No, I don't think the US is national socialist. — T Clark

Neither do I. I am saying that China is, though.

Stalinist Russia also had concentration camps. But it was not National Socialist, it was Marxist and its concentration camps were for political prisoners.

Nazi Germany's concentration camps were largely for ethnic minorities, as are China's.

Therefore China resembles Nazi Germany more that Marxist Russia, though there are of course similarities to Russia too.

China has put 2 million Uighurs in concentration camps, it has occupied Tibet, it is gradually replacing Tibetans with Chinese, and it has expansionist plans for Taiwan, India, and other parts of the world.

See also:

We hanged Uyghurs from ceilings and ordered their rape, says Chinese police whistleblower – The Telegraph

On the one hand this means that there can never be a comprehensive account of the whole, but on the other, it encourages an openness to what might be; beyond our limits of comprehension. — Fooloso4

Plato’s statements should not be taken out of context. Of course there is an openness to things that are beyond our limits of comprehension. The whole point of Plato’s philosophy is to expand our understanding of the whole!

These so-called “problems” must be seen within the general system of principles in which the One or the Good is the ground of all knowledge.

This is why Plato urges the philosopher to strive to acquire direct knowledge of the One, not indulge in idle speculation about it.

A comprehensive account of the whole is impossible in ignorance of the One. Therefore the philosopher must rise to the perspective of the One where a grasp of the whole becomes possible. This is why Plato speaks of philosophy as “the upward way”, (ano odos), i.e. the way of vertical ascent (Rep. 621c).

See also:

[the study of geometry, etc.] would tend to draw the soul to truth, and would be productive of a philosophic attitude of mind, directing upward the faculties that now wrongly are turned earthward … (527b)

Everything is a matter of perspective. Without the right perspective and attitude of mind there can be no comprehension and everything seems forever “problematic” ….

I've turned down research opportunities because I didn't like the organisation funding them. — Isaac

Which is absolutely right. Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency for universities and research centers to accept funding from Middle Eastern and other sources that are not always as reputable as they seem.

When it comes to Chinese organizations I have no idea why any Westerners would accept money from them. Unless they are naive enough to believe that the Chinese state is a force for progress .... :smile:

First and foremost the fault lies with the scientific community. — Isaac

I agree. But the problem tends to be exacerbated by the issue of funding. As in any other field, whoever provides the cash gains the ability to exert influence. And when foreign powers get involved, things can go seriously wrong very fast ....

The Sun already ran an article about that, posted here on the forum. — jorndoe

Correct. But the original article that the Sun also refers to is from the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/

I do agree that the media tends to sensationalize news. However, the intelligence services have long been warning of growing Chinese influence on Western academics, which is not surprising if universities and research centers are co-funded by corporations with links to the Chinese state in the first place.

Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel at Aachen (Germany), which incidentally, is just a small part of the original royal palace, has a plan and decoration based on Roman and Greek elements.

As can be seen from the multicolored marble veneer, the bronze decorations, etc., the materials, styles, and techniques used show not only a continuation of Classical architecture but a high degree of sophistication and exceptional craftsmanship that is inconsistent with the concept of “Dark Ages”.

None of this would have been possible had Christianity destroyed Classical culture.

Far from being destroyed, the Classical architecture inherited by the Christianized Roman Empire led to the emergence of several Renaissance periods between the 700’s and 1400’s followed by the Baroque and Neoclassical periods.

The centuries following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West did not see an abrupt disappearance of the ancient schools, from which emerged Martianus Capella, Cassiodorus and Boethius, essential icons of the Roman cultural heritage in the Middle Ages, thanks to which the disciplines of liberal arts were preserved. The 7th century saw the "Isidorian Renaissance" in the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania in which sciences flourished and the integration of Christian and pre-Christian thought occurred, while the spread of Irish monastic schools (scriptoria) over Europe laid the groundwork for the Carolingian Renaissance.

Carolingian Renaissance - Wikipedia

In addition to the Church itself, the Christian Carolingian and Habsburg royal houses were particularly involved in the promotion of Classical and Neoclassical architecture and culture.

In the 1600’s and 1700’s it was customary for Northwest Europeans to go on a Grand Tour of Italy as part of education, precisely to acquaint themselves with Classical culture. Greece was under Turkish occupation and therefore less accessible. However, there were plenty of Greek temples in Italy some of which are still standing and this would not have been the case had Christianity wiped out all Classical culture.

At any rate, having seen the breath-taking splendor of ancient architecture and medieval churches, cathedrals, and palaces, people were less inclined to speak of “Dark Ages” than they are today.

Grand Tour – Wikipedia

Unfortunately, after WW2 the Hippie Trail that took the place of the Grand Tour led further and further east, and Europe was forgotten in the mist of counter-culture and political propaganda ….

By the way, Plato’s Academy was razed to the ground by the Romans in 86 BC, not by the Christians.

IMO China is run by brutal dictators with an appalling human-rights record and a very long history of suppressing ethnic and religious minorities.

But I agree that the pandemic has exposed some unsettling facts about the academic community and academic publications.

So, yes, it looks like an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has shown that of the 27 scientists who wrote a letter in The Lancet medical journal dismissing the possibility that Covid-19 originated from a Wuhan lab, 26 have links to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or its benefactors.

REVEALED: 26 out of the 27 Lancet scientists who trashed theory that Covid leaked from a Chinese lab have links to Wuhan researchers - Daily Mail

If we can't trust our own scientists, that's bad news for everybody. It looks like our leaders are becoming increasingly unreliable and unaccountable. We can get rid of dodgy political leaders even if it may take years, but how do you get rid of dodgy scientists and professors?

First of all, what "action" is being taken against anti-vaxxers? If you mean complaining, hey, that's what this forum is for. — T Clark

The issue was not the action taken but the action suggested, which was "bashing them on the snout".

I still don't get why going after China matters. — T Clark

The pandemic has done serious damage across the world. If China's rulers have any culpability in this, then I think it stands to reason that they should be held to account. This is what we have international laws for.

Besides, you said that you have no objection:

I doubt that would be effective, but sure. I have no objection. — T Clark

China may be a bad place, but I don't know what it means to say it is national socialist. Is it dangerous? I think significantly less so than the Soviet Union was. — T Clark

Well, that's where we have to disagree.

"National Socialist" means "Nazi", i.e. Socialist + Nationalist. China has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs. It has concentration camps. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc. So, it seems to have all the features of a Nazi dictatorship.

Plus, if something is admittedly "bad", then the international community must ensure that it does not spread.

I suppose universals become relevant to God in how it makes God credible, ontologically speaking that is. A theist might feel reassured that God has company in universals and their idea of an immaterial being suddenly doesn't seem that outlandish. — TheMadFool

I think universals are a very interesting aspect of cognition, of the way we perceive the world and make sense of it or make it “intelligible”. We seem to have 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 essence of human cognition for Plato is “seeing”. When we see something we see a “form” or “shape”. This is why Plato uses the term eidos which means “that which is seen”, i.e., the form or shape of an object of sight.

So, we can see why form in general, and Form as universal in particular, is the basis of intelligibility. Further, if we think about it, each Form is both a unity and something good, as it performs the essential function of making the world intelligible to us. Thus we can reduce all sensibles to Forms and all Forms to the One which is Good.

Finally, it stands to reason to assume that this first principle, the One, is intelligent as only an intelligent being can create and unify all the Forms and their instantiations in a harmonious, functioning whole. We need not refer to this intelligence as “God”, but it is difficult to deny or doubt its intelligence especially from a 4th-century BC perspective.

Plato, in fact, does not ask us to worship the One. He simply urges us to try and get to know it. He tells us that the One or the Good is knowable, that the Forms lead us to it and that once we know it, we fully know the Forms and, by extension, everything else. Plotinus seems to have made some progress in this direction. In any case, Platonism is an invitation to practical philosophy not mere intellectual speculation.

I think it is important to note that these are Aristotle's arguments against various proposals as to what kind of existence numbers have. There is no direct reference to Plato here, and the points listed by Aristotle, which he argues against, could very well be straw man points. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is obvious that in the Philebus Socrates (or Plato) simply introduces the principles of Unlimited or Infinite (apeiron) and Limited or Finite (peras) to explain how the construction of substances and qualities occurs according to the imposition of the Limited on the Unlimited.

This imposition cannot be random, it must happen by means of well-defined proportions, hence the third “Mixed” (meikte) principle that completes the "Triangle of Being" (or "Intelligible Triad"). This may be represented by a triangle with the angles Unlimited (A), Limited (B) and Mixed (C) where the latter is the apex. It is at this point that the Forms come into play. From this point, reality is organized by means of Forms which are manifestations of the Good.

A Form is the ideal Proportion, Ratio, or Measure whereby the two opposite principles, or “poles” of the continuum are combined to generate something that is beautiful, fitting, just, etc. The Good which is the principle of Goodness as well as the One is present in the Form which is at once unique and good, whilst also transcending it, in the same way the Form is at once present in and transcendent to, sensible particulars.

The Form of Triangularity, for example, is analyzable into the principle of Unlimited and the principle of Limited and their interaction which is Proportion or Measure. The Form is the ideal Ratio or Proportion that makes the ideal triangular shape that is instantiated to various degrees of perfection in all mathematical triangles and triangular objects.

In other words, it is Measure (metrike) that brings about numbers, geometrical magnitudes, speed, etc. that are discussed in the Republic as part of the mathematical education necessary as a preparation for dialectic, i.e. logic and philosophical inquiry proper.

Aristotle may discuss the “indeterminate dyad” for his own purposes but this is his problem not Plato's. Plato’s own position is perfectly logical and clear. There is nothing mysterious or “problematic” about it at all.

ἀόριστος δυάς (aoristos dyas) is indeed in Metaphysics:

Again, it must also be true that 4 is not composed of chance 2's. For according to them the indeterminate dyad, receiving the determinate dyad, made two dyads; for it was capable of duplicating that which it received (Meta. 1082a)

However, I think it is fair to say that, judging by past performance, “Fooloso4” is not only suggestive of “fool”, but it may be indicative of an agenda to “fool philosophers”. Therefore caution is advisable.

He has already admitted that "indeterminate dyad" is Aristotle, not Plato.

And he has still not produced any evidence of Plato's alleged phrase "a noble lie"! :smile:

I appreciate that you are consistent with your views. If it is such an imposition, why is this becoming an issue now? — T Clark

It isn't an issue for me at all. My original comment was in response to the suggested need to "bash one's opponent on the snout."

My point was that since the problem originated in China, and not with the anti-vaxxers, action against China should be given priority.

And, as I said, in my view China is a National Socialist dictatorship similar to Nazi Germany only about 17 times bigger and more dangerous. Far more dangerous than a few thousand anti-vaxxers ....

Of course people can live lives that are regarded as good! — Fooloso4

Exactly. They can and they do!

It points to the limits of human understanding. The limited cannot comprehend the unlimited. Know yourself! — Fooloso4

The limited may indeed be unable to comprehend the unlimited fully. But it may still comprehend some of it.

And of course, Plato says that the Good is knowable.

The term indeterminate dyad is Aristotle's. — Fooloso4

I see. This reminds me of the other canard about Plato's supposed phrase "a noble lie" that of course is NOT Plato's phrase! :grin:

But it's good to see you admitting that "indefinite dyad" is Aristotle's term not Plato's.

And nor does Plato say that it is a "problem". It is YOU who says that!

Is it an infringement of human rights to require vaccination of children against childhood diseases before they can go to school? — T Clark

It may be an infringement. Either people have rights or they don't. If they do, then those rights can be infringed.

Another aspect of the problem is how contagious a transmissible disease is, the severity of the infection once contracted, etc.

It may also be argued that contracting a disease is a form of vaccination that results in protection against future infections. From what I have read the vast majority of infected people only develop very mild or no symptoms.

Going after China may not be entirely meaningless. IMO China is a form of National Socialist (i.e., Nazi) dictatorship and history shows that appeasing dictatorships of this kind tends to be counterproductive. I don't think it is just a matter of "making people feel better".

In the Philebus, Plato raises the problem of the “indeterminate dyad” . — Fooloso4

Where in the Philebus does Plato say "indeterminate dyad"? And where does he say that it is a "problem"?

This is exactly what I am arguing cannot be done. There is no theoretical framework for a world that is indeterminate. — Fooloso4

If people believe in the Good as a higher principle and live their lives in harmony with what is good, then obviously it can be done. In fact, I think most people do something like that anyway.

Not a worry. A statement of fact — Fooloso4

If it is not a worry then there is no need to discuss it. And you can always create your own system that is more systematic if you so wish.

I have no objection. I'll go along with that if you'll go along with mandatory vaccination. — T Clark

Unfortunately, I can't go along with mandatory vaccination as that sounds too much like an infringement of human rights. It would be inconsistent to condone here what I condemn in China.

Besides, if you have no objection, then you don't need to make your approval conditional on my going along with mandatory vaccination.

So, it would be easier if you unconditionally agreed. :smile:

the people who ended up with strokes or dead from the vaccine experienced hardly much of an inconvenience. — baker

That's an interesting point. If someone died as a result of being forced by the state to take the vaccine, should his/her family be entitled to retaliate?

I don't know what "get away with it" means in this context. What do you suggest we do? — T Clark

Take them to court, impose sanctions, anything is better than nothing. Otherwise the regime will think that it is untouchable and this can only make matters worse IMO.

Metaphysics is not in the business of justification. It is free inquiry. It does not aim at a goal. But ethics involves persuasion. — Fooloso4

Metaphysics serves to form a theoretical framework through which the world is better understood and can be used to support ethics making it more persuasive. If you say that the Good is the first principle, this has a bearing on ethics.

Being a practical system, Ancient Greek philosophy focuses on living a righteous life. Metaphysical "problems" obviously come second.

Plus, if metaphysics "does not aim at a goal" and "is just free inquiry", then why worry about it not being systematic???

The history of philosophy shows that 'universals' is not a problem free solution — Fooloso4

There is no "problem free" philosophical system. In addition to the fact that Plato's system is more sketched than laid out in great detail, it is no worse than other 4th-century BC philosophies.

There is a long history of requiring vaccination before someone can participate in public life. — T Clark

True. But those that are vaccinated are supposed to be protected?

And I don't see why China should get away with it when that is where the problem originated.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with. — Tzeentch

Good point. There seems to be a tendency to grant or deny the right to bodily autonomy in line with our political agendas.

Plato’s metaphysics is not systematic. It is problematic. It raises questions it cannot answer and problems that cannot be resolved. It is important to understand that this is a feature not a defect or failure. — Fooloso4

I think the first problem with that statement is that it ignores the fact that Plato's philosophy is primarily a way of life based on ethical values, the metaphysical justification for which (immortality of the soul, divine judgment in the afterlife, etc.) is clearly laid out in the dialogues.

Plato's metaphysical statements need not be "systematic" in the modern sense. The dialogues are not comprehensive philosophical treatises. A more detailed discussion of metaphysical questions could be carried out in the Academy for anyone interested.

There is nothing "problematic" about the Forms at all. They are comparable to universals. Particulars instantiate universals, but this doesn't mean that particulars and universals are one and the same thing.

There is no need for the Forms to be the Whole. It suffices for them to be steps leading to the Whole, or component elements by understanding which we understand the Whole.

And, of course, everything can be "problematic" if we want it to be. Take Marxist concepts like "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or "the withering away of the state" .... :smile:

Years ago, there was a web page with excerpts from the Charter of the Royal Society, the world's first real scientific organisation. It explicitly excludes consideration of anything 'of concern to churchmen', or something along those lines. — Wayfarer

That seems an unlikely statement coming from the King of England.

You can see the text of the Royal Society original charters here:

First Charter – Granted 1662

Second Charter – Granted 1663

Third Charter – Granted 1669

Even regardless of that caveat, Hadot's emphasis on the role of the 'unitive vision' is key. You still find that in Buddhist and Hindu teachings that are disseminated in the West - in fact I think that's why they found such a ready audience in the West, because they're providing something that had been lost in Western culture. The idea of spiritual practice as 'union' is the meaning of 'yoga' (in the philosophical sense, not the downward-facing-dog sense.) But it's almost entirely absent from philosophy as taught in the West, as Hadot says. There's a missing dimension. Like a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object. That's what I think underlies much of the misrepresentation. — Wayfarer

The fact that the concept of unification or union (henosis) occurs across wide geographic and cultural areas suggests that there may be some universal truth in it. In any case, it seems to presuppose a relation of identity between the unified elements which makes sense if we take the individual mind to be a microcosm of the universal mind.

I think the nous poietikos or “creative intelligence” is the key to understanding henosis. If we think of consciousness as a form of subjective light that “shines on” and thereby “sees”, projects, or brings into being its own objects such as universal Forms that in turn give shape and being to particulars, then we can see how cognition may come about in a Platonic sense.

That the mind is creative can be seen from dreams, especially lucid dreams. The only difference is that in this case the creative subject is not the individual or personal mind but a form of universal mind that creates the universe by seeing, or projecting it into existence. This is why the Forms or Ideas are not separate from the universal consciousness but their instantiations are perceived as separate objects by the individual mind, and why the Forms themselves can be grasped only when the individual mind elevates itself as far as possible to the level of the universal mind.

Given that what separates the individual mind from the universal mind is the experience based on identification with the physical body and the thoughts etc. associated with it, we can see why Socrates (or Plato) advises philosophers to intellectually and emotionally detach themselves from the physical body and appurtenances, and inquire into the Forms with the pure unalloyed reason alone, when the soul is undisturbed, “itself by itself” and in the company of realities like itself (Phaedo 65c ff.).

It will be worth remembering that in the Greek tradition the cultivation of virtues is a preparation for philosophy proper and that the Republic is about goodness and justice.

There are obvious ethical reasons why one should be good and just and not commit crimes, etc. But there is another reason that is just as important to Platonic philosophy. Being good creates a frame of mind that is conducive to a vision of the Good: the Good is seen by the good, only.

Otherwise said, if we compare the mind with the water of a lake that reflects the light of the Sun, we can see that the more agitated the mind is, the more it will reflect a higher reality in a distorted and fragmented way, and that the more calm it is, the more it will reflect that reality as it is.

Being an inseparable part of the soul, the mind is in the first place the mirror of the soul. This is why calm and focused meditative states of consciousness (as opposed to mental agitation) are conducive to knowledge of the self and of higher realities. We can only assume that this is what Socrates is doing when he remains motionless and “absorbed in thought” for long periods of time as related in the Symposium.

This is why we should not be distracted by the tale of the ideal city (that merely symbolizes the inner harmony of the soul) but pay attention to the dialogue as a whole that, in the manner of an Orphic mystery play, 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).

Could the column of light symbolize the light of consciousness and could this be related to the experience of Plotinus and other mystics?

In other words, if ultimate reality is indeed the Good, which is light, goodness, beauty, etc. then reported beatific visions like that of Plotinus may well represent a glimpse of that reality, in which case Platonists could be right, after all.

I agree that Plato is unlikely to have belonged to a secret cult. If he uses elements of Pythagoreanism he does so for his own purposes.

But I think what the anti-Platonists here are trying to cover up is that their “noble lie” theory has been exposed as a lie, given that Plato does not use the phrase “a noble lie”. Hence their diversionary tactics.

Also, they got nowhere with their criticism of the Forms and have come up with the Dyad as a last resort. Needless to say, they aren't going to get very far .... :smile:

Winston Churchill remarked on acknowledging the need to "bash one's opponent on the snout." I am not advocating snout-bashing. But when do the gloves come off? — tim wood

I tend to agree with Churchill.

However, if you ask me, I think the gloves should come off when dealing with China who is the real perpetrator.

The anti-vax crowd can be sorted out later should the need arise.

I’ve only ever encountered Leo Strauss through forums, however reading the SEP entry doesn’t lend a lot of support to your villification of him. — Wayfarer

I don't think I am "vilifying" him though. In fact I tend to agree with Strauss on some points, e.g. on his view that Plato's plan for the ideal city must not be taken literally in all respects. Interpreting the Kallipolis Project as a reductio ad absurdum is one way of looking at it. Plato was probably serious about the theoretical creation of an ideal city ruled by wise men, but some of the details of it must be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I think we should be able to criticize the critics. I am not surprised that the SEP entry isn't particularly critical of Strauss. It is a well-known fact that Strauss shows his true colors in his lectures to students rather than in his published books where he is obviously more cautious and expresses himself more cryptically.

My personal view is that Strauss tends to offer over-complicated, esoteric interpretations of a subject-matter (expounded in less than coherent form) that borders on schizoaffective disorder.

That aside, how can someone who by his own admission finds Plato’s Theory of Forms “impossible to understand and absolutely absurd” be an authority on Plato?

And let’s not forget that he was making money from lecturing on Plato whilst at the same time ridiculing his teachings. Without Plato he would have remained unemployed!

Kahn, of course, is a different story. He shows that it is possible to read Plato without Strauss' Maimonidean esotericism.

At the end of the day, we need to bear in mind that for Socrates and Plato (as for other Ancient Greek philosophers) philosophy was a way of life built on moral principles, in the first place. Being good or righteous was the precondition of fruitful philosophical endeavor.

"Beatific visions" and similar experiences raise important questions about the nature of being or reality. Plato suggests that inquiry into the Forms leads to an apprehension of ultimate reality.

As Gerson (Plato's Development and the Development of the Theory of Forms) points out, the Republic says:

The provider of truth to the things known and the giver of power to know to those who know is the Form of the Good. And though it is the cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge (508e)

In other words, Plato's philosophical inquiry starts from the premise that ultimate reality or the Good is knowable. This does not mean that it is knowable to everyone in practice or that it is knowable without practice. But it is unacceptable to insist that it is unknowable just because Strauss and others think so. This is what Gerson objects to and what he rejects as "anti-Platonism" and "antiphilosophy".

An interesting question is, if through contemplation of the Forms or by other means we managed to have a glimpse of this ultimate reality or Good, what would it be like? Would it bear any resemblance to the experience described by Plotinus and others?

The idea that he was a member of some type of Pythagorean cult is nonsense — Metaphysician Undercover

It was not my suggestion that he was. I posted the link as an illustration of how the issue of the "Indefinite Dyad" is treated by some scholars.

Plato does mention a δυάς (dyas) or "dyad" that may lend itself to mathematical and philosophical interpretation and it has been discussed by Gerson and other scholars.

But the question has been mainly raised on the basis of Aristotle's comments.

Even if we were to say, for example, that the One (Monad) is something like "Pure Spirit" and the Dyad something like "Primordial Matter" that is given shape by the Forms, or that sensible objects derive from the One and the Indeterminate Dyad via the Forms or Numbers, this wouldn't change anything.

This is why, personally, I don't see the "Indeterminate Dyad" as a "problem" or "difficulty" at all. On the contrary, I see it as a diversionary tactic deployed by anti-Platonists who have run out of arguments against Plato and who insist on construing his teachings as somehow logically "incoherent" or "problematic".

The general tendency of modern thought has been the deprecation of the idea of universals. In the conflict between nominalism and scholastic realism, nominalism carried the day, and nominalists - such as Bacon and Ockham - were the forerunners of today's empiricism. It is now so embedded in our way of thinking such that the alternative is not even comprehended most of the time. — Wayfarer

This is a very apt observation. Personally, I was fortunate enough to be able to read Plato before being exposed to the materialist indoctrination of the anti-Platonist education system.

But I believe that some reflection will enable all readers of Plato to see through the spurious claims of self-styled "experts on Plato".

The ineptitude of some “scholarly analyses” of Plato’s dialogues is all too obvious from statements like the following:

The subject matter is very difficult and presupposes an understanding of the doctrine of ideas as a whole … Let us assume for one moment that the ideas are noetic atoms, i.e., they cannot be divided anymore. You cannot divide the idea of man without destroying the essential meaning. As atoms these noetic ideas are infinite in number. Since the infinite cannot be comprehended we may say that the ideas are not susceptible of being comprehended or understood … If the idea of the good is not truly knowable, then we cannot transcend opinion. I think this is what Plato really means

- L. Strauss, Seminar on Plato’s Republic, April 30 1957, p. 6.

In addition, Strauss routinely employs weasel words like “difficulty,” “problem”, “very difficult”, “great difficulties”, “great problem”, “infinite problem”, etc.

He also makes frequent use of the phrase “I think” which indicates that it is just his opinion, i.e. Strauss’ teachings are his own personal (and often dogmatic) interpretation of Plato.

Moreover, he says:

We must now turn to what is the most difficult subject of today’s assignment, and I am by no means certain that I can be of real help here. This concerns the discussion of the idea of the good….

In other words, what Strauss is saying is not only that his statements are his personal opinion but that by his own admission “he is by no means certain that he can be of any real help” on a key Platonic subject like the Good!

This, of course, does not apply solely to Strauss, but to the whole anti-Platonist academic establishment that evidently aims to replace Platonism with anti-Platonism and philosophy with scientism especially of the political kind.

Unsurprisingly, we find Popper claiming that, as the "originators of totalitarianism", Plato and Aristotle are the original “enemies of open society”, i.e. of “freedom and reason”, and therefore, the enemies of mankind ....

See also:

Scott Olsen,The Indefinite Dyad and the Golden Section: Uncovering Plato’s Second Principle – ResearchGate

This was not Strauss’ own opinion. From Bloom’s encomium to him: “He was able to do without most abstractions .... — Leghorn

So, you want me to read what Strauss says or what Bloom says that Strauss says??? :grin:

Of course Strauss says that Plato’s Theory of Forms is “a fantastic doctrine” and “an absolutely absurd doctrine”. It is in “Plato’s Political Philosophy” and other writings!

As Bloom himself says:

If there are no permanent entities, if everything is in flux, there can be no knowledge. Knowledge, or science, requires universals of which the particulars are imperfect examples; as knowing beings we care only for the universals. The ideas give reality to the universals and hence make it possible to explain the fact that man possesses knowledge. The ideas give reality to the universals and hence make it possible to explain the fact that man possesses knowledge. The ideas are the being of things. They constitute an account of the first causes of things which also does justice to the observed heterogeneity of the visible universe … And it is in the quest for the universal principle that the theoretical man first meets the opposition of the unphilosophic men

- A. Bloom, The Republic of Plato, p. 94

IMO by ridiculing and rejecting Plato’s Forms, Strauss places himself in the camp of the unphilosophic men whom Gerson identifies as anti-Platonists and antiphilosophers ....

Forms are not the whole of being, they are part of an indefinite dyad. — Fooloso4

And so what?

IMO all these so-called "difficulties" are more imagined than factual. If you start from Strauss' bizarre and totally unscholarly premise that Forms are "incomprehensible" and "absurd" then of course there will be an infinite number of "difficulties". In which case why take the trouble to read Plato in the first place?

The fact of the matter is that Plato's dialogues (and his Academy) were not about endless philosophical speculation. They were logoi intended to serve as a theoretical basis for a philosophical way of life.

It was left to Plato's successors to develop his ideas and establish a more comprehensive system. However, Plato's teachings are perfectly logical and they point to the attainment of higher truths, ethical and metaphysical or whatever they turn out to be.

This is precisely why Plato says that the first principle or the Good is knowable but that the philosopher must go beyond hypotheses (and, presumably, endless idle speculation) to arrive at it.

I feel that were it not for the Platonic ideas or forms, we would not have the culture we have today ... — Wayfarer

That’s exactly where the problem with the Straussian position lies. Strauss purports to “revive Classical philosophy” but the truth becomes apparent only when you find that his true intention is to reconstruct Plato without the Forms and without metaphysics!

True to form, Strauss’ disciples fail to see that someone who by his own admission is incapable of even remotely comprehending Plato’s Theory of Forms, really has nothing to offer in the discussion.

IMHO some form of psychological deficiency seems to be involved here ….

Good to see that you are talking to yourself!

BTW, have you found out where Plato says "a noble lie" yet, or do you require more time? :grin:

You remind me of Thrasymachus; you are bright and knowledgeable and persuasive—but there is something in your soul that is too recalcitrant, too blind to evidence, too entrenched in an already solidified belief-system... — Leghorn

You seem to be confused. Perhaps you should examine your own solidified belief-system.

First, as I said, I don’t see what your comments are contributing to this thread.

Second, you (deliberately?) misunderstand the point I am making. Quite possibly, because you know little, if anything, about Strauss.

For your information, Strauss believes that, to begin with, Plato’s Theory of Forms is “utterly incredible”, “very hard to understand”, “apparently fantastic”, and “absolutely absurd”.

According to Strauss, “No one has ever succeeded in giving a satisfactory or clear account of this doctrine of ideas.”

Strauss believes that according to Plato every single thing has an idea conforming to it, and he doesn’t understand “what is the use of such a duplication”.

Strauss says he doesn’t understand how Forms can be said to be separated from the things which are what they are by participating in a Form.

Strauss complains that Glaukon and Adeimantos accept the doctrine of ideas with greater ease than absolute communism.

Strauss believes that philosophy points to the need for a movement beyond the cave, but he declares dogmatically that this is unattainable.

Strauss’ idea of “reviving ancient philosophy” is to reconstruct Plato without the Forms and without metaphysics, but with a political agenda. Which is not surprising as Strauss is an atheist political scientist!

IMO, this being the case, it is not difficult to see why a Straussian reading of Plato cannot contribute much to the topic from a philosophical perspective - aside from dogmatically rejecting anything that Platonists say ....

As Gerson says, the idea of the intelligible domain is the particular concern of philosophy, as distinct from science, deny it and philosophy has no subject matter. — Wayfarer

Correct. Gerson's statement "Platonism is philosophy and anti-Platonism is antiphilosophy" is a valid and important observation.

Anti-Platonists seem to be trying to reduce philosophy to science - or, in Strauss' case to politics - whereas Platonists seek to go beyond science and explore new areas of thought and experience.

IMO exploring and discovering is the very essence of intellectual endeavor and should not be suppressed in the name of scientism (or anything else).

This is just another example of your ad hominem attacks. — Leghorn

On the contrary. Your comment is just another example of YOUR uncalled-for ad hominems.

As is well-known, Strauss offers no proper scholarly analysis of Plato's Theory of Forms. He simply dismisses it as "an absolutely absurd idea".

So, as you can think for yourself, Straussianism cannot make a positive contribution to the topic.

IMO statements like "We do not know the Forms", "We do not have a vision of the Forms", "We turn away from the "human things" in pursuit of some imagined reality", etc., are just an expression of Straussian dismissal of Platonism. Repeating them ad nauseam does not constitute discussion but the opposite of it.

Besides, Foolo is a self-described follower of Strauss. Calling his comments "Straussian" should not be offensive to him in any form or shape. If anything, it is your calling him "Morosophos" that should be offensive to him. :grin:

Speaking of which, I don't see what contributions you are making to this thread aside from calling people names and feeling "offended" on someone else's behalf!

In a reversal of the turning of the soul toward the Forms in the Republic, there is a turning of the soul to itself, toward self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is guided by knowledge of our ignorance. We do not know the Forms. We do not have a vision of the Forms. The question then is: which way do we turn? Do we turn away from the "human things" in pursuit of some imagined (and it must be imagined if it is not something seen or known) reality or toward it? Do we deceive ourselves by imagining we have escaped the cave because we can imagine something knowable outside the cave attainable either through reason or revelation? — Fooloso4

That's Straussianism though, isn't it?

As Socrates states quite clearly, when the soul focuses on itself and is itself by itself, then it sees realities that are like itself:

But it [the soul] thinks best when none of these things troubles it, neither hearing nor sight, nor pain nor any pleasure, but it is, so far as possible, alone by itself, and takes leave of the body, and avoiding, so far as it can, all association or contact with the body, reaches out toward the reality (Phaedo 65c)

We do not (yet) have a vision of the Forms, but neither do we have a vision of the self. So, by your logic, we should not even attempt to know ourselves.

Plato does not say that we have a vision of either the Forms or the self, but he suggests ways of how such a vision may be a attained.

If we do imagine something, we may or may not "deceive" ourselves (imagination is not always "deceptive"!). However, no one is talking about "imagining" anything. On the contrary, Plato urges philosophers to inquire into reality by means of pure, unalloyed reason.