You sound ... confused.

Well, in my view, Socrates did believe in God — Apollodorus

Well, not like a personal god, right? More like animism of some kind?

Well, not like a personal god, right? More like animism of some kind? — frank

Not at all. Socrates/Plato make different statements from which it is possible to infer that they believed in:

1. Gods (described as being virtuous).
2. One God (especially in Socrates, Apollo).
3. One indescribable Supreme Being (similar to what Plotinus calls "the One").

As I said, the idea that Socrates didn't believe in God/gods is what his detractors claimed, not what follows from his own statements.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the topic which is how we justify reincarnation in philosophical terms, not whether Socrates believed in God.

One indescribable Supreme Being (similar to what Plotinus calls "the One"). — Apollodorus

The One is definitely not a personal god.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the topic which is how we justify reincarnation in philosophical terms, not whether Socrates believed in God. — Apollodorus

Oh it's only justification is its value, whether it provides for otherworldly justice or it serves to explain knowledge.

There's no vantage point from which to confirm it or reject it.

The One is definitely not a personal god — frank

It isn't "animism" either. God is God, whether personal or not. That's the accepted meaning of Greek "Theos".

If you have a system that believes in "God", "soul", "divine justice" and "reincarnation", then it is legitimate to look into how it justifies reincarnation.

In contrast, since reincarnation or metempsychosis implies transmigration of soul, a system that does not believe in soul, e.g. Buddhism, seems less suitable for that purpose although Buddhist teachings regarding recollection of past lives may be adduced in support of it.

It isn't "animism" either. God is God, whether personal or not. That's the accepted meaning of Greek "Theos". — Apollodorus

Plotinus' view is kind of like animism. Everything is God.

If you have a system that believes in "God", "soul", "divine justice" and "reincarnation", then it is legitimate to look into how it justifies reincarnation. — Apollodorus

In the US you have the sovereign protection of the First Amendment to 'look into how' divine justice justifies reincarnation.

Plotinus' view is kind of like animism. Everything is God — frank

Not at all. It's a common misunderstanding, but Platonism is monism. Very different from animism.

Not at all. It's a common misunderstanding, but Platonism is monism. Very different from animism. — Apollodorus

Plotinus did believe everything is God. You're just not accepting that as a form of animism.

Plotinus did believe everything is God. You're just not accepting that as a form of animism. — frank

Well, I do appreciate your sense of humor. However, monism is definitely not animism.

Animism means a multitude of spiritual beings. Monism means everything is a manifestation or emanation of the same one God.

In one you've got multiplicity, in the other you've got unity. Big fundamental difference.

Big fundamental difference. — Apollodorus

There are different kinds of animism. To believe that the universe is alive counts.

There are different kinds of animism. To believe that the universe is alive counts. — frank

I've got nothing against animism. I'm only saying that Platonism is generally defined as monism. It revolves on the concept of Oneness, hence the Platonic belief in "the One". There are also different definitions or interpretations of "alive".

There are different kinds of animism. — frank

such as?

ve got nothing against animism. I'm only saying that Platonism is generally defined as monism. It revolves on the concept of Oneness, hence the Platonic belief in "the One". There are also different definitions or interpretations of "alive". — Apollodorus

Neoplatonism does affirm the One, but that's not all there is to existence (obviously). So there is multiplicity in the emanations. There are daemons everywhere.

This belief in daemons has its roots in animism.

As long as you don't identify the Neoplatonic One with the Christian God, you're good.

Neoplatonism does affirm the One, but that's not all there is to existence (obviously). So there is multiplicity in the emanations. There are daemons everywhere.

This belief in daemons has its roots in animism. — frank

Where belief in daemons originated is irrelevant. The point is that Platonic monism is not the same as animism.

In Platonism, the world emanates from the One and returns to the One. In animism, you have a multiplicity of spirits and that's it. They're two different systems.

Plus, animism has no bearing on reincarnation.

Plus, animism has no bearing on reincarnation. — Apollodorus

In a way it does, animal reincarnation, for instance. What's a daemon?

In a way it does, animal reincarnation, for instance. — frank

"In a way" is not good enough. That doesn't make Platonism animism. They aren't even similar.

Fine. They're not even similar. What's a daemon?

Of course they aren't even similar. Animism is just a belief in spirits. Platonism is an evolved philosophical system that aims to elevate the human soul to higher levels of experience leading to union with God. You need to read basic texts like Plotinus to understand that.

But anyway, if you think you can justify reincarnation on the basis of animistic belief in animal reincarnation, go ahead. I'm not holding you back.

You need to read basic texts like Plotinus to understand that. — Apollodorus

I've read some of the enneads just to see what it was like. I mainly stuck with secondary resources during my Augustine phase.

You're pretty defensive about this.

(In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities.) — baker

Do you mean by this that there is 'pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine of re-birth'? In the Buddhist circles I have interacted with, I've never experienced anything like that. I've given introductory talks at a Buddhist Library over the years, and the idea of re-birth comes up from time to time. My view is that nobody should be under any pressure to believe it, or to believe anything, for that matter. Ehi-passiko - 'come and see'. We discussed secular Buddhist approaches, the idea that re-birth is a moment-by-moment thing, and so on.

The 'secular Buddhist' organisation (yes, there is such thing) generally deprecates or rejects the idea of literal re-birth. They have long philosophical articles against it, saying that the belief was imported into Buddhism from the sorrounding culture. I don't agree with them, but there's nothing and nobody stopping them from saying it.

Platonism is an evolved philosophical system that aims to elevate the human soul to higher levels of experience leading to union with God. You need to read basic texts like Plotinus to understand that. — Apollodorus

I think that's very much Platonism as filtered through later Christian theology. As is well-known, the Greek-speaking Christian theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, absorbed a great deal of Platonism and neo-platonism into their systems, because it provided a philosophical framework for the discussion of eschatology (the fate of the soul).

But I'm not aware of many explicit discussions of metempsychosis (the Greek term for reincarnation) in those sources - much of it is implied rather than explicit. Not saying it's not there, but it's not spelled out very clearly.

I've read some of the enneads just to see what it was like. I mainly stuck with secondary resources during my Augustine phase. — frank

Well, I thought so. Probably not much of the Enneads at all, and definitely not with a teacher.

And how am I "defensive"? If you're saying that Platonism is "animism" which in my view is totally wrong, what am I supposed to do? Agree with you?

I think that's very much Platonism as filtered through later Christian theology. — Wayfarer

Well, I think Iamblichus, for example, would certainly qualify as highly evolved Platonism and not due to Christian influence.

My point about metempsychosis or reincarnation was that, by definition, it implies the existence of soul, for which reason traditions that deny its existence, such as Buddhism, are less suitable to justify or explain reincarnation in its accepted sense.

It is true that Platonic texts do not as a rule provide much detail on reincarnation. This is because Platonism is concerned with the ascent of the soul to higher planes of existence which is to be achieved through philosophy as a spiritual practice.

However, we can still infer from the Platonic sources that the soul who reincarnates consists of intellect and the lower psychological faculties (the psyche proper) plus an ethereal body (όχημα, ohema) resembling the physical one. This is consistent with other traditions such as those of Hinduism and shows that reincarnation isn't quite as "nebulous" as some might think.

Sure. It's just that you said the philosophers believed in god. I don't think Socrates did. Plato used him as a mouthpiece. Plato wasn't the only one who did that. — frank

A few quick points:

You are correct in noting the charge of atheism against Socrates. This influenced how Socrates was depicted by Plato and Xenophon. They had to defend both him and philosophy against this charge. Socrates was silenced. The same could not be the fate of philosophy.

In the Republic it is the Good, not God or gods, that: "provides the truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows" It is "the cause of the knowledge and truth". Further, "existence and being" are the result of the Good. (508e - 509b) Socrates previously called the sun a god, but this god too owes its existence to the Good.

Far from being a denial of Socrates atheism, it is an affirmation of it.

Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things.

Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things. — Fooloso4

True. Scholars agree.

Far from being a denial of Socrates atheism, it is an affirmation of it. — Fooloso4

I think that's your interpretation of Socrates.

Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things. — Fooloso4

And some here have failed to properly distinguish "Socratism" and Platonism. They are two different things.

You sound ... confused. — 180 Proof

You externalize.

Personally, I think Buddhism has some interesting theories but it doesn't seems to contribute much to the discussion because its explanation of reincarnation is too nebulous. — Apollodorus

"Nebulous" is certainly not the word I would use. I think the Early Buddhist take on rebirth is so complex and requires one to keep in mind so much doctrine that it's just too much for the ordinary person to bother with it.

Do you mean by this that there is 'pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine of re-birth'? — Wayfarer

No, I mean in general, about anything.

In the Buddhist circles I have interacted with, I've never experienced anything like that. I've given introductory talks at a Buddhist Library over the years, and the idea of re-birth comes up from time to time. My view is that nobody should be under any pressure to believe it, or to believe anything, for that matter.

You're flying first class, I'm flying coach. I have no doubt that your experience with Buddhism was markedly different than mine. You're an educated, classy person, people tend to naturally give you a measure of respect. And you're male, which is often really really helpful in religion/spirituality.
(Bear in mind that if I want to speak to a monk, I, on principle, need to have with me an adult male chaperon who understands the topic at hand.)

The 'secular Buddhist' organisation (yes, there is such thing) generally deprecates or rejects the idea of literal re-birth. They have long philosophical articles against it, saying that the belief was imported into Buddhism from the sorrounding culture. I don't agree with them, but there's nothing and nobody stopping them from saying it.

I know. One such secular Buddhist once asked me what my favorite Buddhist book was, and I said "the Pali Canon". He never spoke to me again. Ha!

The two of you don't seem to understand the epistemic and normative nature of religious claims. There's a reason why "philosophy" and "religion" are two categories.

A religious claim isn't intended to be analyzed by outsiders by their own standards (that are extraneous to the religion). One is supposed to "take it or leave it". One either understands it, or one doesn't. One either agrees with it, or one doesn't. That's it. The only action one is intended to take in regard to a religious claim is to try to make oneself see the truth of it.

Religious people and texts will usually not spell this out so clearly. (The Buddha did once.) One usually discovers the above truth the hard way -- when the religious person becomes so exasperated by one's questioning and attempts at discussion that they verbalize it like I did above, or else one can infer that this is what they mean when they assassinate one's character (like when they say things like, "How can you be so foolish that you don't see that this is the truth?!").

This is one of the reasons why outsiders' attempts at discussing religious claims are bound to be abortive.

"Nebulous" is certainly not the word I would use. I think the Early Buddhist take on rebirth is so complex and requires one to keep in mind so much doctrine that it's just too much for the ordinary person to bother with it. — baker

Well, that's actually what I meant by "nebulous", i.e., in the sense of not easy to grasp by an ordinary person. Obviously, monks and ascetics would be a different story. In fact I find certain Buddhist practices very helpful in getting a deeper insight into certain theoretical assumptions and as I explained in the thread on Greek and Indian philosophy - parallels and interchanges I tend to see some close parallels between Platonism and Indian traditions that may be worthwhile exploring.