Well, in my view, Socrates did believe in God — Apollodorus
Well, not like a personal god, right? More like animism of some kind? — frank
One indescribable Supreme Being (similar to what Plotinus calls "the One"). — Apollodorus
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
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". — Apollodorus
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
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. — Apollodorus
Plotinus did believe everything is God. You're just not accepting that as a form of animism. — frank
Big fundamental difference. — Apollodorus
There are different kinds of animism. To believe that the universe is alive counts. — frank
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. — frank
Plus, animism has no bearing on reincarnation. — Apollodorus
In a way it does, animal reincarnation, for instance. — frank
You need to read basic texts like Plotinus to understand that. — Apollodorus
(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
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've read some of the enneads just to see what it was like. I mainly stuck with secondary resources during my Augustine phase. — frank
I think that's very much Platonism as filtered through later Christian theology. — Wayfarer
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
Far from being a denial of Socrates atheism, it is an affirmation of it. — Fooloso4
Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things. — Fooloso4
"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.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
No, I mean in general, about anything.Do you mean by this that there is 'pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine of re-birth'? — Wayfarer
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.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.
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 '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.
"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
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.