plato we can see reality as it is only by bringing our sense-perceptions, emotions, and thoughts in order and acquiring an ordered perception of the world within us and outside us.

In the same way our own intelligence keeps our mental and emotional processes in harmonious working order, Plato says that the universe itself is ordered by a higher intelligence:

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)

Plato also tells us that his view merely “confirms the utterances of those who declared of old that mind always rules the universe” (30d).

And because there are these two intelligences, one in the world we live in and one within us, it makes sense to try to establish a connection between them, and for the lower, human intelligence to endeavor to learn about the higher, universal intelligence.

Moreover, in order to understand, and eventually obtain direct knowledge of, the higher intelligence, we need to learn how to think about the world and perceive it in as ordered a way as we possibly can. In other words, we must make our mind as much like the Cosmic Mind as possible.

By understanding the world, the philosopher comes to understand the intelligence behind the universe which is the ultimate source of all intelligences.

In contrast, the sophist, anti-Platonist, or antiphilosopher, makes no attempt to rise above his own sophistry.

The question of whether he is a sophist or a philosopher cannot be adequately addressed until the question of who the philosopher is has been answered. — Fooloso4

If the question of who the philosopher is, is answered, then the question of who the sophist is no longer arises.

And since you have not answered the first question, you have not adequately addressed the other question which is the same as the first question .... :smile:

The solution is in the dyad 'same and different' — Fooloso4

If the solution is in the dyad, then the problem has been solved. And it has been solved by Plato who wrote the dialogue!

If you maintain the distinction between being and becoming then you maintain the distinction between being and not-being. — Fooloso4

The point is that the Stranger exposes himself as a sophist by using distinctions and other things borrowed from Socrates for his own agenda which is “to win the argument”. But of course he has NOT refuted the Theory of Forms, which is the critical point.

Therefore the Stranger has failed to defeat the genuine philosopher.

Being concerned with "that which is not" is the mark of a sophist (254). — Metaphysician Undercover

The Stranger identifies the Socratic, i.e. the genuine philosophical school, as the "friends of the Forms" (oi philoi ton eidon) (Sophist 248a).

Obviously, the only way he can attack the genuine philosophers is by shifting the debate from the reality of that which is (the Forms) to that "which is not". As history shows, it was Socrates' teachings that ultimately won. Indeed, why would anyone believe in that which is not?

The sophist has some goal, a good, which is other than the goal of truth and real understanding. So the principles which the sophist argues appear to be highly intelligible to anyone else who has a similar goal. But these principles are seen as unintelligible to anyone looking for the real good, the true goal of real understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. This is how the sophist is easily identified and exposed.

Plato states that the greatest lesson (megiston mathema) is the Idea of the Good (Rep. 505a). He also tells us why: the Forms that make up the Intelligible World which is the real world, can be fully understood or known only by knowing the Good.

Plato draws a clear line between (1) mathematicians who use discursive thinking (dianoia) and take as hypotheses their definitions and axioms and (2) true dialecticians who have full understanding (noesis) or true knowledge (episteme) of the Forms after ascending to the first unhypothetical principle, viz. the Good (Rep. 510b).

He later reiterates that the dialectical method is the only process of inquiry that rises above hypotheses, up to the first principle itself in order to find confirmation there” (Rep. 533c).

The Stranger himself says:

Stranger
But you surely, I suppose, will not grant the art of dialectic to any but the man who pursues philosophy in purity and righteousness (Soph. 253e)

I think it is clear that if any of the two “pursues philosophy in purity and righteousness”, i.e. for the right purpose and using the right means, it is undeniably Socrates, not the Stranger.

The philosopher appears to be what he is not. — Fooloso4

Exactly. The Stranger is the “philosopher” who will be exposed as a sophist! Hence the title.

Remember, what is stressed over and over again throughout the dialogue, is that the sophist is hard to catch, appearing just like a philosopher, but really a poser, a pretender. The dialogue has to be read very carefully to see that Plato is portraying the stranger as a sophist, pretending to be a philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely. As clearly indicated by the title, the Sophist is about sophistry.

The serious reader of Plato should by now have sufficiently refined his intellectual abilities to perceive the subtle (and sometimes plain obvious) differences between Socrates and the Stranger.

The Stranger is a fake philosopher and a second-class imitation of Socrates.

Of course, both genuine philosophers and sophists use similar techniques of argument, which is the point Plato is making.

However, there are crucial differences. For example, the sophists' sole concern is to "win the argument" regardless of truth. They use argumentation "to make the weaker argument defeat the stronger" which is contrary to reason and to philosophy, i.e., inquiry into truth.

Another striking difference that ought to be pretty obvious is that Socrates’ philosophy serves a higher purpose which is to attain a vision of the Good, whilst the Stranger’s sophistry is for its own sake.

In sum, we can see why they refuse to answer the perfectly legitimate question as to why Plato calls the dialogue "The Sophist" (O Sophistes): an honest answer would demolish their case and would leave them without a leg to stand on!

This is why they are trying to turn Plato on his head and construct Socrates as the "sophist" and the Stranger as the "philosopher". Needless to say, an attempt doomed to failure from the start .... :smile:

Make no mistake: I despise China, but I find less fault with China than with the Westeners who in their greed gobble up whatever China throws at them. — baker

I see your point. However, China has been an evil dictatorship from the day the Maoists seized power in 1949.

So, I would say that China (i.e. the political system, not the Chinese people) is evil quite independently of the West.

It may, of course, be argued that Marxism-Leninism was introduced into China from Russia and into Russia from the West, which would make the West the ultimate source of China's evil.

And yes, it is Western corporations, governments, intergovernmental organizations like the World Bank, etc. in collaboration with Western manufacturers and consumers, that have facilitated China's rise to economic and military power.

And precisely because the West bears a large share of culpability, it also has the responsibility to do something about it. Economic sanctions, for example, would definitely be a step in the right direction.

As regards China leaking the virus, I don't think it would be entirely out of character. The regime clearly has global ambitions and a plan to realize those ambitions. It keeps the West under constant surveillance and it must have learned from past epidemics, their impact, and Western reactions to them.

China's rulers are not like our politicians whose main concern in life is to win elections for a few years. They have long-term plans, the resources to implement them, and no opposition to stop them.

BTW, research by the Lithuanian Defence Ministry's National Cyber Security Center has found that Chinese-made smart phones have in-built spying capabilities.

https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/users-urged-to-throw-away-chinese-smartphones-over-spying-fears

A few years ago, Krytpowire, a US mobile security firm, found that up to 700 million android devices had Chinese malware hidden as a preinstalled support app that had access to and sent information about users' text messages, contacts, calls, location, and other data to a server in Shanghai:

The Chinese company that wrote the software, Shanghai Adups Technology Company, says its code runs on more than 700 million phones, cars and other smart devices. The episode shows how companies throughout the technology supply chain can compromise privacy, with or without the knowledge of manufacturers or customers. It also offers a look at one way that Chinese companies — and by extension the government — can monitor cellphone behavior. For many years, the Chinese government has used a variety of methods to filter and track internet use and monitor online conversations …

Secret Back Door in Some U.S. Phones Sent Data to China, Analysts Say - New York Times

I think China knows exactly what it is doing.

Though anti-Platonists like to claim that Plato “doesn’t have a system”, the fact of the matter is that he does have a teaching or doctrine (dogma in Aristotle’s own words) that is pretty systematic and that can be further systematized if we wish. Indeed, Plato’s contemporaries regarded him as having a definite philosophical and political doctrine.

This doctrine may not be worked out in every single detail, but I think that where Plato leaves a question unanswered, he does so for two reasons, either (1) the issue is less important to his bigger picture than it seems, or (2) he wants us to do some thinking and fill in the gaps ourselves, always of course, following the larger picture.

To begin with, Plato’s doctrine is hierarchical. It begins with the observation that ordinary, unphilosophic man is unable to see the truth, or himself, because his vision is blurred and deceptive and his thought lacks order and is confused. The only solution is to organize our thinking and look upward, beyond and above appearances.

This is why Plato refers to philosophy as “The Upward Way”. The Platonic Way is an upward journey from the lowest to the highest levels of knowledge, that passes through several stages: (1) opinion, (2) belief, (3) reason, and (4) intuition or insight.

(1). Eikasia, fancy, illusion, or conjecture. This is the stage of ordinary man who lives in an illusory world of conjecture, unexamined opinion, and habitual patterns of thought and behavior.

(2). Pistis or faith. At this stage the would-be philosopher begins with a more structured worldview based on reasoned belief in the immortality of the soul, afterlife, divine beings, and divine judgment in the afterlife that results in a happy or unhappy existence in the other world in accordance with one’s conduct on earth. The deities at this stage are the Olympian Gods of established Greek religion.

From the above, there follows an ethical system that revolves on happiness, goodness, and justice: in order to be happy not just momentarily but in the long term, including in the afterlife, man needs to be good and just. In order to be good and just in relation to his fellow citizens and to himself, he needs to cultivate the four virtues of self-control, courage, wisdom, and righteousness.

Up to this point, the philosopher has inhabited the world of sensible objects where thought was based on sensory perception. This is now left behind and the philosopher enters the intelligible world of pure thought.

(Plato’s Analogy of the Divided Line given in the Republic (509d–511e) illustrates the continuum of knowledge by a line divided into two main sections representing the Sensible and Intelligible World, respectively. However, the two are not to be understood as literally separate and independent but logically divided into classes of reality.)

(3). Dianoia or reason. The cultivation and practice of virtues having resulted in a purification of the soul and a clear intellect, this is further developed and refined through the study of mathematical disciplines in a philosophical sense, which results in a greater capacity of abstract thought.

At this stage the philosopher’s perception of the world is not only mathematized and abstracticized but also spiritualized. The focus shifts from the Olympian Gods to the impersonal Planets which are seen as ensouled bodies among which the Sun occupies a central role. Indeed, the whole Cosmos is to be seen as a living being endowed with soul and intelligence.

The soul being the intelligent part of man, looking on heavenly bodies as having a soul is a step toward looking on intelligence (nous) as the underlying substratum of the universe.

(4) Episteme or knowledge. Finally, having passed through the preliminary stages, the philosopher can now turn his attention to higher forms of knowledge, or knowledge proper that has Forms, etc. as its objects, using his faculty of intuition, insight, and contemplation (noesis). The Deity at this stage is the One in its aspect of Creator God (Demiurge) or Creative Intelligence (Nous Poietikos).

So, we can see that, though Plato’s dogma is not presented in a strictly systematic manner, with a little reflection the reader’s mind can systematize it in thought without much difficulty.

The Platonic Way is a process of gradual elevation of human thought from the most primitive or unconscious to the most evolved or conscious, culminating in a direct experience of nothing less than the very source of all knowledge and all thought, the “Ineffable One”.

The key to the successful completion of the journey is a clear understanding of the need to constantly transcend lower forms of thought and ascend to the next-higher level to the very end.

And the first step on this long journey is to dislodge our intellect and our entire psychology from ordinary, unexamined, and unphilosophical patterns of thought, behavior, and experience tied to material things, and literally, as Socrates says, turn around and turn our gaze upward.

It must also be said that, though there is a general tendency to dismiss some of Plato’s statements as “myth”, it is important to understand that (1) speaking mythically about something does not make it "mythical", and (2) nothing in Plato is accidental or superfluous. His whole narrative serves the specific purpose of providing the reader with the intellectual framework or ladder necessary for the ascent.

In contrast, the Sophist uses elaborate arguments, including superficially convincing ones, to claim that there is no higher goal, no means of attaining it, and no need to even think of leaving the cave ....

What is demonstrated by Plato, is that the stranger, who thinks of himself as a philosopher, really behaves in the way that he describes a sophist. So the stranger is therefore the sophist, the namesake of the dialogue.
Why else is the dialogue called "The Sophist"?. — Metaphysician Undercover

That’s a very good point.

I think it is instructive to note that Plato’s detractors often resort to arguments that Plato himself would have rejected as arguments employed by Sophists, not by genuine philosophers. Sophists, of course, deny the existence of the Forms, and in particular, of the Good. Therefore, their arguments, well-crafted though they may be, lack real substance.

More generally, the reason why some Plato readers lose track of Plato’s narrative is that they fail to pay attention to the general structure of Plato’s metaphysics or ethics and tend to become lost in a labyrinth of unexamined assumptions.

They fail to see that Plato has a larger picture in mind and as a result they cannot understand the inner logic of his system. Instead of taking Plato’s teachings as a whole, they get bogged down in discussions about details and deny that he has a system or even a philosophy!

If we think about it, Plato's students would have had some general knowledge of his teachings before attending his classes. They would not have started from scratch and certainly not from unconnected details.

IMO the correct approach is to first acquire a reasonable grasp of the larger Platonic picture, and then see how the details combine with each other to fit the whole.

I never saw a clear and coherent definition of "the One" in Plato, perhaps you could show me where this is stated. Nevertheless what I did see stated about the One seemed confused and incoherent, so I tend not to agree with it. I have the same problem with what Plotinus said about the One, though it seems much clearer than what Plato said, it still appears to me to be inconsistent. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that we should not agree with things that are confused and incoherent.

However, the critical question is how the world of multiplicity, expressed as the gradations of Being, arises from the absolute One.

Plato suggests the three principles or functions of the One, viz., (1) Unlimited, (2) Limit, and (3) "Mixed". Limit imposes limitation on the Unlimited, and the Mixed uses the other two in order to "shape" the substance of the One into Ideal Intelligible Objects (Forms).

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 and mind (Phileb. 30c)

The One, the Supreme Intelligence, by means of the Unlimited and Limit, becomes the Universal Intellect (Nous Kosmou) that organizes Unmanifest Intelligence into classes of Forms, Individual Forms, and Particular Instantiations of Forms, bringing about the multiplicity of the world of manifestation.

In other words, Intellect is nothing but Unformed Intelligence “shaped” by the Forms which are its objects. Without Forms, there is no Intellect and no cognition. There is just "blank" Intelligence or Awareness. This is why the Forms are the very essence of cognition, the One (the Good) being their ultimate source.

And “unity” with reference to the One is in the sense of "henad" (henados), i.e., opposite of multiplicity. This particular "unity" or "henad" is unlimited.

The One is unlimited (apeiron):

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

The One is creative, all objects of knowledge deriving from it:

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)

Unfortunately, in order to better understand Plato, we sometimes need to turn to Aristotle, Plotinus, and other authors to fill the lacunae. But, whatever we do, we cannot go against Plato's text. Sometimes it is preferable not to know something than to make things up ....

You seem to be very fond of the word “indeterminate” even though it is very rarely used by Plato.

And you still haven’t explained what your actual point is.

You have told us that:

“Being belongs to a higher intelligible order than rest or motion”.

“Eidetic numbers are relations of eidos or Forms. Their order is determined by kind.”

“If you are counting categories then it is a third, but what is being counted are Forms at some level of order. Rest, Change, and Being are not at the same level of order and so are not counted together.”

Of course Being comes first as it consists of “all moving and immovable things” (Sophist 249d), for which reason it blends with Rest and Change but the latter do not blend with one another.

Therefore, it may be said that Being is a Kind (Genos) that is followed by Subkinds (Rest and Change) followed by Changeless Things (Forms), followed by Changing Things (Particular Instantiations of Forms), etc. On its part, the One from which Being is derived is above being.

So, we have three levels of reality: (1) the One above Being, (2) Intellect and Forms which represent Being, and (3) the sensible world of Becoming.

In any case, it’s a well-known fact that Plato’s metaphysics is a hierarchy. Its technical details may or may not be debatable. But its general structure, which is what really matters and which needs to be grasped first, has nothing mysterious about it.

People will sell their soul for very little. — MondoR

:up:

I don't accept any of this. I see no reason why a "unit" must be one among many, and not just a defined "whole", without the need for others to validate the definition. And I see no possible way that "unity" could be unlimited, as necessarily limited by that which unites. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand your concern. However, the issue arose from your previous objection:

Isn't "one", by its very definition, a unit and therefore limited? — Metaphysician Undercover

"One" as unit, i.e, one among other units, is indeed limited.

"One" as a whole consisting of parts would be many and therefore limited.

"One" as unity, in the sense of simple or non-composite, need not be limited.

Indeed, Plato says quite clearly that the One is not a whole consisting of parts and that it is "unlimited" (apeiron). This is precisely why there is nothing else like the One.

And unfortunately, we can't go against the text!

He also says that Plotinus rejected this because the One cannot be a principle of limitation. It is the Intellect that imposes limit on the One: — Fooloso4

Plotinus may say whatever he pleases. It does not mean that Plato says it.

It is important not to confuse one author with another.

Besides, according to Plotinus, the One acts through the instrumentality of Intellect.

(A). The One acts through the instrumentality of Intellect.

(B). Intellect imposes limit on the One.

(C). Therefore the One imposes limit on itself (through the Intellect).

The Intellect is nothing but the Indefinite Dyad that is generated by the One!

In other words, (1) the One generates the Indefinite Dyad, (2) the Dyad is formed into Intellect, (3) Intellect in turn produces intelligible matter by manifesting the Forms that already exist in the One.

Pretty elementary IMO.

This is why I quoted Aristotle (Meta. 978b), above, which Plotinus himself quotes in support of his interpretation of Plato.

For Plato the Indeterminate Dyad is "an irreducible first principle of unlimitedness." — Fooloso4

That's not what the text says. Are you sure you can read?

But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine. For they can see no other benefit from such pursuits worth mentioning. — Wayfarer

That's a very good point. As Plato says, the ignorant multitude just can't think of anything outside the cave and insist on staying inside their little world of shadows ....

I think it's more that Plato is being looked at through the prism of Christian Platonism — Wayfarer

I think another possibility is that there are similarities between Platonism and Christianity just as there are similarities between Platonism and Buddhism or Hinduism.

How would you look at Plato in such a way as to avoid all appearance of looking at him through a "Christian Platonist" prism?

The CCP is composed of thugs that enslaves the population so it has cheap goods to export to the U.S. and elsewhere. Companies like Apple are knowing accomplices. Daszak, Fauci's cover-up buddy, works hand and hand with the CCP on gain of function "research". Clearly bio weapon research. There are some monstrous people running this world. — MondoR

Correct. A lot of Chinese goods are made in prisons and concentration camps.

I've always wondered how anyone can trust a bloodthirsty dictatorship like China. Obviously, there are corrupt corporate interests making a lot of money from dealing with the regime. But for Westerners in general to be so naive as to believe that China is the benefactor of the world, seems incomprehensible to me.

Where does Plato say this? If you are referring to what Gerson says, he says that according to the Platonic tradition, (not Plato) , the One imposes limit on the indefinite dyad, thereby producing Forms and Numbers. The One, according to this, does not impose a limit on itself, but on the indefinite dyad. — Fooloso4

As usual, you are not paying attention. It isn't Gerson, it's Aristotle I am talking about. You started quoting him, did you not?

What I said is this:

As Aristotle says, Plato teaches that from the Great and the Small, by participation in the One come the Forms and the Numbers:

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 (Meta. 978b) — Apollodorus

Such stories may be inspiring and suitable for spiritual contemplation, but they should not be mistaken for Plato's metaphysics. — Fooloso4

I think Plato says very clearly that the philosopher must rise to the source of everything and then draw conclusions about everything else in the light of that:

By the other section of the intelligible I mean that which the reason itself lays hold of by the power of dialectics, treating its assumptions not as absolute beginnings but literally as hypotheses, underpinnings, footings, and springboards so to speak, to enable it to rise to that which requires no assumption and is the starting-point of all, and after attaining to that again taking hold of the first dependencies from it, so to proceed downward to the conclusion making no use whatever of any object of sense but only of pure ideas moving on through ideas to ideas and ending with ideas (Rep. 511b-c).

Basically, there are two kinds of people. Some try to make their way out of the cave to the world outside and some stubbornly insist that the cave is the only reality there is without even considering any other possibility. If you insist on belonging to the latter, that is your problem, not other people's :smile:

Isn't "one", by its very definition, a unit and therefore limited? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not necessarily. There is a difference between "unit" and "unity". The former refers to one among many, the latter to something that is one in the sense of simple or non-composite.

As unit, one is limited. As unity, it can be unlimited.

Sure. But where does that leave China?

Josh Robin, of the Washington Post talks about Daszak, Fauci, government funded misinformation, and how biomedical scientists' fingerprints are all over the creation of Covid-19. Is there a Nobel Prize for Science that Kills Millions and destroys the lives of hundreds of millions? — MondoR

It's hard to know who to believe these days, but something doesn't seem right there.

These are supposed to be "reputable" and "trustworthy" scientists and experts who know what they are talking about. So, why the contradictory statements, misinformation, and propaganda?

And now even the WHO is saying that China isn't being transparent on the true facts about the virus ....

He was one of the greatest movie directors of the 20th Century. — frank

You guys are obviously a different generation.

So, sorry to disappoint you, but Kubrick says nothing to me. I can only go by what I read in online sources like Wikipedia which, by the way is pretty mainstream.

That gave me the biggest laugh I have had in ages, thanks. You sound like a gauche country cousin who has just seen a sculpture by Michelangelo and is offended and confused by a marble penis. — Tom Storm

Well, you guys gave me a big laugh too. :grin:

Of course there is nothing offensive about a marble statue. But I think the likes of Harvey Weinstein are a different story.

From the info available on movie directors and producers some seem to believe that they should have power over other people and the right to sexually abuse them. See Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Roman Polanski, Klaus Kinsky, and many others.

Sexual abuse in the American film industry – Wikipedia

I can only guess that it was much worse in the 50's and 60's but fortunately times have changed since ...

Are you not familiar with Dr. Strangelove? — T Clark

I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.

Then he made a series of strange movies:

One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.

One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend ….

Sexuality in Kubrick's films is usually depicted outside matrimonial relationships in hostile situations. Baxter states that Kubrick explores the "furtive and violent side alleys of the sexual experience: voyeurism, domination, bondage and rape" in his films

Stanley Kubrick – Wikipedia

It may be “black comedy” but personally I’m not into that kind of stuff ....

Apophaticism is definitely one way of approaching the issue. And it actually makes a lot of sense, especially in the context of later Platonists like Plotinus.

Another word for understanding is seeing. See? — TheMadFool

Absolutely.

I actually had to look it up on Wikipedia. If it's about "nuclear militarism" then it definitely sounds like propaganda to me. I'm not a movie person anyway. I prefer socializing or reading a good book when I have the time.

Plus, by action against China I meant economic sanctions not nuking them. It you could take out the evil leadership that'd be great but nuking the whole country, I don't think so.

But it is interesting to see that in the Telegraph article the WHO scientist says:

The problem is that those opposed to a lab leak scenario will always just say that we need to sample more, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Scientists overall are afraid of discussing the issue of the origins due to the political situation. This leaves a small and vocal minority of biased scientists free to spread misinformation.

Revealed: Wuhan and US scientists planned to create new coronaviruses - The Telegraph

So, it seems that misinformation is being spread, not just via movies.

And if even the WHO is demanding more transparency from China, this seems to strengthen the suspicion that the regime has something to hide IMO. Time will tell ....

Well, you caught me by surprise — T Clark

What would life be without surprises, huh.

Dr Strangelove? Produced by Hawk Films? I’m not into Soviet era propaganda movies (or movies in general) to be honest and I wasn’t even born at the time!

But I do appreciate your sense of humor …. :smile:

There is one primary question - Does what the other country is doing affect the national security of the United States? If the answer is "no," then, generally, the US should not get involved. That may not always be true, but there would have to be extraordinary justification.

Now to get back to the specific question - China's role in the pandemic is definitely a matter of national security for the US, so it is reasonable for us to get involved. On the other hand, there is very little we can do that will force them to comply with what we think is the correct action. To somehow equate action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home is very short-sighted. — T Clark

I would start by removing “the United States”. This is something that concerns the whole international community and I think we should take as broad a view of it as possible. We can narrow it down later on if need be.

As to the specific question, “equating action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home” is something that I definitely do not do. Indeed, dealing with China may be even more important. This remains to be established through careful analysis of all known facts. (As a preliminary thought, what is worse, losing a few million people to Covid or losing everything to China?)

I would not say that there is little we can do, though. In military terms, the West can arm Japan, India, Taiwan, and even Russia against China without getting directly involved.

The military option may prove problematic though, as it tends to involve politics and other agendas that as we have seen tend to create a mess and generate new problems. So, personally, I would go for sanctions and other measures to destabilize the regime and encourage political opposition.

However, I think that one critical question would be, If China is exterminating Tibetans and Uighurs, on what grounds should we believe that it will treat Westerners any better?

Otherwise said, should Westerners wait to be put in concentration camps, or should we take preemptive action now, whilst we can?

Incidentally, it seems that new information is coming to light that may help getting a better picture of the facts.

Revealed: Wuhan and US scientists planned to create new coronaviruses - The Telegraph

I suspect that is a no parking zone. — Fooloso4

The temptation to Straussianize, Maimonidize, or Farabize Plato is understandable. But I think it must be resisted. I believe that Plato should be read on his own terms.

The One is Infinite or Unlimited. We may ask, Infinite or Unlimited what? Being, Life, Intelligence (Einai, Zoe, Nous). How can limited human intelligence grasp what has no limit?

Well, Plato tells us how. The only way of doing it is by letting go of whatever is limiting our intelligence, that is, concerns with limited and limiting things such as the body and other material objects and thoughts about them; by lifting our gaze upward; and by opening our heart, the eye of our soul, to the Light of the One, that it may flood, pervade, and take over our whole being and lift us from darkness to its infinite, ever-present, all-illumining, and life-bestowing radiance.

The mind as a whole must be turned away from the world of change until its eye can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what we call the Good (Rep. 518c)

In other words, the Intelligence Plato is talking about, is no abstract concept! It is a live, living force, it is Life itself. Try saying “dead intelligence”. It doesn’t make sense! Intelligence IS Life and Life IS Intelligence. And because it is Life itself, not "my life", "your life", or “our life” but Life in its absolute, irresistible, brutal, and devastating totality that sweeps all individualism away, we cannot control or manipulate it, try to do so, or even think of trying.

Plato uses the dialogues to convey a unified metaphysical framework that is hierarchical and that leads from complexity to simplicity, culminating in the absolutely simple first principle of the One which is autoexplicable and unhypothetical, but also ineffable and unfathomable.

Being Goodness, the One also serves as the guiding principle in Plato’s ethics. So, the philosopher can start living an ethical life straight away, without waiting for a vision of the One that, at the end of the day, may or may not come.

However, Platonism is “the Upward Way”, the process of ascent to ever-higher levels of being and experiencing. Whilst we are living a righteous life, or as righteous as possible, Plato gives us something even higher to aspire to. He explains how the One creates multiplicity by first imposing limit on the unlimited, i.e., on itself, and then forming it into ideal building blocks that are harmoniously arranged to provide the ordered structure of the Cosmos.

This is all that can be said (for now) about the One because the One, as already stated, is beyond the grasp of the human mind. However, though beyond our grasp, the One is knowable to us. This is very important to understand and to always remember. Remembrance (anamnesis) in Platonism is absolutely essential. And there is One thing that must be remembered at all times, even when we are asleep.

The same applies to the Forms. Though normally beyond our grasp, they can be known. Indeed, the Forms are the very essence of cognition, they stand at the threshold of the Unmanifest to the Manifest, at the apex of the “Intelligible Triad”. And for Plato (as for Ancient Greeks in general) cognition is “seeing”. When we see something we see a “form” or “shape”. Hence “Form”, eidos, which means “that which is seen”, i.e., the form or shape of an object of sight, something that is “seen”, “grasped”, “understood”, or “known”.

To begin with, we can think about Forms. There is nothing wrong with that. And I am not talking about wild speculation or fantasizing. I am talking about cool, rational, methodical thinking along the lines suggested by the dialogues. Thinking about the Forms opens us up to the experience of them. The Forms lead us to the Good and knowledge of the Good leads to knowledge of the Forms.

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

The Forms are like the tracks of an animal we are hunting. Though we may have heard of it, we do not know the animal. All we see at first are clues that something has passed by through the forest: we notice changes in the behavior of other animals, we see broken twigs and leaves, trodden grass, etc. We may even hear some unfamiliar sounds in the distance, all pointing in the same direction.

Suddenly, we see prints left in the soil and something inexplicable happens within us. Our heart skips a beat, our hair stands on end, and deep down we know that we are on the right track. From that moment, we can no longer let go. As Socrates says, the philosophical quest “takes possession of our soul” (Phaedo 82d). We must follow the clues day and night. Eventually, though, after days, weeks, months or years, we see the animal itself and how it makes those prints. This enables us to fully understand the clues that led us to the quarry.

In his dialogues, Plato provides a description of the One, tells us what the tracks are that lead to the One, and gives us many other clues by means of myths, analogies, and logical arguments. I think we can hardly ask for more!

But the most important clue that Plato (or anyone else can give us) is the need of self-knowledge. Lack of self-knowledge means that we don’t know who or what we are. And this can only mean that we are not who or what we think we are! We must be something else.

As Plotinus says, to know ourselves we must know our Source: the human mind is a microcosm of the Cosmic Mind, the Supreme Intelligence and Ultimate Reality, and what we are hunting or looking for – or at least part of it – is already and always present within us. This is why we will never find it by looking for it in distant places, and even less by denying its existence.

We can't fix the world, although there is a faction that thinks we should try. It usually leads to disaster, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Libya... — T Clark

It does tend to lead to disaster when not Justice but hidden agendas or mere political expediency are the real motivation.

However, is the argument that the international community should do nothing under any circumstances, a better one?

for geometry is the knowledge of the eternally existent — Wayfarer

Correct.

It is absolutely imperative to understand that, as stated in the Republic, the purpose of mathematics as applied by Plato is not to lose ourselves in endless speculative calculations but to constantly elevate and refine our thoughts toward the One.

If we are saying that one is a unit, then we must put two and two (or one and one) together.

The Indefinite Dyad may be described as a principle of complexity through which the One manifests multiplicity. However, like everything derived from the One, the Indefinite Dyad also has an element of unity. Thus the Dyad becomes the Number Two which represents at once (1) two units (2 x 1) that make up the number, and (2) the number itself that is a unity.

As Aristotle says, Plato teaches that from the Great and the Small, by participation in the One come the Forms and the Numbers:

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 (Meta. 978b)

In other words, the "Mixed" (Meikte), the third principle of the "Intelligible Triad" (Noete Trias) that combines the Great and the Small or the Unlimited and the Limited, is the function of the One whereby the One imposes limitation on itself in order to manifest multiplicity from Forms to Mathematical Objects to the multitude of Particulars that make up the sensible world.