Neoplatonism is a much more specific term than "objective idealism" (which is at its most specific associated with Hegel) not to mention "idealism"; an even less specific term.

Neoplatonism is a much more specific term than "objective idealism". — Janus

It really isn't. Look into it.

I think it’s better described as objective idealism. That is, Ideas or Forms are real, in that they’re not dependent on your or my mind, but they’re only graspable by a rational intelligence. — Wayfarer

Why call it idealism at all? Is everything that is grasped by a rational intelligence a form of idealism? Is mathematics a form of idealism?

The article continues:

"Although we have just referred to Plato, the term “idealism” became the name for a whole family of positions in philosophy only in the course of the eighteenth century." — Fooloso4

Yes. I'm going to just note that your objection comes with no support understandable to me and move on.

In regards to the Enneads by Plotinus, that book is an ordering of reality in relationship to the One. It is a system that attempts to be consistent to itself. The semantics and concern are much different than the character of Plato's Dialogues where the conversation goes where it goes.

So, what do you mean when you say Socrates 'demystifies' these virtues etc? — Wayfarer

... moderation and justice and courage and thoughtfulness itself are nothing but a kind of purifier.

It is this kind of purification that is needed for those who arrive in Hades.

Better if you tell me why you think it isn't.

In regards to the Enneads by Plotinus, that book is an ordering of reality in relationship to the One. It is a system that attempts to be consistent to itself. The semantics and concern are much different than the character of Plato's Dialogues where the conversation goes where it goes. — Valentinus

I'm aware of that. I probably should have used Gnosticism as an example of the freedom we give ourselves in baptizing ideologies.

Better if you tell me why you think it isn't. — Janus

What?

I'm trying to understand why that's significant to you. — frank

As a general interpretive principle I think it best to minimize the use of anachronistic terminology.

As a general interpretive principle I think it best to minimize the use of anachronistic terminology. — Fooloso4

Sure.

Better if you tell me why you think it isn't. — Janus


What? — frank

Neoplatonism is a much more specific term than "objective idealism" — Janus

Better if you tell me why 'neoplatonism' is not a more specific term than 'objective idealism', not to mention 'idealism'. If 'objective Idealism' is a specific term then it refers to Hegel's philosophy; if it is used to refer to Plato's (completely different) range of ideas as found in the dialogues, then the term has lost its specificity. Is there controversy about what the term 'neoplatonism' refers to?

Is there controversy about what the term 'neoplatonism' refers to? — Janus

No controversy. The term picks out philosophers over a 1200 year span and multiple cultural settings.

Plato's views are called idealism by professionals. — frank

There are different schools of thought. There are also many scholars who avoid the use of anachronistic terminology. The idea is, to the extent it is possible, to understand an author on his own terms using his own terminology.

Why call it idealism at all? Is everything that is grasped by a rational intelligence a form of idealism? Is mathematics a form of idealism? — Fooloso4

Mathematical Platonism is, and it’s strongly rejected by many modern philosophers on those very grounds. I agree that Plato would of course not have used the term ‘idealism’, but practically all synoptic accounts of Western philosophy trace what later becomes ‘idealism’ back to Plato’s theory of Ideas, for reasons that ought to be pretty obvious.

//edit @Janus - as to the matter of classifying types, Hegel’s is generally classified as absolute idealism. Strangely enough, if you do a random search on ‘objective idealism’, one of the first name that comes up is C S Pierce. However that is again another issue - a ‘meta-philosophical’ one, you might say.

There are different schools of thought. There are also many scholars who avoid the use of anachronistic terminology. The idea is, to the extent it is possible, to understand an author on his own terms using his own terminology. — Fooloso4

Do you want to continue this here or start a different thread?

As a general interpretive principle I think it best to minimize the use of anachronistic terminology. — Fooloso4

Yep.

It really is that simple.

The terms 'absolute idealism' and 'objective idealism' being polemically opposed to relative or subjective idealism are synonymous, as I understand them. Both terms are definitely applied predominately to Hegel.

I don't deny that Plato's philosophy could, with a bit of judicious massaging, be understood as a form of objective idealism, but I think the term is correctly applied to monistic thinkers who reject any kind of transcendence, or noumenon, which Plato's philosophy (and Kant's, which Hegel was explicitly working against) does not.

I think @Fooloso4 is right to reject the use of what can only be considered anachronistic, unnecessary and unhelpful terminology. Trying to equate Plato's philosophy with neoplatonism would be no different than trying to understand Kant in terms of neokantianism, that is it would be bound to mislead.

I think this section important - his pleasurable release from painful tight chains.
Death might be seen as a welcome release from the physical body with all its discomforts.
The pain of life v the joy of the afterlife ?*
There is a separation. Not here a mingling as felt by Phaedo.
— Amity

That release on the last day of his life is important. The inclusion of Xanthippe gives sharp relief to her charge that one last party is planned with his friends. The friends' concern about the subject of death is mixed up with the realization that they won't have Socrates to animate them any longer.

Pardon the lateness of my reply. I am working in meatspace presently so I will participate in a delayed fashion. — Valentinus

Your reply is most welcome - indeed any considered replies and comments about the text are - no matter when they arrive on the scene.

The themes of pain/pleasure - chains/release - body/soul - fear/desire - bad/good continue throughout. *
From the OP:

As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

Later: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534374

a comedy or tragedy
— Fooloso4
Both ?
— Amity

Yes. The idea of opposites not being mutually exclusive will come up several times. — Fooloso4

Right now, I am struggling to keep up with the reading, now at:
67c - 76e pp12-25 as covered by @Fooloso4 here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924

* p12 67d

Then doesn't purification turn out to be just what's been mentioned for some while in our discussion--the parting of the soul from the body as far as possible, and the habituating of it to assemble and gather itself together, away from every part of the body, alone by itself, and to live, so far as it can, both in the present and in the hereafter, released from the body, as from fetters?

The weekend is here, the sun is shining, I am going out...having just finished p14.
Way to go... :cool:

Trying to equate Plato's philosophy with neoplatonism would be no different than trying to understand Kant in terms of neokantianism, that is it would be bound to mislead. — Janus

I don't think anyone was "trying to equate Plato's philosophy with neoplatonism". "Neoplatonism" is a neologism anyway.

But @Fooloso4 appears to have gone in the opposite direction or extreme and made up his mind to reject everyone's reading of the dialogues except his own.

Trying to equate Plato's philosophy with neoplatonism would be no different than trying to understand Kant in terms of neokantianism, that is it would be bound to mislea — Janus

By Fooloso4's principle Neoplatonism isn't idealism either. :joke:

Whatever, let's move on.

I think @Fooloso4 is right to reject the use of what can only be considered anachronistic, unnecessary and unhelpful terminology. — Janus

Sure. But that raises the difficulty as to what constitutes non-anachronistic, necessary and helpful terminology. Are we going to start using Plato's own Greek terms? And how do we decide on their precise meaning when it has already been determined that the dialogues can, and maybe should, be interpreted in many different ways?

Plato's own Greek terms? And how do we decide on their precise meaning when it has already been determined that the dialogues can, and maybe should, be interpreted in many different ways? — Apollodorus

Plato's own Greek terms were often varied and indeterminate. Plato deliberately did not employ precise or just consistent meanings throughout his works or even within the same dialogue.

Why? Perhaps his philosophy was a work in progress with many problems and hypothesized solutions still open in his mind. He suggested many alternatives for discussion or debate but certainly not for fixed single-minded interpretation. Although Plato's philosophy can be partially reconstituted for a single dialogue as implied by the setting, events, and characters portrayed.

Plato's own Greek terms were often varied and indeterminate. Plato deliberately did not employ precise or just consistent meanings throughout his works or even within the same dialogue.

Why? Perhaps his philosophy was a work in progress with many problems and hypothesized solutions still open in his mind. — magritte

Perhaps. I think another reason was that philosophical or spiritual teachings were transmitted orally. But that doesn't eliminate the problem of terminology and meaning.

Plato's own Greek terms were often varied and indeterminate. Plato deliberately did not employ precise or just consistent meanings throughout his works or even within the same dialogue. — magritte

Interesting. Well worth keeping in mind. I expect there exists a Glossary somewhere which might help ? *

the problem of terminology and meaning. — Apollodorus

Which translation are you reading ?
I have read English translations of e.g. original Chinese; 'The Tao Te Ching' being the most recent.
I appreciate the problem of understanding the meaning.
However, good translations of foreign texts will usually include an Introduction, Notes on the text and address problems of interpretation. They discuss other interpretations and meanings and give reasons for their own choice.

I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf

but relying on this one: Plato-Phaedo-Focus-Philosophical-Library/dp/0941051692. Certain terms from this edition will be used in place of what is found in the online translation. — Fooloso4

If you look at the Contents page here:

Plato's Phaedo - this pdf is the translation with notes by David Gallop.
The translation 1
Notes 74
Notes on text and translation 226
Bibliographies 239
Abbreviations 242
Index 244 — Amity

The Notes run from pp 74 - 226.

For me, looking up each and every note as I read the translation stops the flow.
However, if a problem arises or when I have completed the reading, then the Notes should prove useful.
How about the translation(s) you are reading/have read ?

* found this glossary - there might be a better one elsewhere:
https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Ancient%20Philosophy/Glossary.htm#N

Now, can we get on with the job of reading the text ? [ Perhaps comparing translations if and when necessary] ?
That would be nice...

However, good translations of foreign texts will usually include an Introduction, Notes on the text and address problems of interpretation. They discuss other interpretations and meanings and give reasons for their own choice. — Amity

No one disputes that. But @Fooloso4 said he reads the dialogues differently every time he reads them and he intends to disregard meanings suggested by Platonists like Plotinus and modern scholars alike.

No one disputes that. — Apollodorus

N.B. I was addressing your post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536374

But that doesn't eliminate the problem of terminology and meaning. — Apollodorus

But Fooloso4 said he reads the dialogues differently every time he reads them and he intends to disregard meanings suggested by Platonists like Plotinus and modern scholars alike. — Apollodorus

Still you focus on @Fooloso4.
I will leave him to address your 'concerns', misunderstandings or misrepresentations - yet again... :roll:

More distraction from actually reading the text.
Why ? Continual thread disruption needs to be addressed - possibly by the mods ?

I will leave him to address your concerns - yet again — Amity

I won't. When he deliberately alters what I have said, as he has done and elsewhere, I no longer respond. Disagreement is one thing, dishonesty another. Disagreement I address, dishonesty I call out and the conversation ends.

I won't. When he deliberately alters what I have said, as he has done and elsewhere, I no longer respond. — Fooloso4

Good call.
I have had enough and contacted @fdrake via PM.
Also flagged posts.

@Apollodorus - this thread is an earnest attempt to engage with the text of Plato's Phaedo, if you are unable or unwilling to do so, take it elsewhere. I invite people to flag posts in this thread that they believe are not strictly on topic and I (or someone else) will moderate them accordingly.

If you want to join in, do your best to make it textual. That's gonna hold for everyone.