I'm something of a fan of the Gnostic ascetics that were neoplatonists, but were murdered and silenced.

Any other Plato fans or scholars on here? — MysticMonist

From my ignorance, what does it mean to be a Plato fan? What does it take to be a Platonist?

That categories are real and true, and the universe is ultimately knowable by the mind.

T Clark,

I meant in just a very basic sense of a fan. Someone is also familiar with Plato or the Neoplatonist and is a good person to ask questions or bounce ideas off. Gnostics definitely fall into the category :)

Being Platonist is more tricky but someone who draws key elements of their thought from Plato's writings. But wouldn't that make most philosophers Platonists? Haha.

Being Platonist is more tricky but someone who draws key elements of their thought from Plato's writings. But wouldn't that make most philosophers Platonists? Haha. — MysticMonist

I've read a little Plato. I must admit it seemed pretty klunky. I guess that's true of a lot of really old things. It seems klunky now, but it set the standard for everything that has been done since. I look forward to being educated.

Any other Plato fans or scholars on here? — MysticMonist

I'm by no means a Plato scholar, not ever having had the benefit of education in the Classics; my knowledge is patchy. But I'm definitely a fan. I believe I once had an epiphany about 'the nature of number', along these lines: whilst phenomena - existing things - have a beginning and an end in time, and are composed of parts, numbers do not. (Afterwards I realised that strictly speaking the latter is only true of prime numbers.) Numbers are the same for anyone who is capable of rational thought, and they don't begin to exist, or cease existing. In fact, they don't exist at all in the sense that tables and chairs do - but they're real nonetheless! So with that, I felt I had had an insight into the meaning of number in the Pythagorean and Platonic tradition: that it was like an insight into a domain that was in some sense beyond the 'realm of the senses'.

I delved into that a little and discovered that this kind of intuition is the basis of 'Platonic realism'. Platonic realism means something entirely different to today's scientific realism: platonist realism holds that intelligible objects, such as numbers, geometric forms, and universals, are real. That is, they're not 'made up' by society, and they're not 'all in the mind' - although they can only be grasped by a mind, which is part of the point. But they have a kind or level of reality, which is different, and superior to, the reality of mere things; things are at best the instantiations of the ideal (and incorporeal) proportions, ratios, and forms which comprise the intelligible (or formal) realm.

However, this point was the subject of an immense debate that was conducted for centuries in medieval times, between the 'realists' (in the above, Platonic sense) and their opponents, the nominalists (William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, and many others). It was a very detailed debate, often couched in the very arcane language of medieval philosophical theology, thus very hard to penetrate. But as I understand it, the eventual triumph of nominalism was a watershed in Western thought - and not necessarily a positive one.

Nowadays the school which preserves that idea of the 'intelligible object' is neo-Thomism or neo-Scholasticism, which incorporates the ideas of Aquinas and Aristotle in updated form. A good reference for that is Edward Feser's books and blog; also this post.

As for the nature of Platonism and how it is different from modern naturalism, a good reference for that is Lloyd Gerson, who is probably the leading academic on Platonism. (Have a look at this lecture, Platonism vs Naturalism. A particularly interesting passage occurs around 43:00 on Aristotle's argument for the immaterial nature of intellect).

Another useful snippet is this passage on Augustine and Intelligible Objects.

Also this wikipedia entry on The Analogy of the Divided Line.

I've read a little Plato. I must admit it seemed pretty klunky. — T Clark

I do know what you mean. Despite my enthusiasm for it, I find the prospect of studying it properly very daunting, as it has been the subject of such vast literature for so many centuries; it is the prototype 'dusty tome in University library'. But there are many nuggets, or even veins, running through it. Older I get, the more I appreciate Plato is the intellectual forbear of Western culture.

klunky — T Clark

A lot of philosophical writing strikes me as "clunky" or "klunky" and a lot of it segues into "murky" and finally, the kind of writing that one would get from 100 monkeys klacking away on mechanical typewriters for 1 million years. Some of it would be quite good, some of it would be readable, some of it would be opaque,

A lot of philosophical writing strikes me as "clunky" or "klunky" and a lot of it segues into "murky" and finally, the kind of writing that one would get from 100 monkeys klacking away on mechanical typewriters for 1 million years. Some of it would be quite good, some of it would be readable, some of it would be opaque, — Bitter Crank

I have always rejected most of what I have read in philosophy. I figure - I'm a smart guy, I can figure this out for myself. I mean, the world is just sitting there waiting, right? I must admit that some of the discussions on this forum have sent me off to the library. There are a lot of people on this forum who know a lot and I want to be able to talk to them. I'll even consider looking at Plato again.

Hey there's a recent title, I haven't read it, but it's got good reviews - Plato at the Googleplex, Rebecca Goldstein. She's a smart writer, very philosophically literate. I am meaning to get that book one day, but anyway, you might find it useful.

Also another article by her, Godel on the Nature of Mathematical Truth.

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason#t-114294

That's a pretty good little animation, and a great little discussion.

One thing that has perplexed my mind is the relationship between logic and mathematics. I've read a decent amount on the topic and consider myself a Platonist; but, it still confuses me to no end.

Namely, how can computers, which are by most standards logical entities that create a 'logical space' where their computations become manifest, are able to also model mathematical truths and relationships so accurately?

I also view Godel's Incompleteness Theorems as a sort of limit on the scope of what computers might be able to model or represent logically or mathematically.

I'll also have to go to the library. I should check up on Godel.
But as Jeremiah in my other thread pointed out maybe I should just worry about what's relevant or useful. I'm not so sure about Forms and Realism and all that. However when Plato says Book 1 of the Republic (which I just finished) says the soul only works to guide us when it is of just character, in same way an eye only works when it's not blind. That is something I can really use in my life. I can be a "Platonist" in that sense, seeking virtue and a closer awareness (Plotinus says assimilation) with the One. This is a certain way of reading Plato that I think is just as valid as going really into his logical proofs or cosmology.
Again the gnostics would be pretty close as well, though differing in a few key areas. The gnostics are pretty popular these days, maybe I'll find some of them online. I'll take forum or Facebook recommendations if anyone has any.

as Jeremiah in my other thread pointed out maybe I should just worry about what's relevant or useful. — MysticMonist

If you're interested in only what's 'relevant or useful' then you've probably joined the wrong forum. ;-)

It is a good animation, and a good presentation of emotion vs. reason non-debate. It's a non-debate because emotion and reason both serve. But one must have an edge, and the edge goes to emotion. Take War. Not abstract war, but a declaration of war by the United States on Canada. Now, as the tanks, planes, and marching troops cross the border and begin liberating Canada from the death grip with which Canadians have heretofore held the northern half of North America, Canadians will not be consulting logic texts or old philosophical tomes about war. They will not be asking themselves why war is unreasonable. They will rise up in anger, rage, wrath, indignation, fury, fear, and (in Quebec) extreme annoyance (but then the French are always being annoyed by someone).

When someone is confronted by a beggar on the street, their first response will be emotional -- either empathy or loathing. No reasoning about poverty, provisions for the poor, and so forth will arise (from that part of our brain that reasons) UNTIL there is a need to justify what one has already decided to do. Whether one is moved to drop a dollar into the outstretched hand, or kick the beggar in the gut, reason will put together a suitable rationale.

There have been endless teach-ins, seminars, committee meetings, editorials, essays, etc. written about the goodness or badness of this or that war. People generally arrive at these events and documents with minds made up. How did they make them up? Mostly emotion, a little reasoning. Go to a large, effectively run demonstration for or against any cause and you will be in danger of being convinced by the smell and roar of the crowd, not by the speeches.

Are we puppets to emotion? No more than we are puppets to reason. We'll attend the kinds of demonstrations we feel good about, and we'll come away (chances are) feeling even better about it. We might pick up the literature, read it, remember it, and quote it but our quoting will move very few people to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the statements. Are they just too stupid and close minded to understand? Not at all.

Why are some people against war? Because they are afraid they will get swept up in it, first and foremost. They are afraid what war will do their lives (not lives in general, T•H•E•I•R lives).

We reason where emotion has nothing to offer. :How can I determine whether "2" or "181" are prime numbers?" Nothing very emotion-provoking about that kind of problem, but one might feel emotion if one can't figure it out, or if one finds a really good solution (like googling prime numbers).

i don't agree with everything they're saying. I agree that truth and objectivity are possible, but that doesn't mean that they, or I have attained it. Particularly the part about empathy favoring the cute, and not the ugly, and we can't have that. Are they then beyond that, and really don't trouble themselves with such human concerns, their significant others could look, and smell like a rotting corpse for all they care? They certainly have not transcended their emotions, and animalistic inclinations. Life is fundamentally different for Frankenstein than it is for a rock star. Just not killing them, perhaps telling them how beautiful they are out of pity will never change that. Their experiences of the world, and society will be fundamentally different. Monsters are made, by being treated as such. You can't understand another's position without walking in their shoes and all that. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone that imagines a class of people that are cruel and foolish, and themselves enlightened and good. That it was solely reason that was responsible for the changes over time is clearly not true. It's way more complex than that, rather than the ignorant masses running around being stupid and evil until supermen showed up to save them, most people, just as today were just living their lives, and sometimes killing people by accident because they were drunk, or out of passion. The people are utilized as pieces with deception coercion, or necessity. Either some political, religious, or hatemongering ideology, or because they were starving or in the midst of a disaster.

I do definitely believe in truth, and goodness, but I think that is damn hard to attain. I think that religions are the greatest sources of them. Thinking that they were ignorant plebs, and us brilliant moderns until the even more brilliant future people come along pays our ancestors a great disservice. It wasn't just reason itself, but the emotional maturity that is capable through the refinement, and transformations of our natures through the virtues espoused in all great religions.

Reason, truth, is universal in my view, not us, and not ours. We are those emotions, and through reason, can be transformed, but we have to listen.

If you're interested in only what's 'relevant or useful' then you've probably joined the wrong forum. ;-) — Wayfarer

That's pretty funny! If I wanted things that were useful in the sense of helping me get my car fixed or lose weight, I wouldn't turn to philosophy at all. I studied with a Zen Master who said if you are sick see a doctor, if you want money see a banker, not a Zen Master. Zen is useless.

I also don't want to espouse utilitarianism. Not everything has a "cash value."

At the same time, though, I shouldn't be loosing sleep over if the Forms exist or if I have a soul, if I'm not primarily interested in metaphysics. I'm more interested in ethics.

A perfect example of this is my studies of Kabbalah. There is a vast Kabbalist cosmology with upper worlds and 10 sefriot (divine emanations) all with names and properties etc. Maybe it's meant to be figurative, but it is also treated pretty literally by most texts. I just don't care how many sefriot there are, especially since I can't verify if they exist at all. I was more interested in using it as a virtue training and as a meditative tool. But all the cosmology and the finer points of Torah observance (no cheeseburgers) was bogging me down. It wasn't useful to me. But the useful parts of prayer and self purification won't teach me to do my oil changes.

I would count myself as a bit of a Platonist.

A philosopher in our day is considered a specialist in a field of knowledge distinct from that of science. Plato was a philosopher in a totally different sense. For him, philosophy was insight into the whole of truth, the study of reality in all its aspects; he was unaware of any barriers between this or that field of inquiry such as we erect today. Common sense ran into physics, physics into mathematics, mathematics into metaphysics; metaphysics, in its turn, led into ethics, politics, and religion. In reading the dialogues of Plato, we find abstruse discussions of ultimate principles joined to detailed descriptions of the parts of the human body, and investigations into the properties of geometrical figures along with inquiries as to the nature of the good life. Nor was philosophy confined to science; it included art. Plato is equally at home in the highly technical treatment of negation in the Sophist and in the poetical rhapsodies of the Symposium; his work is great both as thought and as literature, and is indeed great in the one category through its greatness in the other. Plato is a mystic and a mathematician together, and to enter into his meaning one must read him with one's emotions as well as with one's intellect. Finally, philosophy, for Plato, is a form of life, in fact, the distinctive form of life; far from being the indulgence of a mere instinct of curiosity, the toying of a dilettante with this or that amusing idea, it is a serious, as passionate business; it is the way to salvation, the endeavor to live one's life in the setting of the universe. Philosophy requires not only keenness of intellect but courage to face the truth, moral integrity, and a magnificence of soul; it calls on the resources of the entire personality.

From Introduction to Plato: Selections, ed. Rafael Demos.

In my view, Plato represents the distinctive genius of Western culture; Platonism is one of the principle reasons that the 'scientific revolution' was able to happen in the West, and not elsewhere. But the distinctive genius of Plato has been largely forgotten or is mainly misunderstood in my view.

This all rings true (a good example of intuitive emotion governing my purportedly rational response), especially as I am in the middle of "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, which is basically a guidebook to this theory. But there's something that rubs me the wrong way about the philosophical framework of this entire discussion. Specifically, I feel like the "is/ought" problem is being approached incautiously.

With regard to Plato, he clearly straddled both sides of the "is/ought" problem, but was unquestionably unafraid to make prescriptions, ultimately being more lauded (historically, at least) for his normative statements and theories. "Here is what Plato believed about Justice, about Piety, about Politics..." is a common refrain of easy study guides or professors. All of these subjects eventually made their way to normative conclusions, and even Platonic realism was partially in service of these Normative fundamental truths.

So when you and others make the claim that emotion IS the dominant and reason the submissive in their psychic relationship, I have no problem agreeing to it. It seems true both reasonably and intuitively, and the book I mentioned above does a great job at aggregating experimental results that suggest the same conclusion. But I do still fight back a bit on the OUGHT side of the divide, where I would put forth the premise (as I think Plato would) that while emotion IS the dominant force in MOST people, Reason OUGHT to be. And we can look no further than his most famous allegory to see a poetic description of this thought.

Are we puppets to emotion? I would say yes, at least at first. But like Plato (and his student Aristotle), I hold on to the idea that the reversal of that master-slave relationship is the goal of human life, and the journey from one state to the other is philosophy, and is a source of Eudaimonia. However, I have a natural aversion dogma where possible, and so I come at this from a skeptical point of view. This is not a rebuttal to what you have said, as it is a continuation based on the ideas you've caused me to confront.

I don't think Plato or Aristotle or any of the ancient Greeks had the concept of a will, as a reflexive faculty of the mind. For them an action was choice; which was free or not. The free choice of something choice worthy based on the law, the gods, reasons, justice or the Good, Truth or Beauty, it was not that I ought to do this or not do that.

It was Paul the Apostle's that introduced the concept of a reflexive will to the world. To the best of my knowledge, this is based on what Hanna Ardent wrote in her "Philosophy of the Mind". The issues of what I ought to do arose from his concept of a divided will.

Their concepts may not have been exactly congruent to ours, but I would disagree with the idea that Plato did not conceptualize the will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_Allegory

I think it is a different concept. Here is what Paul says in Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

The charioteer's choices are choice worthy if they correspond to reasons demands, they do not have a trace of Paul's existential dilemma, in my opinion,

Also see the Wiki entry on akrasia which deals with similar themes.

The charioteer's choices are choice worthy if they correspond to reasons demands, they do not have a trace of Paul's existential dilemma, in my opinion, — Cavacava

I think Plato got the cause and effect wrong, which seems to be what you are pointing out. From that passage in Romans it does appear like Paul is intuitively feeling out the concept of emotive intuitiveness that is our current best theory (as far as I know, anyway) on the motivation of thought and action. However, I do think Plato's conclusion, as far as it is normative, does still offer some value (and this reveals me as a Platonist, I suppose). Namely that Reason OUGHT to dominate over emotion/passion/appetite/intuition. This is the idea I've been mulling over while reading "The Righteous Mind". The idea that Plato got the diagnosis slightly wrong, but still may have prescribed the right treatment. It's an interesting concept, and it's the basis on which I am examining this issue in the context of the "is/ought" problem.

Even more interesting to me, and relevant via your summoning of Paul to the conversation, is whether religious thought and belief was implicitly developed to combat this emotive/intuitive "gut feeling" and the actions that follow in order to maintain a society with a diverse population. In other words, when our intuitive reactions to others are divisive and threaten the social order, did religion pop-up to glue us back together?

Even more interesting to me, and relevant via your summoning of Paul to the conversation, is whether religious thought and belief was implicitly developed to combat this emotive/intuitive "gut feeling" and the actions that follow in order to maintain a society with a diverse population. In other words, when our intuitive reactions to others are divisive and threaten the social order, did religion pop-up to glue us back together?

Paul, the other apostles and their followers after Christ's death, thought the that end of the world was at hand, and that the Last Judgement was immanent. This was a very strong motivator for all their thoughts. Paul teaching were meant to establish a new law, what Christ taught as a way to live and to be saved. I think Paul understood that teachings such as Christ's Sermon on the Mont gave rules that sounded outlandish at the time. Impossible goals, and he tried to show how these teaching were goals to be striven for, even if un-achievable.

Giving the example of his own problems with acting as he ought, he gave his follower hope that in spite of their failings they still might be saved.

I think Paul understood that teachings such as Christ's Sermon on the Mont gave rules that sounded outlandish at the time. Impossible goals, and he tried to show how these teaching were goals to be striven for, even if un-achievable. — Cavacava

Where the Greeks strove for a moral duty to reason, Jesus (and later his Christian followers) strove for a moral duty to God. Perhaps both quests are ultimately impossible to achieve, but when a man undertakes moralizing (whether through reasoning or intuition) he implicitly assumes an "ought" and therefore I think both the followers of the Greeks and the religious (those things are not mutually exclusive, obviously) are noble precisely because they give him something to aim at. This is basically the concept that gives rise to Christian saints, as well as the nuanced Greek view of tragedy as a struggle against our sorry natures... one that we are all destined to lose.

What I was referring to is the anthropological connotations of religion when thought about in this way. After all, the Jews and later the Christians were hardly the first to claim a moral duty to God. Why are we so focused on systematizing (I'm avoiding the term "rationalizing" for clarity but it would fit as well) our moral beliefs and adapting lifestyles suited to them? Which came first, the idea that there exists a God who outlaws murder, or the implicit sense that murder is immoral? I suspect the latter came first, but that begs the question: Then why involve God at all?

Socrates could never willing do what was unreasonable it would be against his concept of knowledge which is at the heart of Plato's philosophy.

Paul could, he knew he could, and he knew what he ought to do even though he did not always do it and that's the difference. Paul discovered that he could say yes or no, Socrates could never knowing say no to reason.

Plato was a philosopher in a totally different sense.

This is definitely true! I watched a Standford lecture where Dr, Cooper argued that many of the Greek philosophers saw philosophy as a way of life rather than just an intellectual opinion. I really love Plotinus and it's with his understanding that I read plato. (I don't use Neoplatonist because I think the neo is arbitrary). For me I'm a platonist in a pretty religious sense. I spend daily time in study and meditation and try to improve my moral character in order to become closer to the Absolute (God). I see the Oneness of God in all religions and I love prayers and scriptures across traditions. My "Platonism" informs my life as much as any involved and faithful church goer. I actually go to an episcopal church with my family but I don't consider myself Christian and I don't say the creeds. Other than that, I have no problem with Christianity.

I'm actually thinking about how to increase my contemplative practice in an authentic Platonic way. Study of philosophy and comparative religion is definitely part of it. Maybe a daily "examen" (Jesuit practice) of my moral behavior and ways to improve. I do silent meditation buts it not Zazen (Buddhist just sitting) it's with an intention of turning myself towards and receiving the Divine or observing the beauty around me. I think I'll celebrate Plato's birthday on May 7. Plotinus didn't celebrate his own birthday, so I don't think I should celebrate his.

Perhaps this might seem strange, but I am an ex-Zen Buddhist and an ex-Kabbalist so I'm very mystical oriented to begin with and Plotinus definitely offers a full enough philosophy to fill that. I'm tired of trying religions :)

Perhaps this might seem strange, but I am an ex-Zen Buddhist and an ex-Kabbalist so I'm very mystical oriented to begin with and Plotinus definitely offers a full enough philosophy to fill that. I'm tired of trying religions — MysticMonist

I have a lot in common with you. A lot of us 'seeker types' have been exposed to all manner of philosophies in today's 'spiritual supermarket'. I spent years visiting the Adyar Bookshop (although those have long since gone.) I have decided to stick with Buddhism although I still have a real interest in understanding more about Platonic philosophy.

The way I'm approaching that is to maintain the Buddhist commitment of daily meditation. But I also want to try and come up with a coherent reading program in Platonism. That's actually a challenge - partially because there's so much material to choose from, but also because I think much of Platonism has generally been redacted in such a way as to actually filter out its spiritual dimension. But there's some fundamental understanding in Platonism that I think got lost in the transition to modernity. I think all of what's important in the key philosophers since, was anticipated in Plato - hence the famous remark by Whitehead about philosophy being 'footnotes to Plato'.

Here's a current title that I am reading, about these kinds of ideas - Defragmenting Modernity, Paul Tyson. He's an academic Christian Platonist who writes well and coherently on these ideas.

Wayfarer,

Thanks! I feel less crazy.

I left Buddhism and Judaism (though I never finished my conversion) both for personal reasons and not due to feeling those faiths were "wrong." The nice thing about Platonism is it's a philosophic approach rather than a religious approach. There's no church of it to join and no fights with my wife over it!!! It's treated as purely an intellectual or obscure hobby and it's not likely that anyone in my church will want to hear about it or understand it. Being Buddhist or Jewish is a different matter (though it shouldn't be in my opinion).

What kind of Buddhism did you study? I studied Soto Zen and Ch'an which was wonderful. The only reason I left is I felt so guilty and torn about being a theist in my "spiritual DNA" as That Nich Hahn would say. I just never was comfortable with the non-theism of Zen.
But now I think I may go back to more Mahayana and Pure Land texts in particular. I loved some of those texts in the past. That's the beauty of a philosophical approach I can draw from wherever with no issue.
I hear you about reading program. I have way more books to read then time left in my life!
I'm reading Plato's Republic and listening to Plotnius Enneads while I drive to work. I think reading all of Plato and Plotinus' works is pretty realistic. But there are so many "Neoplatonists". I think at that point (in a few months) I'll want to go back to the world scriptures again like the Torah, New Testament, Quran, the Gita, and Baha'i Wrintings with new eyes. Pure Land Buddhism and the gnostics would be cool too. Too many books, not enough decades to read them!