Is the notion of "one, true doctrine", worthy of persecuting the heretic, a contribution from Christianity? — Banno

Yes. There, I said it.

The Jews, though exclusive and intolerant, didn't demand that everyone be Jewish. In fact, it seems they weren't all that happy with the idea. The pre-Christian pagans of antiquity were quite tolerant for the most part. Rome, for example, were never moved to persecute pagan cults, even welcoming that of Cybele, though it was known to forbid certain religious practices in the city it thought scandalous now and then.

It took Christianity to foster the view that not only is there one true God and one true doctrine but that everyone in the world must believe in that God and that doctrine, on pain of persecution and death. Roman persecution of Christians was haphazard and politically motivated. Christian persecution was relentless and omnipresent, practiced by the various sects which emerged from it, and thus the concept of heresy.

Thanks for that - reinforcing my understanding.

So liberalism grew despite, not because, of Christianity.

It took Christianity to foster the view that not only is there one true God and one true doctrine but that everyone in the world must believe in that God and that doctrine, on pain of persecution and death. — Ciceronianus

You can see how totalitarian systems were influenced by Christianity. Stalin studied to be a priest... go figure.

You can see how totalitarian systems were influenced by Christianity. Stalin studied to be a priest... go figure. — Tom Storm

Oh, yes. Fascism as well.

Stalin, it seems, was very intelligent and well educated for his time and place. He was also a poet, or he wrote poetry in any case. What would Plato, that Original Totalitarian (OT) but scolder of poets, have to say about that? Perhaps Stalin was the philosopher-king Plato longed for all those years ago. Or perhaps Hitler, the artist.

Certainty is the death of thought, and tolerance, and justice, and mercy, and.....

:up:

Since the topic is not Plato, I will keep this brief.

Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. The dialogues often end in aporia. When compared one to another we see that they bring into question and problematize claims raised in other dialogues. Those like Popper who see the Republic as a form of Totalitarianism, fail to understand Plato. Plato makes it clear that the just city made in speech is not intended to be a model for any actual city. Rather than offer solutions, it points to the problematic nature of political life; in part by showing how radical and unacceptable the proposed solutions, such as the breeding program, are.

Plato does not reject poetry. His works are themselves a form of poesis. We should not be so dazzled by the image of transcendent knowledge in the Republic that we fail to see the importance of the imagination, the making and use of images. The Forms are images of knowledge. The Timaeus points to several of the inadequacies of the Republic, including the idea of the Forms.

Since the topic is not Plato, — Fooloso4

Thank heaven.

Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. — Fooloso4

Come now. I've been a lawyer for a long time. I recognize a cross-examination of a very friendly witness; I've done more than a few. In the case of Plato and his sock-puppet Socrates (I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer, faithfully recording questions asked of the real Socrates and answers given by him), Plato isn't even examining such a witness; he's asking questions he's contrived and answering them as he pleases. He has points to make and uses dialogue as a rhetorical device to make them.

I understand, though, that after he humiliated himself by trying to make a philosopher-king of Dion in Syracuse, he sensibly abandoned the horrible, nightmare Republic he envisioned, and was not as favorable of a system by which we would be led on forced marches to perfection as he deemed it.

That's to his credit. But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise.

Oh, yes. Fascism as well.

Stalin, it seems, was very intelligent and well educated for his time and place. He was also a poet, or he wrote poetry in any case. What would Plato, that Original Totalitarian (OT) but scolder of poets, have to say about that? Perhaps Stalin was the philosopher-king Plato longed for all those years ago. Or perhaps Hitler, the artist.

Certainty is the death of thought, and tolerance, and justice, and mercy, and..... — Ciceronianus

Fascinating!

I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer — Ciceronianus

Both Aristophanes and Xenophon portray Socrates as a skeptic. But what is at issue here is not Socrates but Plato, and more specifically, the Republic.

Plato's Socrates is not intended to be a portrayal of the man himself. As Plato says in his Second Letter, the Socrates of the dialogues is a Socrates made "young and beautiful" (314c), or alternatively translated as "new and noble". I won't speculate as to why he thought this necessary, but in any case, he is the creation of Plato.

I understand, though, that after he humiliated himself by trying to make a philosopher-king of Dion — Ciceronianus

It was not that Plato tried to make Dion a philosopher-king but that with the urging and help of Dion to first make the tyrant Dionysius and later his son the king Dionysius II more philosophical. Even if Plato had been more successful in improving their character, this is a far cry from making a king a philosopher.

What should be understood is that the philosopher-king of the Republic is a philosopher in name only. He is not one who desires wisdom but one who possesses it. The philosopher-king is to rule, not because he is a lover of wisdom, one who desires wisdom, but because he possessed divine wisdom. Since no one is divinely wise, there can be no philosopher-king.

But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise. — Ciceronianus

The two are connected. The education in the Republic occurs at two levels, the image of one who escapes the cave and the instruction the aristocratic Glaucon and Adeimantus, brothers of Plato, receive through Socrates. The philosopher-kings of the Republic are an aristocratic class, but the political and philosophical education of the aristocrats Glaucon and Adeimantus in the Republic are markedly different from the education of those who escape the cave and acquire transcendent knowledge of the Forms. In other words, part of their education is knowledge of their ignorance. If the best regime is aristocratic, then aristocratic education must include education of their ignorance and the desire to know. The best regime is one in which the rulers are zetetic skeptics.

It was not that Plato tried to make Dion a philosopher-king but that with the urging and help of Dion to first make the tyrant Dionysius and later his son the king Dionysius II more philosophical. Even if Plato had been more successful in improving their character, this is a far cry from making a king a philosopher. — Fooloso4

You're right. I mixed all those Ds up. And I certainly agree that Plato didn't make a tyrant a philosopher.

But I think Plato was being an advocate in The Republic, not just musing. He may have understood that the terrible state he envisioned wasn't likely to arise, but he envisioned it nonetheless, and not merely as a kind of stalking horse. The quest for certainty is poisonous, and Plato valued certainty and perfection.

But I think Plato was being an advocate — Ciceronianus

Yes, but of what? As I read him not for certainty and perfection. He provides the image, and it is one that has inspired philosophers and theologians, but as an image of what to aspire to it is at the same time an image of how far we fall short of its attainment.

The irony should not be lost that it is the same Socrates who professes his ignorance who speaks go grandly and eloquently about the very thing he does not know. In the Republic he plainly states that he is not certain about the myth of Forms he creates.

He may have understood that the terrible state he envisioned wasn't likely to arise, but he envisioned it nonetheless, and not merely as a kind of stalking horse. — Ciceronianus

It is not simply that it was not likely to arise but that he did not intend for it to arise. The city in speech is intended to illustrate the problem of justice in the soul writ large. The Republic is fundamentally about the politics of the soul.

As to actual cities, it points to the irreconcilable tensions between the private and the public, between one's own and the demands of the city. If the family is a natural unit, then given the central importance Plato gives to nature and in particular human nature, then the "solution" proposed in the Republic is clearly not tenable or to be taken seriously. It is the problem, which goes to the root of what it is to be human, and not this solution, that must be taken seriously.

The dialogues should be read in the Socratic spirit in which they are written. Nothing should be simply accepted as Plato's opinion or conclusion on a matter but rather everything should be subject to question and challenge. This is what is meant when he says in the Second Letter that 'no treatise by Plato exists or will exist".

The quest for certainty is poisonous, and Plato valued certainty and perfection. — Ciceronianus

In Socratic terms, what is poisonous is not the quest for certainty but the assumption that one knows, and not knowing that one does not know. Dialectic is a method of hypothesis. The goal is to be free of hypothesis, but Plato is clear that the Forms themselves are hypothetical. See the discussion of hypothesis in the Phaedo.

Come now. I've been a lawyer for a long time. I recognize a cross-examination of a very friendly witness; I've done more than a few. In the case of Plato and his sock-puppet Socrates (I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer, faithfully recording questions asked of the real Socrates and answers given by him), Plato isn't even examining such a witness; he's asking questions he's contrived and answering them as he pleases. He has points to make and uses dialogue as a rhetorical device to make them. — Ciceronianus

:up: Plato clearly believed in a divinity of some sort.

But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise. — Ciceronianus

He was profoundly disillusioned by the behavior of the Athenians around the time of Socrates' execution.

Nothing should be simply accepted as Plato's opinion or conclusion on a matter but rather everything should be subject to question and challenge. — Fooloso4

Your Plato sounds a lot like Dewey. All judgments and conclusions subject to revision, based on new information, the results of experiment and inquiry. That's an interesting interpretation, but I think it's an example of anachronism. It seems to me that Plato is a profoundly conservative figure, which perhaps may be expected in a cousin of Critias, one of the infamous Thirty
Tyrants of Athens.

Well, this thread has improved markedly.

I suppose, in an attempt to steer it back on topic (not that there is anything wrong in going off topic in an interesting way), we might ask if the idea of a "True Platonic Doctrine" is futile?

Must we go with either 's Plato the aristocrat? Or with 's Plato the zetetic skeptic? Or do we suppose that as with the gospels, that the idea of "one true Platonic doctrine" is itself fraught?

Is it the discussion that counts?

Or do we suppose that as with the gospels, that the idea of "one true Platonic doctrine" is itself fraught? — Banno

Well, we shouldn't forget that Christianity borrowed a good deal from Platonism, and later Neo-Platonism.

There are scholarly viewpoints on both Plato and the gospels.

Sometimes Christians decide they have special knowledge about how to properly interpret the Bible. Apparently the same thing can happen with Plato. The former gives rise to a new Christian sect. I have no idea what the latter view, clearly opposed to scholarship, becomes.

Indeed, however, , there seems to be a dearth of fundamentalist Platonist terrorising the world into accepting their one true doctrine. The idea of there being one true belief, and the concomitant persecution of heretics, seems to be something for which we can thank Christianity.

Presumably, Islam ("{submission") borrowed the idea in spreading acceptance of its teachings.

The idea of there being one true belief, and the concomitant persecution of heretics, seems to be something for which we can thank Christianity. — Banno

Sadly, Aquinas' justification for executing heretics, referred to by Catholics during the inquisitions, was a passage from Plato.

Presumably, Islam ("{submission") borrowed the idea in spreading acceptance of its teachings. — Banno

"Islam" was originally a term for an aspect of the Arabian economy. Traveling merchants could pay the local bandits to allow them to pass through the desert unmolested. This pact was called islam, and the one who paid this fee was a muslim (one who submits).

When Muhammad joined all the Arabian tribes together, a problem arose stemming from the fact that raiding was part of the economy, and now nobody was raiding anybody else. This led to the eruption of Arabs out into the Iranian world. At first, the Muslims wouldn't allow Iranians to convert to Islam. Eventually there was a revolt, and the Iranians took back their territory, as Muslims. Now former Christians, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians were the Muslim elite. This is why, for the most part, Islam was spread in the Persian language, not Arabic.

Interesting stuff.

That's an interesting interpretation, but I think it's an example of anachronism. — Ciceronianus

It has been said that each generation has its own Plato. Cited here:

For, as Plato liked and constantly affected the well-known method of his master Socrates, namely, that of dissimulating his knowledge or his opinions, it is not easy to discover clearly what he himself thought on various matters, any more than it is to discover what were the real opinions of Socrates.
– Augustine, City of God, 248

some have considered Plato a dogmatist, others a doubter. . . . From Plato arose
ten different sects, they say. And indeed, in my opinion, never was a teaching
wavering and noncommittal if his is not.
– Michel de Montaigne, Complete Essays, 377 (2.12)

It seems to me that Plato is a profoundly conservative figure — Ciceronianus

A few points to be considered. In a period of tumultuous political upheaval, to be conservative is not to support any particular regime but to support the ancestral. Plato is writing in the shadow cast by the trial and conviction of Socrates for impiety and corrupting the youth, that is, for the danger he posed to the ancestral. Plato had to be cautious so as not to suffer the same fate either for himself or for philosophy itself. And yet, in the Republic the poets are banned. That is a profoundly anti-conservative act.

It has been said that each generation has its own Plato. — Fooloso4

Its own Jesus, too, I believe. I wonder if this is characteristic in cases where writings are considered, perhaps not necessarily sacred, but subjects of reverence. They cannot be altered, but must be interpreted as needed to provide support of what "each generation" deems significant.

Its own Jesus, too, I believe. — Ciceronianus

Yes. Starting from the first generation, with Paul's "Christ". Hebrew scriptures were appropriated and stories of Jesus told to fit the appropriated texts. The Arian controversy . Martin Lither's principle of interpretation. Calvin. On and on until today regarding questions of abortion and homosexuality.