From matter to intellect to the forms: the ascent to the One according to Platonic tradition

Apollodorus

From matter to intellect to the forms: the ascent to the One according to Platonic tradition

I’m starting this thread to explore some central elements of Platonism from a traditional perspective. I am providing a very brief introduction after which I intend to discuss some passages from Platonic texts.

I. PLATO, THE ACADEMY AND THE QUEST FOR A JUST SOCIETY

Plato is one of the most if not the most influential figure in the history of philosophy.

He was born in 427 BC to an upper-class Athenian family and lived to the age of eighty.

As described by the historian Thucydides, this was a tumultuous period. The Greek city-states had begun to unite in the face of Persian aggression and the Greek world was slowly moving in the direction of becoming a great empire.

However, personal and public life was dominated by an attitude of mind that valued honour and glory over other virtues and much of Plato’s written work is an attempt to counteract this trend that threatened the creation of a society in which citizens could “dwell together in unity”.

Although Plato’s writings have a spiritual content, he pays special attention to the cultivation of virtues. In 387 BC, he established a philosophical school at Athens, the Academy, to provide training to those interested in philosophy and, especially, to train future statesmen to become “philosopher kings” or wise rulers of the ideal city or city-state.

The curriculum at the Academy probably included mathematics, dialectic (philosophy proper) and astronomy. According to a tradition going back to Plato’s pupil Aristotle, which seems to be supported by Plato’s own writings (Phaedrus 274b – 278e), in addition to his written works, Plato also left a body of unwritten or esoteric doctrines (ágrapha dogmata).

Plato’s teachings were transmitted in a long line of philosophers stretching from his direct disciples to Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus and medieval philosophers to the present day. Platonism also influenced Christian, Islamic and other religious and mystical traditions.

Plato’s works are often in the form of dialogues between various characters discussing philosophical issues. To better understand the structure of Plato’s dialogues it may be helpful to bear in mind two key institutions in Ancient Greek society and culture: the symposium and dramatic performances.

The symposium (symposion, “drinking together”) was central to the Greek cultural context in which philosophers like Socrates and Plato operated. Greek banquets consisted of a communal meal held in honour of the Gods. The symposium proper followed the meal, when drinking of wine tempered with water was accompanied by games, music and discussions among the men. There were significant differences between symposia. Ordinary symposia would have entailed discussions about such topics as love, poetry or politics. Philosophical symposia naturally revolved around philosophical discussions.

While the symposium was a private affair, dramatic performances were part of public life, especially during official festivals, participation in which was an important part of being a Greek citizen. Modern words such as theatre, drama, comedy and tragedy are derived from this key element of Ancient Greek culture. Tragedy (τραγῳδία tragodia) in the traditional sense was a drama invoking an accompanying catharsis, or a "pain [that] awakens pleasure", for the audience.

Plato’s works must be seen as containing discussions in the form of dialogues (another word of Greek origin) as would have taken place during a philosophical symposium or dramatic performance with a spiritual message.

II. PHILOSOPHY AS A PREPARATION FOR THE AFTERLIFE

Although Greek philosophy probably emerged from local Greek or Indo-European wisdom traditions, parallels with Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Indian philosophy suggest possible external influence. Egypt, with which Greece maintained close commercial and cultural links is of particular interest. For example, Pythagoras is said to have travelled to Egypt in search of spiritual knowledge and Plato himself is said to have studied in Egypt.

The Ancient Egyptian outlook on death was not focused on fear as much as it was preparing and transitioning into a new prosperous afterlife. However, immortality depended on the Gods’ post-death judgement of the soul’s character and deeds. As a result, much of human-life was centered on the hopeful attitude that if one is moral, one will live forever in a blissful afterlife in paradise.

Greek philosophy seems to follow the Egyptian outlook, with philosophical life being regarded as a preparation for death. Virtuous conduct on earth was regarded as the path to higher realms of existence after death, while an unvirtuous life led to a place of suffering. This was particularly central to the tradition established by Pythagoras and Plato.

III. THE ASCENT TO THE ONE

While a happy life in paradise was one aim of philosophy, its ultimate aim was mystical union with God. This was particularly emphasised by Plotinus (204-270 CE) who, after Plato, is regarded as one of the founders of Platonism.

Plotinus used Plato’s teachings, especially as found in Timaeus and Politeia (Republic), to develop an elaborate system of monistic philosophy that classifies reality into three fundamental principles or categories: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul.

Therefore, Platonism may be characterised as a “triadic” system comprising of a triadic classification of reality as well as a threefold objective of attaining happiness (1) in society, (2) in the afterlife and (3) in union with the Divine.

Although Ultimate Reality (the One) is referred to as indescribable, unknowable through ordinary reason, and transcendent, it is also regarded as the source of all things.

Therefore, the whole of reality may be seen as comprising three basic levels of intelligence: the indescribable "One" (to En), the Cosmic Mind (Nous) and the Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

If we compare intelligence with light, then these levels would be as follows:

1. Pure, changeless light in itself = the One (to En)
2. The Sun = Cosmic Mind or Universal Intelligence (Nous)
3. The Moon (whose light is a reflection of the light of the Sun) = Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

The One, the Cosmic Mind which forms the invisible world of intelligible realities and the Cosmic Soul which forms the visible world of material realities, are one inseparable unity.

The whole of existence is brought into being by the One through a process of emanation. But emanation is followed by a return to the One. This forms a triadic cycle of abiding-procession-return, μονή mone, πρόοδος proodos, επιστροφή epistrophe.

Thus, simply put, the Universal Intelligence abides in itself, proceeds out of itself in creation and reverts back into itself by a process of interiorisation of consciousness. When the One looks outwards, as it were, it emanates the Universe. When it looks inwards, it contemplates only Itself.

The human soul (psyche) itself has three basic levels:

1. Intellectual aspect responsible for thought processes.
2. Emotional aspect responsible for feelings and emotions.
3. Sensual aspect responsible for sense perception, imagination and bodily desires.

The core of the human soul, which may be termed "spirit" (nous or pneuma) is essentially identical with the Cosmic Mind (Nous) from which it emanates. This essential identity enables the human soul to return to the One through the same process of interiorization of consciousness.

The metaphysical worldview of Platonists like Plotinus, is concentric and hierarchical. Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. In higher experience we see with the “eye of the heart”.

The process of return to or reunion with the One entails (1) the cultivation of virtues, (2) acquisition of knowledge and (3) mystical union.

The cultivation of virtues serves a dual purpose: to enable the philosopher to become a good citizen and contribute to the establishment of a just and happy society, and to prepare him for a higher form of knowledge and experience.

The process of return to the One is a threefold process consisting of:

Purification (katharsis)
Inner llumination (elampsis or photismos)
Union with the Divine or deification (enosis or theosis).

In Politeia Plato likened the tripatite human soul to the three classes of ideal society, rulers, military and workers which were organised into a harmonious whole for the good of all. The same principles that guided and organised the inhabitants of this ideal city-state (Kallipolis) were to guide and organise the soul’s three parts.

Through the philosophical training of the soul’s sensual part man acquires temperance or self-control (sophrosýne). Through the training of the emotional part he acquires bravery (andreίa). And through the training of the intellect he acquires common sense or wisdom in practical things (phrónesis, lit., “prudence”). The highest virtue is righteousness (dikaiosýne) which is the essence and source of all other virtues. It consists of knowledge of good and evil and it ensures the right ordering and harmonious co-operation of the soul’s three parts.

Once the soul has been purified by means of self-control and virtuous conduct and has acquired a good understanding of the concepts of right and wrong, it is ready to understand what is true and what is false and acquaint itself with the higher world of spirit which will be its new abode.
The physical world is a world of constant change, deceptive appearances and passing enjoyments. True and lasting happiness is to be found only by detaching oneself from the world of the senses and appearances, which is a world of shadows, and ascending to the world of spiritual realities, which is a world of light.

In Phaedrus, Plato compared the soul to a charioteer whose chariot (the body) was drawn by two winged horses, on the right, a white horse symbolising the higher aspirations of the emotional part and, on the left, a black horse symbolising the lower inclinations of the sensual part. While the Gods possessed two well-trained horses that enabled them to travel heavenwards with ease, ordinary man had an unruly black horse constantly pulling the chariot downwards in the direction of Earth or material existence.

The task of the human intellect (man’s true self) is to attain mastery over the two lower parts of his inner self (the two horses) in order to ascend heavenwards, like the Gods, hence the necessity of self-discipline or restraint (enkratia). Wisdom itself was defined as thought withdrawn from the lower levels of existence, lifting the soul to the higher planes.

In this context, Plato introduces the analogy of the Sun (Politeia 509d-513e):

"And this is he [the Sun] whom I call the child of the Good [the One], whom the Good begat in his own likeness, to be in the visible world, in relation to sight and the things of sight, what the Good is in the intellectual world in relation to mind and the things of mind [...]

And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and understands and is radiant with intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence [...]

You would say, would you not, that the Sun is not only the author of visibility in all visible things, but of generation and nourishment and growth, though he himself is not generation?[...]

In like manner the Good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the Good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power."

After which he introduces the line that divides the phenomenal from the noumenal or the physical from the spiritual.

What Plato is saying here is that above the phenomenal world or world of appearances is the intelligible or noumenal world which is illumined by the Good. The Good is also the source of all ideas that constitute the intelligible world, copies of which make up the phenomenal world. In other words, the whole of existence, including soul, originates in the Good and is bathed in its light just as the physical world is bathed in the light of the sun.

In particular, the Good (Agathon) is the source of truth, order, justice, beauty, goodness, happiness, in short, of everything that is good and of value or beneficial. In Platonism there is a systematic connection between the true, the beautiful and the good.

Another analogy provided by Plato in Politeia (514a–520) is the analogy of the cave illustrating how unenlightened men are prisoners in the world of appearances and their own perception of it, in the same way prisoners held captive inside a cave have no direct perception of the outside world except the shadows cast on the cave wall by objects passing by the cave entrance. By contrast, the philosopher by means of knowledge frees himself from the world of shadows and ascends to the spiritual world of light.

In the same way creation was seen as a process of abidance, procession and return, humanity was seen as going through cyclic phases known as the Four Ages of Mankind. These comprised an original Golden Age ruled by righteousness, peace and happiness, in which men lived very long lives in harmony with each other and with the gods, followed by increasingly dark ages of Silver, Bronze and Iron, in which, corrupted by contact with the physical world, men lived a life of conflict and strife and growing separation from the divine.

Closely related to this was the Doctrine of Transmigration (metempsýchosis or metensomátosis) which taught that, having originally been perfect and godlike, the ordinary, spiritually unawakened or unenlightened soul had become an imperfect creature which must be reborn in a series of different bodies in order to finally attain perfection, peace and happiness.

It is significant that in Politeia (614–621), Plato presents an account of the adventures of the war hero Er. The story begins as a man named Er, son of Armenios of Pamphylia, dies in battle. When the bodies of those who died in the battle are collected, ten days after his death, Er’s body remains undecomposed. Two days later he revives as his body is about to be consumed on the funeral-pyre and tells others of his journey in the afterlife, including an account of reincarnation and the celestial spheres of the astral plane. The account also includes the idea that moral people are rewarded and immoral people punished after death.

Plato's Er's Near-Death Experience - Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

The celebrated poet Pindar relates that departed souls are met by Rhadamanthus, stern and implacable judge of the underworld and right hand of Cronus (the personification of Time), who decides their fate. If they have led a virtuous or righteous life, they go on the road of Zeus to the Tower of Cronus and enjoy a happy afterlife in the company of Heroes and Gods. They dwell on the Island of the Blessed in the western ocean, surrounded by splendid trees with golden blossoms watered by nurturing streams under a never-setting Sun. - Olympian 2, 68ff.

Elsewhere the Island of the Blessed is described as "abounding in fruit and birds of every kind” (Pliny), etc.

Plato follows the tradition closely, adding that after three lifetimes as philosophers, evolved souls free themselves from the cycle of death and rebirth (Phaedrus, 249a f.).

Thus the message seems to be that philosophy is the means by which man not only is enabled to build a just society on earth but also ultimately escapes the confines of physical existence and the never-ending cycle of death and rebirth.

As Plotinus puts it:

"For we and what is ours goes back to real being and we ascend to that real being" VI 5,7, 1-8

Recollection (anamnesis) plays a key role in assisting the soul to re-ascend to the One. In addition to intellectual training proper, Platonism also employs prayer, contemplation, etc.

A. Setaioli, Plutarch and Pindar's eschatology - Academia.edu

A. Uzdavinys, The Golden Chain: An Anthology of Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy

A. Long, ed., Immortality in Ancient Philosophy

J. M. Dillon and A. Timotin, Platonic Theories of Prayer

M. Wakoff, “Awaiting the Sun: A Plotinian Form of Contemplative Prayer”, Platonic Theories of Prayer

International Society for Neoplatonic Studies – ISNS

Plato - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Internet Classics - The Works of Plato

Apollodorus

PLATONIC EPISTEMOLOGY: THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION

A central theme in Platonic writings is knowledge. Plato drew a clear line between knowledge acquired through reason (episteme) and opinion (doxa). However, opinion was not just any opinion but right opinion. For example, if somebody knew the way to Larisa (the city where Meno was born) without himself having travelled there, his knowledge would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion (Meno 97b). A third form of knowledge is knowledge acquired through direct experience (gnosis). As we shall see, there is a higher form of knowledge, namely, wisdom or sophia.

In everyday life, knowledge is primarily obtained through sensory perception. The study of the process or phenomenon of perception enables us to understand how knowledge comes about.

The physical world consists of five primary elements or principles, earth, water, fire, air and ether (or space). Despite their names, these primary elements are not the physical substances earth, water, etc., but patterns of energy in which minute particles move, vibrate, or radiate in particular ways (Timaeus 31b ff.). Combinations of elements make up all physical substances and objects.

The physical objects and their characteristics are perceived by the soul by means of its sense faculties, smelling, tasting, feeling by touch, hearing and seeing.

For example, through the physical organ “eye” and associated faculty of “sight”, etc., the sensual aspect (epithymetikon) registers discrete sensory perceptions such as colour and combines them into a mental image (eidolon). This image is taken up and analysed by the intellectual aspect (logistikon), given a name and assessed in terms of its relevance to the self. The emotional part (thymos) then reacts emotionally to the image and a decision is reached as to the course of action (if any) to be taken. All these mental functions or operations exist within, and are illumined by, the light of spirit or nous.

What becomes clear is that in ordinary perception we have no direct apprehension of the objects “out there”, but only of the mental image that the sensual aspect of our mind forms out of a multitude of points, minute particles, or atoms of perception such as colour, etc. What we perceive is not the actual object but a mental copy of it.

One question that arises is, how does our intellect know what the object of experience is? For example, on seeing an object such as a flower, on what basis does the intellect say or think, “this is a flower”? On the face of it, the answer might be “through experience”. We experienced an object called “flower” before and on perceiving it now, we recollect having experienced the same or a similar object in the past. The name and past experience stored in our memory are revived on contact with the current image and mentally associated with the object we perceive or experience now and this enables us to identify and name it.

However, Plato asserts that the physical world and its constituent substances and objects are in constant flux, which makes sensory input inaccurate and unreliable. True knowledge can only be acquired by referring to higher realities apprehended through a higher faculty of intuitive perception. Therefore, at this point, Plato introduces the concept of “ideas” or “forms”. The object we perceive is an imperfect copy of a perfect and unchanging “idea” (eidos), or “pattern” (paradeigma). The same applies to concepts or ideas and everything else that makes up the world of multiplicity: “fire”, “earth”, “man”, “beautiful”, “just”, etc. When we perceive a physical object, we recall our innate memory or knowledge of its ideal form and the name associated with it.

Critics have questioned the soundness of the Theory of Forms and Plato himself was aware that his theory was not perfect. Yet he kept it all the same and for a good reason. Philosophy does use logic, but it is not a slave to strict or pure logic. Like a true philosopher, Plato aimed to look at the mental processes and concepts behind perception and at the activities of consciousness behind mental processes and concepts in order to arrive at the ultimate source of all knowledge – consciousness (nous) itself.

Greek culture itself had a tendency to personify abstract concepts or universals. Time was personified by Cronus, Justice by Dike, Love and Beauty by Aphrodite, Sleep by Hypnos, Death by Thanatos, etc. So, the concept of eternal, ideal Forms or Patterns was in a sense implicit in Greek thought. What Plato actually proposes to do is to illustrate the fact that in the same way as the physical world is organized according to certain set patterns, so the intelligible world, the world of spirit, too, is ordered according to pre-established patterns.

As sunrays radiate from the Sun in waves of light, the physical World emanates from the World-Soul and is simultaneously made visible to man by its light, in a constant process. This constant emanation, projection or overflow of the World is not and cannot be random, otherwise a completely different world might be created every moment. Creation follows certain pre-existing patterns: the objects which make up the World belong to certain species or classes, possess certain qualities such as colour, quantity or size, stand in a particular relation to other objects, etc. These patterns are present in the ideal world of the Cosmic Mind (Nous).

Of course, man cannot expect to grasp the precise details of creation which are known only to the Creator. These teachings merely serve to point out the fact that the Natural World in which man lives is a world of appearances (the Greek word phýsis, “nature”, also means appearance from phýo, “to appear”) and that the reality behind it can be found only in the Divine World-Mind which has created it.

The problem that Platonism seeks to solve is how the absolute unity of spirit becomes the multiplicity of thought and matter.

The concept of abstract ideas (eidea) such as “fire”, “earth”, “man”, “beautiful”, “just”, existing on a higher plane from which they are copied into the physical world serves in the first place to point to the fact that particulars can be reduced to universals.

Although specific objects are distinct from each other, they may share common properties or features such as colour. For example, the feature “blueness” is the universal shared by the chicory flower, blue paint and the sky. Thus, blueness enables us to grasp the concept of unity in multiplicity.

The Greek word “idea”, eidos, is related to the verb “to see”, eidon which is cognate with Latin video, "to see". In the physical world of matter, to see means to perceive an object that is distinct and separate from ourselves. In the intelligible world of spirit, to see means to think, ideate, or bring into being a concept or thing. For Plato, knowledge was ultimately a form of being, or mental seeing in which intelligence becomes the object of experience while retaining awareness of itself at all times.

In order to understand the concept of “ideas” (eidea), “patterns” (paradeigmata) or “forms” it may be helpful to think of universals such as “colour”, “number”, “size”, “distance”, etc. However, it is important to understand that universals are posterior to particulars. We first perceive a number of particulars from which we abstract one (or more) universals. In contrast, Plato's ideas or forms are prior to particulars. They are the "essences" and "patterns" from which particulars are formed.

The ideas themselves ultimately consist of creative intelligence. Contemplation on the ideas leads to a direct experience of how intelligence “projects” or “emanates” objects of experience and the soul realises its essential identity with the Cosmic or Divine Mind (Nous), in the same way the centres of two circles get closer and closer to each other until they become one.

From the individual soul’s point of view, contemplation of the One is the highest form of knowledge. In contrast to this, from the perspective of the One, the highest form of knowledge is self-contemplation. Therefore, the highest form of knowledge, wisdom (sophia), is self-knowledge, that is, the knowledge that consciousness has of itself as self-aware, creative intelligence.

This is very clearly stated by Plato in Phaedo (65a – 67b; 79c, d) and emphasised by Plotinus. In fact, this may be seen as the core of Plotinus’ and other Platonists' teachings.

Self-knowledge in the highest sense goes beyond normal forms of knowledge such as opinion, reason and experience. Therefore, it cannot be expressed in words or grasped mentally. It can only be experienced in an ecstatic state that our limited intellectual faculties cannot grasp or explain. For example, the most attempts to describe this state have produced are approximate depictions of "infinite light, love and joy" and of a sense of "becoming alive" for the first time and in a way that completely eclipses all experiences of ordinary life in the same way the light of a candle is eclipsed by strong sunlight. It is an experience that totally transforms you and makes you part of a much larger and more powerful reality of whose existence you were totally unaware (in any case not consciously or fully) until that point.

As such depictions are meaningless to those unfamiliar with the experience, this illustrates the difficulty or impossibility of conveying the experience to others. Moreover, the impact this experience can have on the untrained mind makes it imperative to undergo prior intellectual training. The prescribed progression from purification to illumination to oneness, is to be strictly followed and "short cuts" to be avoided.

In any case, Plotinus is said to have taught from his own experience of union with the One (enosis). In the Life of Plotinus, his disciple Porphyry relates that his master attained an exalted state four times in his life.

However, despite its mystical side, Platonism remains a practical philosophy. The purpose of attaining Oneness is not to become completely absorbed or submerged in Ultimate Reality, but, in Plotinus’ own words, “to give back the divine in us to the divine in all”.

Plotinus - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Internet Classics Archive | The Six Enneads by Plotinus (mit.edu)

Zenny

@Apollodorus Now this is a thread! I'm sure I'm gonna disagree on lots of things,and I'm not a plato fan. But finally,someone does justice to the mystic side of plato and plotinus.
As a somewhat "mystic",I'm looking forward to your commentary. For too long plato has been secularised!
And ive had to listen to guff from secularists for too long!
Thumbs up!

Jack Cummins

↪Apollodorus

I have just read your thread discussion and found it interesting, although you have not raised any questions. So, I am imagining that you are leaving any potential discussion open. What I found most useful was the link about Plotinus, as I have just finished reading a collection of his writings. The idea in the link on this which I thought about is that he challenged the Gnostic emphasis on the fall into matter and the belief that matter is evil.

I have mixed views on Gnosticism, because on one hand I do query the emphasis on the body as being evil. From, my own reading in this area it does appear that the Gnostics almost had a sense of disregard for the body. However, I do believe that the whole emphasis on inner knowing is important. However, I would imagine that Plotinus would probably have wished to hold on to that idea. I also found it interesting to read about Plato's account of near death experiences, and it is useful to think about that in comparison with that of other accounts, especially 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

180 Proof

Platonism-Aristotleanism :point: reification fallacies abound (re: "transcendent" Forms, The Good, The One, Souls, Final Causes).

Antidote (pharmakon): Laozi-Zhaungzi ... or Pyrrho-Sextus Empiricus & Epicurus-Lucretius ... or Spinoza-Nietzsche & Zapffe-Camus ...

Just my two drachmas.

Apollodorus

I have just read your thread discussion and found it interesting, although you have not raised any questions. So, I am imagining that you are leaving any potential discussion open. What I found most useful was the link about Plotinus, as I have just finished reading a collection of his writings. The idea in the link on this which I thought about is that he challenged the Gnostic emphasis on the fall into matter and the belief that matter is evil. — Jack Cummins

I've been trying to find some links to a few academic publications that would have been useful to consider in the discussion but, unfortunately, they aren't easy to find. But I've added a few links anyway and I've made some minor amendments to highlight or clarify a few points.

You are correct about some Gnostic beliefs regarding matter which are, of course, unacceptable from a Platonic perspective that views the whole of reality, including matter, as an emanation of Ultimate Reality, the One, or the Good. Obviously, different traditions and teachers emphasize different points. It may be argued that some Gnostics described matter as "evil" in order to drive home the need to focus one's mind on higher realities. Unfortunately, especially without a qualified teacher or guide, this can give rise to a plethora of misunderstandings. In this respect, Plotinus makes a better teacher than other philosophers of his time.

I do agree that the Tibetan Book of the Dead makes highly interesting reading. Apart from Jung and the writings of the early Church Fathers (who were influenced by Platonism) it makes an important contribution to psychology and metaphysics and it also links to the Yoga tradition of Hinduism which is another highly relevant system IMO.

Jack Cummins

↪Apollodorus

I did read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' when I was at college. I have read a certain amount about Hinduism when I was a student, but I after that time I became more familiar with theosophy, which looks to links between the various ideas underlying the various traditions, from Eastern ideas to the more esoteric ideas within Christianity. Have you read much in that direction?

Apollodorus

↪Jack Cummins

Yes, Theosophy does tend to link various traditions. Unfortunately, its founder Blavatsky was very obviously a self-educated and self-styled "guru". Her teachings may have convinced a few uncritical Americans unacquainted with philosophical and spiritual matters, but they were strongly (and I think convincingly) dismissed as forgeries by Arthur Lillie, Rene Guenon, Jung, Eliade and many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky#Reception

Similar links have been made by others, without resorting to plagiarism and patently false claims. Noticing parallels between different traditions - in so far as they are factual - is a statement of fact. It doesn't make one a divinely appointed prophet or spiritual master. When trying to find the truth, the best way is to go to the sources. At least that's what I have been trying to do.

Jack Cummins

↪Apollodorus

I think that I do see it as being more important to look to original sources, rather than just the plagiarism of others, such as Blavatsky. However, that is mainly after 8 months of engaging on this forum and being more critical of source material than I was.

Apollodorus

↪Jack Cummins

I agree. Exploring philosophical and especially metaphysical matters within a like-minded group while also staying receptive to input from outside the group is far better than struggling on your own.

Apollodorus

↪Jack Cummins

To go back to the Gnostics, the problem of evil is something philosophy has been grappling with from the start. Plotinus himself seems to believe that matter has a corrupting influence on the soul and therefore can be a source of evil, even though he rejects the Gnostic view.

The question is why does the One which is pure Goodness, create evil/allow evil to arise? Personally, I think this is a matter of perspective. When the Good creates the World, it can’t just make a perfect replica of itself. It must create some imperfections. To take Plotinus’ analogy of fire, if we compare the Good with fire, the centre comes closest to its true nature, whereas the periphery is further and further away from it. The Intelligible World or World of Spirit is at the centre of the Good, whereas matter is at its outermost limits, where light is closest to darkness.

The fact is that the Universe and the planet Earth are essentially good or at least neutral. Even in human society, evil is an exception. Therefore, the Universe is mostly good and only partly evil. Now, if we think of Ultimate Reality as an infinite expanse of Goodness and, by comparison, of evil as infinitely small and insignificant, then the perspective changes considerably.

It also may be argued, from a religious point of view, that suffering is compensated after death or, if we believe in reincarnation, that it is justified by actions committed before birth.

But I think the strongest argument may be this, that if everything is a creation of the One out of itself, then the suffering entities are nothing but the One. This is precisely what enlightened souls are supposed to ultimately realise, i.e. that suffering only takes place on the plane of phenomena and in the degree that soul identifies with the objects of that plane. Even before enlightenment, they strive to create a society that is good and just, ensuring that goodness eventually prevails.

Possibility

Platonism-Aristotleanism :point: reification fallacies abound (re: "transcendent" Forms, The Good, The One, Souls, Final Causes).

Antidote (pharmakon): Laozi-Zhaungzi ... or Pyrrho-Sextus Empiricus & Epicurus-Lucretius ... or Spinoza-Nietzsche & Zapffe-Camus ...

Just my two drachmas. — 180 Proof

I’m inclined to agree with you. There seems to me to be a misunderstanding here with regard to Plato’s dialogues - taking Socrates’ speculations as the core philosophical theory, rather than following the process or ‘way’ demonstrated by the dialogues themselves. IMHO Taoism and - dare I say it - Christianity make similar errors.

Apollodorus

There seems to me to be a misunderstanding here with regard to Plato’s dialogues - taking Socrates’ speculations as the core philosophical theory, — Possibility

It seems to me that the misunderstanding lies in the unwarranted attempt to interpret Platonic texts as "speculations" which can only lead to nihilism. The OP is about how Platonists view the dialogues, not their detractors.

Possibility

It seems to me that the misunderstanding lies in the unwarranted attempt to interpret Platonic texts as "speculations" which can only lead to nihilism. The OP is about how Platonists view the dialogues, not their detractors. — Apollodorus

I don’t doubt that’s how it would seem to you. I’m making an observation on how Platonists view the dialogues, as you’ve outlined here. I’m just not commenting from within Platonism.

And I’m not interpreting Platonic texts as ‘speculations’. I’m saying that there are elements of the dialogues that even Socrates admits as speculation, which Platonism assumes, reifies, and on which their theory is constructed. That recognising them as speculation may ultimately lead to contemplating nihilism is not entirely unwarranted, but that’s beside the point.

My point is that Platonists appear to mistake the dialogues themselves (or Socrates’ voice) for truth, not as an instantiated demonstration of ‘the way’ to truth. And I’m suggesting that the mistake is a common one in relation to ancient sacred texts and/or heuristic devices within them.

Apollodorus

My point is that Platonists appear to mistake the dialogues themselves (or Socrates’ voice) for truth, not as an instantiated demonstration of ‘the way’ to truth. And I’m suggesting that the mistake is a common one in relation to ancient sacred texts and/or heuristic devices within them. — Possibility

Yes, some Platonists do appear to do that. Of course Socratic arguments may sound like speculation but they tend to be rational speculation and they serve to stimulate inquiry. If, as you say, they demonstrate the way to truth, that's even better. I for one see Platonism as a practical system, "applied philosophy" if you will, and I think its followers are quite capable of distinguishing truth from purely intellectual consideration.

In my opinion, Socrates’ argument about the quest for beauty (Symposium 207a – 212c), for example, in which appreciation of physical beauty leads to intellectual and spiritual beauty and, ultimately, to the experience of beauty itself, encapsulates the Platonic method of constantly searching for the realities beyond concepts and experiences. As long as this procedure is followed, there can be little danger of misinterpreting the original texts.

Apollodorus

When reading Platonic texts translated into English or some other modern language, it is easy to forget that what we are reading is just an approximate rendition and not the original text itself. Therefore, some caveats may be useful.

1. Platonic texts often have several levels of meaning, (1) literal (logos), (2) moral (nomos, typos or doxa) and (3) allegorical (hyponoia). This multi-layered interpretation originated with the Greek philosophers themselves who applied this method to Homer and other poets, so it was already common practice by the time of Plato.

Plato himself believed that the poets were divinely inspired on account of which they could attain to truth (Laws 682a) and quoted them by way of support or illustration for his own arguments. However, one must resist the temptation to allegorically interpret every single passage of either the poets or Plato.

2. Greek words do not always have exactly the same meaning or use as their English equivalents.

3. Distinctions between concepts that are possible or desirable in modern languages are sometimes absent in the Greek original. For example, ὄνομα onoma which strictly speaking means “name” may be used in the sense of “word” (e.g. Symp. 198b); “understand” and “know” may be used interchangeably, etc.

PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM

Although Plato is thought to have written some of his dialogues earlier, I like to begin with the Symposium – which is said to belong to Plato’s second or intermediate period – for several reasons. The Symposium is not only one of Plato’s most popular dialogues but it places the reader in the social and cultural milieu in which philosophers like Socrates and Plato were at home.

Of course, philosophical discussions could and did take place anywhere Athenians met, for example, in the town square or marketplace (agora) or, indeed, at philosophical schools such as Plato’s Academy. However, the symposium remained an important space where philosophers could mingle with non-philosophers, especially those who held positions of influence and power in Athenian society.

As already stated, the symposium was a key social and cultural institution of Ancient Greece. It was a ritual as well as festive occasion. It took place in a special dining room (andron) which the house owner used to entertain a small group of guests. Participants reclined on couches in the Persian manner (which was later adopted by Etruscans and Romans) and enjoyed a simple meal after which wine mixed with water was served from a krater, a large metal or pottery vessel, by one of the guests appointed to the task. Small snacks were consumed to counteract the effects of alcohol and inebriation was generally avoided. As with modern dinner-parties, it was considered polite for guests to stop drinking or leave before intoxication set in.

In fact, the Symposium highlights Plato’s views on the connections between drinking, singing (or reciting poetry) and philosophical discourse. It is it evident from his writings such as the Politeia that Plato was opposed to intoxication and anti-rational states in general. In the Symposium itself, it is said that “if it is done honourably and properly, it turns out to be honourable; if it is done improperly, it is disgraceful” (181a). Socrates who retains his soberness throughout is the ideal example of honourable symposiast.

Similarly, the Protagoras draws a clear distinction between the second-rate symposia of the uneducated where wine is consumed to the accompaniment of flute-girls and music, and those of well-educated men “where you will not see girls playing the flute or the lyre or dancing, but a group that knows how to get together without these childish frivolities, conversing civilly no matter how heavily they are drinking. Ours is such a group” (347d – 347e). In the Phaedrus, it is stated that true inspiration is attained by surrendering oneself to God and rejecting wine (249c – d; 238a).

Thus, although divine ecstasy is often poetically compared to the intoxication of wine, the two are strongly contrasted. In the Phaedrus, Plato recognises various states of divinely inspired “madness” or mania that are considered acceptable or desirable, such as the mania of divine prophecy, said to be inspired by the God Apollo himself; ritual mania induced by religious rituals, prayers and songs and inspired by Dionysus; poetic mania inspired by the Muses; and erotic mania inspired by Love (personified by Aphrodite and Eros).

Of these divinely inspired manias, the mania inspired by Love is said to be the best because it comes closest to “philosophical mania” (philosophon mania) or love of wisdom. Love induces the lover to remember the ideal Form of Beauty which is closely interlinked with the ideal Form of the Good. The Greek adjective kalos, “beautiful” itself, can also mean “good”. The term kalokagathos (kalos-kai-agathos, “beautiful and good”) was widely used in Classical times to describe the Greek ideal of a person who is both physically beautiful and morally good or virtuous.

Philosophy teaches us not only how to think well, i.e., how to construct thoughts in a rational and organised manner, but also how to live well and this means pursuing what is good, beautiful and true in all aspects of life. Platonism, therefore, affirms that philosophy is a quest for the Good (to Agathon), the Beautiful (to Kalon) and the True (to Alethinon) both in the world and within us.

Irrespective of the truth philosophy discovers, the question is who or what it is that knows or experiences that truth. The answer seems to be that to know or experience the truth is to be the truth. And this means that the ultimate object of philosophy is self-knowledge, that is, knowledge of one’s self, of the subject of all our experiences, both individually and collectively.

The Symposium is about a banquet in honour of the young poet Agathon who has just won his first prize for a tragedy and the principal symposiasts are Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, Agathon and Socrates who take turns in making speeches. A drunk Alcibiades provides an element of comedy when he gate-crashes the party. He is an example of improper conduct in more than one respect but he is Socrates’ protegee and all agree to let him in.

Socrates later told the story to others and the narrative was handed down to Apollodorus who is now relating it to an unnamed friend.

The narrative contains all the usual elements of Platonic writing such as the soul, immortality, virtue, justice and wisdom. However, the central theme is desire (eros) in its many forms from the physical to the metaphysical and, as desire in this context is a metaphor for philosophical inquiry, the Symposium encapsulates Plato’s treatment of the philosophical method.

In his opening speech, Phaedrus cites the poets and philosophers who have declared that Love (Eros) is the oldest God. To demonstrate love’s power to inspire lovers to noble and courageous deeds he cites the example of Alcestis, wife of King Admetus of Therae, who surpassed the love of all the other members of her family and volunteered to die in his stead. As a reward for her noble deed, the Gods sent her back to the world of the living (179b – d).

The evening continues with the other symposiasts making their own speeches. Socrates’ speech is the last and the best. He tells the story of Diotima who taught him the philosophy of love.

Starting with love of a particular body’s physical beauty (209e), Diotima advises the philosopher to love all beautiful bodies and from physical love of bodies to progress to love of souls. The philosopher must next proceed with love of laws and institutions and from there to love of sciences and all forms of knowledge until he arrives at an experience of love of the Beautiful or eternal Beauty itself. Having attained this vision of the very soul of Beauty, and gazing upon the heavenly Beauty face to face, the philosopher becomes a friend of God (theophiles) and, above all men, immortal (212a).

Diotima also speaks of the need of a guide to direct the would-be philosopher on the Ladder of Love.

As this point, a great commotion is heard in the courtyard and Alcibiades makes his drunken appearance. He styles himself Master of the Mysteries and makes his own speech, not in honour of Eros, but in honour of Socrates himself, in which he makes some very important points.

Aristodemus has already related how Socrates remained absorbed in thoughts or contemplation on the way to the symposium and that this is a habit of his (174d ff.). Alcibiades now confirms this by relating how he himself witnessed Socrates standing motionless in deep contemplation from one sunrise to the next after which he offered prayers to the Sun and went on his way (220d - e).

Stressing the fact that Socrates is always sober and that his words always have a wondrous effect on him, Alcibiades makes the point that Socrates wears his outer persona like a casing, similar to a sculptured Silenus of the hollow type fashioned by craftsmen, whose exterior represents a drunk companion of Dionysus, but that can be opened in two halves to reveal the splendid images of Gods inside it (215b).

But if you catch him in a serious mood and look within him like within a Silenus-figure or temple with divine images:

“The images inside him are so divine and golden, so perfectly fair and wondrous …” (216e - 217a).

And:

“When these are opened, and you obtain a fresh view of them by getting inside, first of all you will discover that they are the only speeches which have any sense in them; and secondly, that none are so divine, so rich in images of virtue, so largely—nay, so completely—intent on all things proper for the study of such as would attain both grace and worth” (222a).

Alcibiades is being truthful. For although “drunk”, he speaks on condition that he be reprimanded by Socrates should he speak any untruth; he reminds his audience of the saying “wine is truthful” (oinos kai aletheia, the Greek equivalent of Latin “in vino veritas”); and Socrates himself concludes, albeit with seeming irony, that he “must be sober”.

What Plato seems to indicate through Alcibiades is that there is something very special in Socrates’ words and that they hold a deeper meaning that is of utmost importance to those who wish to attain something higher.

As Radcliffe Edmonds observes, the images Alcibiades sees in Socrates are like images in a dream, signs that point to something else in the same way the statues of Gods found within a temple are not the divine thing itself but only representations of it (Destree & Giannopoulou, 209-210).

However, although Alcibiades has seen the images within Socrates, he is not yet ready for the highest mysteries, hence Socrates rejects his advances. Alcibiades is an army general used to take possession and to command and control just as he does with the symposium which he takes over for his own purpose. Though clearly not ignorant or incapable of appreciating higher truth, he does not yet possess the required attitude. In his own words, he must look at the divine images or symbols within Socrates afresh.

The key words Plato uses are “open”, “see within”, and “look into, examine” which apply to external as much as to internal realities. The philosopher’s understanding of the object of philosophical pursuit depends upon his understanding of himself and on his attitude vis-à-vis the object. And this is something that must be constantly renewed until the final goal is reached.

Having started with an account of how Eros inspires a particular relation between lover and beloved, the Symposium may be taken to point to the relation between subject and object. The lover desires the beautiful and the good because he is unaware of the beautiful and the good in himself. He is not entirely ignorant, but not yet wise. He, literally, is only a “lover of wisdom” (philosophos). As Socrates makes very clear, the lover is “midway between ignorance and wisdom” (203e).

The situation changes in the Phaedrus where the soul desires the supreme Good not from a sense of deficiency but on account of its affinity with it. The conception of this affinity is already present in the Theaetetus where Socrates affirms that the goal of philosophy is “to become like God as much as possible” (176b). Even in the Symposium, Diotima suggests that the final object of love, or desire, or philosophical inquiry, is immortality. And to be immortal is to be godlike. The desire to attain the highest Good is accompanied by a desire to be as much like it as possible.

Thus the lover’s attitude towards the object of his love becomes increasingly contemplative while the object becomes more and more abstract yet at the same time more real and closer. And the closer the two are getting to each other, the more the subject sees itself in the object as in a mirror. If we carry this process to its logical conclusion, the object fuses with the subject and lover and beloved, subject and object, become one.

This is as far as Socrates and Plato take us. The guide who takes us further is Plotinus. For Plotinus, the ascent to the Beautiful is an ascent to the One and the ultimate experience is one of unity and identity. The identity of Lover (Erastes) and Beloved (Eromenos), of human soul and God, will become the central theme of Platonism including in its Christian, Islamic and other forms.

E. Anagnostou-Laoutides and A. Payne, “Drinking and Discourse in Plato”, Méthexis, 2021, 33(1), 57-79.
P. Destree and Z. Giannopoulou, eds., Plato’s Symposium: A Critical Guide, 2017.
W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 6 Vols., 1975.

From matter to intellect to the forms: the ascent to the One according to Platonic tradition

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions