There is a reason why after all this time so many books and articles on Plato are being published every year. — Fooloso4
You do not follow the argument where it leads, you ignore the argument because you assume where it leads. — Fooloso4
Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4
And it is incorrect to claim that Socrates was convicted of "atheism" when the charge was "introducing new deities". — Apollodorus
Monistic idealism — Apollodorus
I think the reverse is true. It is you who is not following the argument — Apollodorus
You have admittedly failed to prove your theory ... — Apollodorus
Each time I point to the argument you look away, — Fooloso4
What "argument"? — Apollodorus
If I did not know better I would think you are kidding. The arguments given in the dialogues. — Fooloso4
This is an example of Socrates advise to chant incantations over and over again. — Fooloso4
Anyone who has read the literature knows that "the accepted scholarly position" does not exist. — Fooloso4
Each time I point to the argument you look away, repeat what you believe, and bring up those views that influenced your beliefs. — Fooloso4
It is all right that for all to see, except those who close their eyes and sing incantations. — Fooloso4
The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this ... The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4
You pull statements out of context and think they represent the "true teaching". — Fooloso4
Even in antiquity, Plato's teachings were known as τᾰ̀ δόγμᾰτᾰ τοῦ Πλᾰ́τωνος “the (true) doctrine of Plato”, δόγμᾰ dogma being that which one believes to be true, i.e., true doctrine or teaching. — Apollodorus
So, you are not talking about your arguments but about the arguments "in the dialogues". — Apollodorus
In your opinion, what exactly do the arguments in the dialogues lead to? — Apollodorus
You seem to have some kind of fixation with "chanting incantations". — Apollodorus
The consensus as shown by mainstream sources like Wikipedia is that Plato taught monistic idealism. — Apollodorus
Who would you like me to read instead? — Apollodorus
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
Plato never says anything. — Apollodorus
The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing. — Apollodorus
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
You cite Leibniz and Warburton as your "evidence" for Plato's teachings even though according to you, "Plato says nothing", etc., etc. — 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. — Fooloso4
As I have said many times now, read a dialogues from start to finish. — Fooloso4
Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4
feel free to provide evidence for that. — Apollodorus
Although “hidden”, it’s “all there for all to see”. — Apollodorus
But you refuse to say what it is that the author is hiding. — Apollodorus
And yet you insists that you are right and get upset when others ask you a simple question .... — 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. — Fooloso4
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
And since you are unable or unwilling to say what the author is "hiding" — Apollodorus
Indeed, you can't say anything because according to you, "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing". — Apollodorus
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? — Fooloso4
Sadly, I think this once again shows how fanaticism prevents you from seeing your total lack of logic. — Apollodorus
The ultimate cause of everything is the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Intellect (Nous). — Apollodorus
That doesn't "ban the Gods — Apollodorus
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
“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
Then is the god really good, and hence, must he be said to be so? (379a)
Think of monistic idealism, and you will see how everything makes sense. — Apollodorus
"he says it but he is hiding it" — Apollodorus
Writers in the 1930's were too heavily influenced by Marxism and Fabian Socialism to be capable of objective analysis. — Apollodorus
Their main objective was to deconstruct tradition to make place for "progress" — Apollodorus
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. — Fooloso4
This is the opposite of what the authors I read do. They argue that we can learn a great deal from Plato and Aristotle. — Fooloso4
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. — Fooloso4
As Olivier suggests, he may have been set up for political reasons — Apollodorus
My point was that politics and religion were intertwined in many complex ways, including in this case. — Olivier5
Socrates' teaching was subversive. — Olivier5
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
You don't need advice from me, but I think you are losing your time with Apo. The guy is not smart enough nor intellectually honest enough, period. I for one keep my responses to him to the bare minimum, in hope that he might understand such simple statements. — Olivier5
From what I can see — Apollodorus
Socrates' teaching was subversive.
— Olivier5
It was, but it was tolerated, — Fooloso4
... many democrats would have been concerned that something like this could happen again if Socrates and others were allowed to teach another generation. — Olivier5
He who lived well hid himself well.
Yes, there were other reasons than just the political risk of spilling too many beans. Those reasons are expressed by the Socrates figure himself in the dialogues: the written word is like a dead version of the spoken word, etc. Socrates never wrote anything, at least that we know of.it is not simply about personal safety but to protect philosophy. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.