Then let us first embark on this question. Is Virtue found only in extraordinary cases of heroism such as war or disaster or giving of ones whole life to missionary work in a foreign land? The common people seem to speak of it as such. — MysticMonist

Do they indeed? Or is virtue largely defined in terms of omission? "He doesn't steal. He doesn't lie. He doesn't cheat."

Do they indeed? — t0m

(Resuming dialogue form)

MM: Yes, the common people have many misconceptions of virtue.

Socrates: Let us endeavor to establish 3 pillars of virtue on which the whole of the good life rests. The first pillar is the widest and strongest, more critical for preventing a collapse of the whole structure. This great pillar, as I (@t0m) have just stated, is virtue of omission. Do not the sages of the east with their teachings of Ahmisa, say this is the key to virtue? So should it be with our state. Let us also remember what we have spoken about with overlooking little virtues and let it be the same for vice. Let no man imagine that omitting terrible deads like murder or banditry that he can then neglect all the small, daily ways in which he harms his neighbor. Let him also not compare himself with others, either higher or lower, to determine his virtue as this leads to either slackness or to dispair.

This first pillar of doing no harm is so great that perhaps our state would stand steady on it alone. But let us go further to name two more pillars which are subservient and cannot override the first. The second pillar is positive and compulsory action that is compelled by the voice of illuminated conscious. It is vice to neglect doing these actions typically involved in fulfilling one's responsibilities or in coming to aid of someone in immediate need where ignoring their pleas is unjust.
The third and least pillar is voluntary good deeds. There is no shame in not preforming them and indeed shouldn't be performed to exhaustion.

There is a common delusiion that least of this pillars is mistaken for the strongest. Proud people think they are virtuous because they give at church or hold open a door for an attractive woman. They practice virtue only at their convince and claim the whole prize for themselves.
Humble people are equally harmed. They feel at lack of character for being unable to donate to every worthy charity or to to volunteer for every cause and exhaust themselves trying. They leave the real source of Virtue neglected.

Let us endeavor to establish 3 pillars of virtue on which the whole of the good life rests. — MysticMonist

It's a long time since I've read Plato and I was not impressed with him then. I think that was because his view of morality and virtue, along with other issues, seems rigid and inhuman. Maybe someone else would say "rational" instead. I assume that the three pillars come directly out of "The Republic." I would not normally call a virtue of omission a virtue at all. My understanding of virtue is close to the second pillar.

I think of small "r" republicanism. Government by citizens with a focus on civic and personal duty and integrity. Military service. Participation in civic and church life. Sacrifice for the good of the community. I think of my friend Mike. He is a scout leader even after his kids are grown. On his own initiative he started a running program for children. My 27 year old son participated when he was 5 and it made a big difference for him. There are a relatively small number of people who hold communities together. They are committed in what seems to be a natural way - not for praise or benefit. The rest of us do what we can with less commitment. I've lived in my town since 1979 and I look back with deep gratitude to the people who made it a place where my children could grow.

Ironically, large "R" republicanism in the US started out with those values. It was the party of small town farmers, tradesmen, and business men whose lives revolved around their communities. That is long gone.

Yeah, Plato's dialectic method and approach in general can be quite rigid. It's seeks an objective perspective for truth. He's part of the reason why western philosophy is so different from eastern philosophy.

Ahimsa is the idea of no harm found in eastern dharmic religions. I've found it very useful in guiding my own self examination and I use it heavily in my professional ethics (as a rehab therapist).

Yet, your point why I included the other two pillars (the whole pillar thing is my invention in the style of Plato). We have to be open to the illumination of God upon our whole souls. Plato says only our reason is illumined which then directs the rest of our natures. I think that we are illumined on multiple levels to include desires (for goodness, for altruism, love, etc) and spirit as well as just reason.

I'll drop the fake plato dialogue, was fun for only a few lines :)

I had one last question I'd love to be able to ask Socrates.
What about men who claim to speak for God either by prophecy or other religious authority and lay down commandments that are to be followed?
There is a resulting list of sometimes absurd requirements such as not eating meat and cheese together (Orthodox Judaism) or even men or women not allowed to hug outside marriage (the typically liberal Baha'i). Even the sabbath laws either on Saturday or Sunday. These laws exist sometimes for good reason but surely they are not the COMMANDMENTS of God (which thereby if they existed written by the finger of God Himself should be obeyed unquestionably).
I think I would advocate no commandment or moral law should ever be followed unquestionably. Going back to dharmic religions, my zen teacher taught me that the five Buddhist precepts (no killing, no sexual immorality, no lying, no stealing, no intoxicants) are "my own" meaning it's up to me, through my meditative practice, how I interpret them and follow them. I found that to be the most fulfilling and successful, at least I thought so, moral guide. By having ownership over the precepts I was more likely to live them out and didn't feel like I was "breaking" one but seeking a deeper way of living out the principle behind it. On the surface it might seem that encourages moral relativism and rationalization for immoral behavior, but I found in practice it was the opposite. Too set and rigid of rules such as the Jewish laws I found too hard to fulfill and I was forever "breaking" a commandment with cyclic binges of observance and guilt. It's ultimately part of the reason I ended up not pursuing conversion to Judaism.

This view of discerning virtue for oneself I think is consistent with Platonism/Monism. It is our illuminated reason that guides us towards virtue, not the opinion of the masses.

There is a resulting list of sometimes absurd requirements such as not eating meat and cheese together (Orthodox Judaism) or even men or women not allowed to hug outside marriage (the typically liberal Baha'i). Even the sabbath laws either on Saturday or Sunday. These laws exist sometimes for good reason but surely they are not the COMMANDMENTS of God (which thereby if they existed written by the finger of God Himself should be obeyed unquestionably). — MysticMonist

Not being a follower of any religion, I think of those idiosyncratic rules partly as a way to differentiate the members of a church from others and to give a sense of community. Also, I think many of them have to do with ritual, which can be used as a kind of meditation to put yourself in the right state of mind to worship. They don't bother me or prejudice me against any religion as long as they are not in-humane, even if they seem arbitrary or even silly. I remember a friend from college many years ago. He was a secular Jew whose favorite food was cheeseburgers, which he ate as an act of self-expression and as a rejection of what those rules meant.

I think I would advocate no commandment or moral law should ever be followed unquestionably. — MysticMonist

I remember a man explaining why he didn't mind wearing a tie to work when all his coworkers complained and flouted the rule. He said he only had a certain amount of rebellion in him and he would rather save it for something that really matters. I think that understanding would be appropriate for a lot, but certainly not all, of those rules.

Going back to dharmic religions, my zen teacher taught me that the five Buddhist precepts (no killing, no sexual immorality, no lying, no stealing, no intoxicants) are "my own" meaning it's up to me, through my meditative practice, how I interpret them and follow them. I found that to be the most fulfilling and successful, at least I thought so, moral guide. — MysticMonist

As I've said many times on this forum, to me, correct behavior toward other people comes from inside. We are built to know how we should behave. What I have to do in order to know what to do next is to open my heart. In order to do that, I have to calm the fear, anger, desire, and resentment that are keeping me from doing that. Morality comes from a release, a removal of restrictions, trust in what is inside. I've spent 55 years trying to make that work. It should never have taken so long. My friend tells me if I had participated in meditation during that time, it wouldn't have taken me nearly as long. Then again, she is still at least as screwed up as I am.

It's ultimately part of the reason I ended up not pursuing conversion to Judaism. — MysticMonist

My former boss, with whom I worked for 25 years, is one of the truly good people I've met. She was raised Christian, married a Jewish man, and has raised her children in Jewish traditions. She is active in temple and takes Judaism seriously. She wanted to convert, but was unwilling to participate in the ritual cleansing that is required of women but not men.

correct behavior toward other people comes from inside. We are built to know how we should behave. What I have to do in order to know what to do next is to open my heart. — T Clark

Your thoughts are helpful as always thanks. We pretty much agree that morality comes from following one's inner guidance.
I say that this guidance comes from God thru illumination but I don't think human religions have a hand in that process. I don't think belief in God is neccesary to be moral since illumination is not gained thru belief.
I suppose you would say you don't believe in God and this moral guidance is innate simply because it is. Humans all sorts of other innate qualities, why not morality?
I would say humans have the ability to see thru their eyes because God creates them that way. You would probably say they see thru their eyes because they are human. We almost all get eyes if we believe in God or not.

I would suggest we face a same problem then. What about people who though illumined or possessing an innate moral sense ignore it and practice vice versus those who practice virtue? What's the difference and why does virtue "take" in one but not the other?
What about people, though rare, who seem naturally deficient of morality or loose their ability to act morally due to mental illness or brain injury? This last question is more of an issue for me with a Divine source than for you with an innate source but still troubles us both I think.

I would have to say that God grants differing levels of illumination to some people or perhaps illumines them more directly for His purposes which we cannot know. People will only be judged according to their capacity. A person with a frontal lobe injury will not be condemned to hell for being less inclined to not have angry outbursts even if such action is sinful. Actually I don't think any of us are condemned to hell and am a universalist.
As for the majority of situations where people choose vice, illumination only allows the possibility of moral action, it doesn't compel it. People who choose vice over virtue (and we all do this at least some of the time) earn our reward thru suffering and unhappiness. Perhaps Plato is right and we be repaid 10 fold for our actions in an afterlife or perhaps it's just karma in this life (punished by your anger not for your anger type karma).

What do you think? Are these real problems?

I say that this guidance comes from God thru illumination but I don't think human religions have a hand in that process. I don't think belief in God is neccesary to be moral since illumination is not gained thru belief. — MysticMonist

My wife was raised Catholic. She still goes to mass, not every week, but often. She is a good person, and would be whether or not she goes to church or believes in God, but her personal relationship with God means a lot to her. What you do in meditation and I do by whatever you call this I do, she does using that relationship. As a pragmatist I say use whatever works.

I would say humans have the ability to see thru their eyes because God creates them that way. You would probably say they see thru their eyes because they are human. We almost all get eyes if we believe in God or not. — MysticMonist

The way I say it when I'm trying to be clever is that we have been created the way we are, it doesn't matter whether it was God or Darwin who did it.

I would suggest we face a same problem then. What about people who though illumined or possessing an innate moral sense ignore it and practice vice versus those who practice virtue? What's the difference and why does virtue "take" in one but not the other? — MysticMonist

Isn't the only thing we care about our route to morality? Isn't the correct path for us to follow what we are looking for? Does it matter why others might not do what we think is right? Well, yes, I guess it does. I generally just think of them as broken or lost. They don't have access to what you and I are looking for.

Perhaps Plato is right and we be repaid 10 fold for our actions in an afterlife or perhaps it's just karma in this life (punished by your anger not for your anger type karma). — MysticMonist

I probably don't believe in any kind of afterlife. If there is one, I think a hell that would be fair and merciful would be one where everyone has to face the pain they've caused others. Maybe even live their lives. Adolf Hitler wouldn't have to spend eternity in torment, but he'd have to feel the torment of the millions of people he hurt. I wonder how many lives I'd have to relive.

I feel like I've hijacked your post away from Plato and on to my own personal views. We should go back to him again.

I feel like I've hijacked your post away from Plato and on to my own personal views. We should go back to him agai — T Clark

Ehh.. it's fine. I enjoy the meandering topics.
Strictly talking about Platonism isn't that riveting.

Plato sure as heck never stays on topic in the dialogues. Almost as bad as Kierkegaard who goes back and forth on reviewing plays and philosophy

Since we're talking of virtue I found this Saturday Night Live sketch hilarious.
https://youtu.be/xCFkTmI_9kE
It's how we would feel about many of our actions if we understood their true impact on others

Plato himself, in the apology, provides an answer to human teaching/guidance:

"tell us who their improver is.

The laws.

But that, my good sir, is not my meaning. I want to know who the person
is, who, in the first place, knows the laws.

The judges, Socrates, who are present in court.

What, do you mean to say, Meletus, that they are able to instruct and
improve youth?

Certainly they are.

What, all of them, or some only and not others?

All of them.

By the goddess Here, that is good news! There are plenty of improvers,
then.....
How about horses? Does one man do them harm and all the world good? Is
not the exact opposite the truth? One man is able to do them good, or at
least not many;--the trainer of horses, that is to say, does them good, and
others who have to do with them rather injure them? Is not that true,
Meletus, of horses, or of any other animals? Most assuredly it is; whether
you and Anytus say yes or no. Happy indeed would be the condition of youth
if they had one corrupter only, and all the rest of the world were their
improvers."

So even men were to speak for God (which isn't what Plato is saying) at the very least this would be the domain of the rare few (i.e. True philosophers) rather than a large group of individuals such as a church and it's related bodies. This is consistent with his characterization of the masses knowing nothing of truth in the Republic. In addition, a major theme in the apology is that Socrates is the wisest because he knows his ignorance. I think you could argue that the religiouw intreprators of the law are pretending to be an authority on matters of which they are ignorant. Which I think is exactly the case.

It is our illuminated reason that guides us towards virtue, not the opinion of the masses. — MysticMonist

Well said.

It is our illuminated reason that guides us towards virtue, not the opinion of the masses. — MysticMonist

Have a look at the SEP entry on Divine Illumination. It starts with a Socratic account.

That's a great article!! Thanks.
I think it's funny that the SEP is so appologetic for premodern views of things. It has simmilar tone on an excellent article on the immortality of the soul.

I suppose being a mystic bent I find it so strange that they "premodern" ideas are seen as so implausible. The world is actually rather wonderous if you take time to notice this. I'm not a scientist (beyond some anatomy) but I've heard that study of the working of the universe increases this wonder rather than dispels it.

I know I just made a big deal about not being Christian but if I'm interested in virtue and illumination, I think I need to study Christian (particularly catholic) moral theology. Maybe Islamic theology too.

I suppose being a mystic bent I find it so strange that they "premodern" ideas are seen as so implausible. — MysticMonist

I think, possibly, there is a similarity with what the ancients meant by divine illumination, and the 'enlightenment' of Buddhists, even though the two traditions are worlds apart in other respects. But it seems to me that this is what most directly corresponds to the characteristically Asian form of enlightenment, as 'insight into the real'; although the point is, in the East, the idea has been preserved, but in the West, it has been forgotten.

Notice in that article:

It was the Franciscan John Duns Scotus, more than anyone else, who put an end to the theory of divine illumination.

I'm starting to form the view that Scotus was the harbinger of many intellectual evils in the Western tradition. Quite why, is the subject of a very learned and rather arcane controversy. But I do know I'm not alone in my opinion.

Scotus is my favourite all of the mediaevals <3

On the surface illumination and enlightenment are simmilar concepts. Both are insights into the real. Though amoung Buddhism there is considerable differences on true meaning of enlightenment, a rabbit hole we don't need to go down.

In adopting Platonism, I've had to take a hard look at the unreconciliable views of God and Reality of Buddhism (particularly Zen) and mystical theism. My lingering, almost involuntary, theism made me a poor Buddhist. Yet I wouldn't be a mystic if it wasn't for my Zen training. It comes back to direct (or self-evident) knowledge. I'm not supposed to accept a Priests authority on God, but reject it and use direct knowledge. Though what if I have direct knowledge of God, am I to reject that on my Zen Master's authority? By no means.

Though what if I have direct knowledge of God, am I to reject that on my Zen Master's authority? — MysticMonist

By "knowlegde" are you referring to your direct experience of God or some interpretation of the experience that you might have extrapolated?

If the former then it begs the question as to how you could reject it, that is how could direct experience ever be rejected?

By "knowlegde" are you referring to your direct experience of God or some interpretation of the experience that you might have extrapolated?

If the former then it begs the question as to how you could reject it, that is how could direct experience ever be rejected? — Janus

It's tricky. Isn't what we say we experience almost always a combination of direct impressions and our conception of them? In this case it is a combination of occurrences during meditative states, psychological and emotional experiences, intuition, and inductive reasoning. All of this is hardly irrefutable evidence.

How can one reject direct experience? In this case by simply discounting the experience as delusion. I was taught that this is what these experiences were and I still think delusion is a very plausible explanation. Religious delusion is very common.

Take an example of a schizophrenic having psychological delusions. A doctor explains the visions aren't real. Assuming no medication worked, how would you handle the delusions? Even if you did trust the doctor it would be nearly impossible to resist believing in these visions if they were consistent and repeated. Even trying multiple things (meditative techniques or detailed studies of the mechanics of delusion) they continued.

I still have moments where I worry all my religious experiences are delusion or that I've lost my faith in one of the religions that's true and I shouldn't have. I'll get to the afterlife and be in big trouble for having tried the faith and faltered, being better off to never have attempted it in the first place. It's clear such a possibility is logically ridiculous, yet its unnerving how many other people think it's true. It's interesting that fundamentalist or conservative Christians, Jews, and Muslims all sound identical in tone yet would all be condemning each other to hell.

Too much existential angst and doubt which goes nowhere. The main reason I believe is that it gives at least temporary reprieve but to reject theism would be existing in s constant state of denial of my experience and doubting my conviction.

How can one reject direct experience? In this case by simply discounting the experience as delusion. I was taught that this is what these experiences were and I still think delusion is a very plausible explanation. Religious delusion is very common. — MysticMonist

This post is really interesting. It's something I've thought a lot about, but you've thought about more and with more at stake. I've approached it in the context of arguments between believers and atheists. Although I am not a theist, it has always seemed arrogant and ignorant to reject direct experience as you've described it as evidence for the existence of God. As you indicate, it's not definitive and there's lots of room for argument, apparently even within one person, but it means something.

Atheists who claim only science is needed to understand the world ignore half of everything that is.

Isn't what we say we experience almost always a combination of direct impressions and our conception of them? — MysticMonist

For sure, but I'm not talking about what we say we experience; I'm talking about what we experience.

How can one reject direct experience? In this case by simply discounting the experience as delusion. I was taught that this is what these experiences were and I still think delusion is a very plausible explanation. Religious delusion is very common. — MysticMonist

I don't believe religious delusion is very common; except perhaps among those who are significantly psychologically unstable and intellectually uncertain. These kinds of experience cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated ; that is only possible with events in the "external world"; so what criteria could you ever use to "discount" them? It would be like "discounting" being in love, or a profound experience of art or music, wouldn't it? Where would the discounting rightly end then? Why should we discount our experience at all?

Thanks. I find it really comforting to seperate illumination/salvation/divine presence from intellectual beliefs about God. It seems that one’s mere belief would change their spiritual reality or make God love them any more or less.

Atheists and agnostics also have a moral sense which they can follow or ignore completely seoerate from their religious views.

I converted between faiths more than is psychologically healthy, but I quickly felt that God didn’t seem too concerned about my faith of choice that day. Soon conversions became anti-climatic despite how big of deal humans make out of them.