My point was that politics and religion were intertwined in many complex ways, including in this case. — Olivier5

Yes, the gods of the city. There was nothing like the modern separation of Church and State. Civic piety and religious piety were separate.

Socrates' teaching was subversive. — Olivier5

It was, but it was tolerated, at least until Anytus acted against him.

They don't want him to train yet another generation of kids who would start to doubt the wisdom of their fathers and make not-so-funny revolutions. — Olivier5

Aristophanes was a comic poet but he made a serious point, a point that Plato dealt with often - philosophy and sophistry are in many ways indistinguishable. The skills of reasoning and arguing learned can be used for different purposes.

Still at it I see!

As already stated — Apollodorus

Yes, over and over again. That is your opinion. It does not become more then that by repeating it post after post.

I agree with you that the dialogues stand on their own, but I don't think we can diagnose the metaphysics of either Socrates or Plato based on them. — frank

I don't think there is much we can know about Socrates. Aristophanes gives us a comic caricature and neither Plato nor Xenophon give us a biography.

As to Plato, how do we diagnose his metaphysics if not based on the dialogues?

Do you think it's possible to admire both Plato and Nietszche? — Wayfarer

Yes. I think they are kindred spirits. He says:

I am complete skeptic when it comes to Plato (Twilight of the Idols, "What I Owe to the Ancients")

He is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato because they are both skeptics and only a skeptic knows how to read and understand a skeptic.

So, you surmise that the lesson is that nobody makes 'the rough and steep ascent' and 'sees the light' (516b)? — Wayfarer

Yes. We exist in the realm of opinion, not in the light of the Good itself.

It should be noted that there are things that the prisoners have knowledge of, sequences of shadows, particular shadows and sounds that accompany them, and so on. What they do not know is that they are shadows of puppets, images of images.

The philosopher who escapes the cave is unlike actual lovers of wisdom. They do not desire and pursue wisdom they possess divine wisdom.

But true, there are several centuries between Plato and Plotinus. — frank

And yet:

I take Gerson's view (and that of Platonists themselves) that there is only one Platonic or Platonist system (with some variations) stretching from Plato to the present. — Apollodorus

I don't necessarily agree with fooloso4's interpretation, but I also don't feel the same compulsion to take issue with it. — Wayfarer

It really does seem perverse. Hour after hour, day after day.

It can be a dialogue, where different contributors advance different interpretations which are considered on their merits. — Wayfarer

Right, I have said exactly that. The dialogues are an opportunity to dialogue.

That is an interpretation made in hindsight, through the lens of later interpretations and cultural syncretism. — Wayfarer

Exactly, but he believes that it all timeless, part of cosmic consciousness.

that would be a thread about 'later developments in Christian platonism', not about this particular dialogue. — Wayfarer

But he seems to be more interested in trying to bury divergent views under an avalanche of words.

one has to steep oneself in Plato and get, if possible, the pattern, the 'feel' of his mind. — Rafael Demos

As he notes, there is scholarly difference of opinion. After a lifetime devoted to studying the dialogues some come to conclusions contrary to his. This is part of the dialogic process.

Thanks for the post. Perhaps some of it will get through.

Check out early Stoicism. It's fascinating. — frank

I have and I agree.

Appollodorus was describing pre-Christian Platonism. — frank

No. He sees it as a continuum.

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

Sadly, you avoid the question and repeat your incantation.

The ultimate cause of everything is the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Intellect (Nous). — Apollodorus

Where does he say this and not the Good in the Republic?

That doesn't "ban the Gods — Apollodorus

He bans the poets (397d-398a, see also 377b-c, about supervising the makers of tales, and 379a about appropriate tales). Banning the poets he bans their stories of the gods.

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

In other words, he bans the kind of stories that Euthyphro appeals to to demonstrate his piety and justice. In other words, just the kind of thing for which he was condemned. He purifies the gods, which is to say make up new ones.

“The true quality of God we must always surely attribute to him whether we compose in epic, melic, or tragic verse.” “We must.” “And is not God of course good in reality and always to be spoken of as such?” (379a). — Apollodorus

He is talking about which stories of the gods are appropriate. Socrates does not say that the god is good in reality. He asks a question:

Then is the god really good, and hence, must he be said to be so? (379a)

Adeimantus agrees. Context matters. The context is the stories they will allow in the city.

Think of monistic idealism, and you will see how everything makes sense. — Apollodorus

More to the point, accept the notion of monistic idealism and then force the dialogues to fit the mold.

"he says it but he is hiding it" — Apollodorus

Again, you fail to understand. The reader has to put the pieces together. Reading Plato is not a passive activity.

Writers in the 1930's were too heavily influenced by Marxism and Fabian Socialism to be capable of objective analysis. — Apollodorus

Completely irrelevant. Many of the commentators I read are political philosophers and anti-Marxist.

Their main objective was to deconstruct tradition to make place for "progress" — Apollodorus

This is the opposite of what the authors I read do. They argue that we can learn a great deal from Plato and Aristotle. They do, however, make a critical distinction between Plato and Platonism. You reject that distinction. But rather than stating that and moving on you compulsively and irrationally keep coming back to proclaim the truth of your hermetic Christian Neoplatonism.

Where did I say this? You make up shit and claim I said it.

Let's make a deal. Show me where I said all this and I will concede that I am wrong and leave the forum, and if you can't then you do the same. Deal?

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

But that is not what he says. There is no mention of universal consciousness or cosmic intellect or mind of god. No mention of gods at all.

What assumptions did I make? How did I argue against them? — frank

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

In the Phaedrus, [Plato] makes Socrates maintain that a word, “once it is written, is tossed about, alike among those who under­stand and those who have no business with it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak” (275d9-e3).

A good passage to show the need for esoteric writing.

But this association with Christianity also colors or narrows our view of what religion is, in that depicting Plato's dialogues in those terms associates it with just the kind of dogma which Plato abhorred. — Wayfarer

I agree

His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. — Thomas Nagel, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament

Yes, this is why his search for the Good plays a central role. His inquiry whether it is of the self, the polis, or the cosmos is always centered on the "human things".

Ignoring the ill placed condescension, you do a good job of making assumptions and then arguing against them.

Again: Plato was not an atheist. Period. — frank

If he were an atheist do you think he would come right out and say that?

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

That's exactly what I'm saying. You can't say anything but are still talking. — Apollodorus

What does Plato say in any of the dialogues?

mysterious extensive literature" — Apollodorus

Nothing mysterious about it. Is google something you find mysterious? Perhaps someone can explain to you how to use it.

I pointed out to frank Voeglin's "Modern Views on Plato's Silence" https://voegelinview.com/modern-views-of-platos-silence-pt-1/ and two other sources simply by using the mysterious google.

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

It is not that I can't see it, I just don't buy it. Do you think there is a chance I might if you repeat it again or again a hundred times?

And since you are unable or unwilling to say what the author is "hiding" — Apollodorus

Once again, I have said. Go back and read.

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

Do you really think that such misrepresentation will make your argument stronger? Why can't you accept that there are interpretations other than the one you believe? Interpretations by eminent scholars?

You haven't even shown that "in the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms". — Apollodorus

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

And I didn't say that either.

I also pointed out the Socrates does not say that he knows nothing. Perhaps if you hadn't decided to ignore me you would know that.

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

Having trouble following along?

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

And have you read the literature? I just did a quick google search. The first thing that came up is an article in SEP from a fine scholar Charles Griswold. Then something from another scholar whose work I admire, Drew Hyland - "Why Plato Wrote Dialogues". And this: "Modern Views on Plato's Silence"https://voegelinview.com/modern-views-of-platos-silence-pt-1/

feel free to provide evidence for that. — Apollodorus

Not needed. Anyone who knows the literature knows it.

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

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

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

I have said.

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

Did you type this with a straight face? You are unable to accept that I see things differently than you do and so zealously post over and over and over again. Does it bother you that much that you cannot convert me? Or are you more interested in converting others to your religious beliefs?

Why to you continue posting the same thing on two different threads? Proselytizing?

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

Do you really think there is any value in misrepresenting what I say? Neither the quote from Leibniz nor Bishop Warburton said anything about Plato. They are talking about an ancient practice of esoteric writing. It requires in turn a skill in reading tailored to the author.

It's a big world out there beyond the narrow confines of your head.

The literature on this is extensive.

So, you are not talking about your arguments but about the arguments "in the dialogues". — Apollodorus

No, I am talking about the arguments in the dialogues. I have invited you several times to discuss them, but following in the footsteps of Euthyphro have somewhere else to be.

In your opinion, what exactly do the arguments in the dialogues lead to? — Apollodorus

Round and round you go. I have laid it all out. If you are really interested instead of just looking for something to argue about, go back and read the posts where I lay it out.

You seem to have some kind of fixation with "chanting incantations". — Apollodorus

It is a phrase that Socrates uses several times in the Phaedo. You are doing exactly what he recommends to those who are not ready for philosophy and instead like children desire myths and incantations.

The consensus as shown by mainstream sources like Wikipedia is that Plato taught monistic idealism. — Apollodorus

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

Who would you like me to read instead? — Apollodorus

As I have said many times now, read a dialogues from start to finish. Instead of cherry picking statements that confirm what you already believe, follow the arguments, connect the dots, put the pieces together. Do what Plato expects of those who are suited to philosophy THINK. But as I've also said, he writes on different levels. He provides those who desire answers, those who want their opinions made for them, those who are prisoners in the cave, the images they believe are more than images.

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

As you go round and round you forget what has already been said. He was not about to suffer the same fate as Socrates or allow philosophy to be silenced by those who, like you, are threatened by philosophy.

Plato never says anything. — Apollodorus

Not in the dialogues.The dialogue form is not just stylistic.

The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing. — Apollodorus

Another example of your unwillingness to discuss things openly and honestly.

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

I doubt you will understand this, but others here might, and it has been discussed in the literature. It may be preferable for you to believe something like that than the myths of the gods. Those who cannot abide the uncertainty of philosophy will latch on to something. He gives you something to latch onto.

What "argument"? — Apollodorus

If I did not know better I would think you are kidding. The arguments given in the dialogues. Have you really not understood this?

When you ask "what argument" you make it clear that you have not been following the arguments because you don't even know what they are or where they are.

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

And yet several times a day you come here attempting to pick it apart and repeatedly advocate for your own Neoplatonist view. You have made it knows, why the perverse insistence to repeat it again and again?

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

You have this notion of the one true interpretation in your head. I am not saying my interpretation is correct. Although I think it can be said that some interpretations are wrong, including your own, I do not think that there is such a thing as the one true, final interpretation. I have said so many times. Instead, I follow the arguments in enough detail suitable to this forum, to allow the reader to draw her own conclusions, conclusions I hope the arguments will show should be tentative and subject to revision if something new comes to light. This is fundamental to the aporetic nature of the dialogues. Something you deny.

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this. Now you may believe that Plato possesses the divine knowledge that Socrates denies humans possess, but that is an assumption that you will never find sufficient support for in the dialogues. The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant.

You are charmed by stories such as the ascent from the cave, but fail to see that unless you have knowledge of the Good and the rest of the Forms, the story serves as a measure of your ignorance. You mistake stories for the truth itself. As if Plato is a prophet revealing the word of God.

You're talking about me getting "tired" but I think it's rather you who is getting tired and it's still early in the morning. — Apollodorus

Yes, I am tired of this relentless repetition of your beliefs and intolerance of other interpretations. I know that I am not alone.

Why this need to post the same thing across threads? Who are you trying to convince? Are you afraid that someone might read what I have said and decide to read the dialogue? Are you afraid that if they do so they will not see things as you do? Do you think that your tireless repetition will prevent them from drawing their own conclusions?

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

Again, you do not understand what the term meant.

Monistic idealism — Apollodorus

Repeat the incantations over and over again.

I think the reverse is true. It is you who is not following the argument — Apollodorus

I have two threads that follow the arguments from the beginning to the end of the dialogue and a third which follows critical arguments in the Republic. It is all right that for all to see, except those who close their eyes and sing incantations.

You have admittedly failed to prove your theory ... — Apollodorus

I have no theory to prove. I simply follow the arguments where they lead. You mistake single statements taken out of context for arguments and fail to follow the argument. Each time I point to the argument you look away, repeat what you believe, and bring up those views that influenced your beliefs.

The already identified the problem.

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

I stand corrected, you never tire in you zealotry.

Why did you start this thread? — Apollodorus

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

You are right, but it is being "pointed out" repeatedly following everything I say across two threads. It's just a fact.

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

It is not a hypothetical situation. You do not understand how the term 'hypothetical' is being used. The city is made in speech. In the city the poets and their stories of the gods are banned.

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

I have said neither of those things. Again, follow the argument.

Plato taught monistic idealism — Apollodorus

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

Not at all, I demonstrated quite clearly, I think, that Plato's dialogues logically lead to monistic idealism which is the accepted scholarly position. — Apollodorus

Socrates says:

we must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us (Republic 394d).

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

Anyone who has read the literature knows that "the accepted scholarly position" does not exist. There is a reason why after all this time so many books and articles on Plato are being published every year.

The Forms are metaphysical realities in the Cosmic Intellect or Universal Consciousness (Nous). — Apollodorus

And yet Socrates says that this is not something he knows and Plato never introduces anyone who does actually know.

And Socrates was not accused or tried for "atheism" but for irreverence on the grounds that he was trying to introduce "new deities". — Apollodorus

You do not know what the term atheism meant. Socrates discusses this, but to understand it requires that you follow the argument.

His thought, just like Anaxagoras' or others', was an irruption of a more universal world view into the little parochial cultural life of Athens, an irruption made possible by contacts with the Persian empire. In the historical context, his thought was disruptive and innovative. Almost foreign. — Olivier5

I think you have it exactly right.

Plato, not wanting to suffer the same fate as Socrates, had to do two opposite things, appear to not be a threat to the norms of the city while in practice being just that. In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms and, as the ultimate cause, the Good. And yet many even today do not see this for what it is.

No need whatsoever. — Apollodorus

Are you that so self unaware? You say you have no need to have the last word and yet again and again you have more to say, or, more of the same to say.

I have read some Gerson. I tried to discuss the problem of "instrumental causality". You simply ignored it and moved on to something else, and then something else again, eventually circling back to the same thing again.

Even older than Plato is the distinction between esoteric and exoteric teachings. You point to the exoteric and remain unaware of the esoteric. You pull statements out of context and think they represent the "true teaching". You ignore the arguments and details which point toward something other than what is there for even the most casual reader to see.

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

A true zealot never rests. You must be very tired.

Why the intolerance of views other than those you hold? Why the need to have the last word on thread that I start?

I have never read Shorey. Just another straw man.

I gave you a list of the authors I read. You ignored it. Much easier to make shit up and attack it.

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

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

And this is your example of logical reasoning? They are two different things. I think even you must know that.

Your frequent appeal to the Church Fathers is telling. You have shown yourself to be just as intolerant to views that contradict your orthodoxies as they were.

At the point that you suggested that we're looking at Socrates rather than Plato because Plato doesn't speak much in the dialogues, I stopped paying attention to anything you said. — frank

What I said is that Plato never speaks in the dialogues. There is not one place where it would be true to say: "Plato said" when discussing the arguments in the dialogues.

I stopped paying attention to anything you said. — frank

And so what is the point of your comment? If you have not read what I said why make uninformed comments on what I said?