The conceptual framework for atheism, as we know it, did not exist then. — frank

Right. But much of Platonism (in the broader sense) was to be assimilated by Christian theology in the worlds of the Greek-speaking theologians - Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others. Socrates and Plato were deemed ‘Christians before Christ’ and Greek philosophical concepts provided the philosophical framework for Christian theology.

Note from the above linked abstract:

In the Phaedrus, [Plato] makes Socrates maintain that a word, “once it is written, is tossed about, alike among those who under­stand and those who have no business with it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak” (275d9-e3).

Similarily, the Hindu philosophical dialogues are called the Upaniṣads. The etymology of that world means 'sitting up close'. This is interpreted to mean that these dialogues were also discussed between guru and chela in an intimate pedagogical framework, similarly to Plato's. You find something very similar in Buddhism also. There is a scripture which says that the Buddha's teaching is like a water-snake, in that it has to be 'grasped correctly' in order not to turn around and bite - not that anything about it is 'hidden', but that it's easily misunderstood, and this misunderstanding can have consequences opposite to the intention behind it.

But something to consider is this. The rationale of the Christian religion is 'salvation offered to all who believe and accept it'. It is held up as a universal religion, not as the exclusive prerogative of those wise enough to understand it. That itself is inimical to the spirit of the Platonic dialogues, which regarded beliefs of any kind as dubious; as 'deficient cognitive attitudes', according to Katja Vogt. But this association with Christianity also colors or narrows our view of what religion is, in that depicting Plato's dialogues in those terms associates it with just the kind of dogma which Plato abhorred. (There's always been a tension in Christianity around this point - 'what does has Athens have to to with Jerusalem?', 'Foolishness to the Greeks', and so on.)

So, I'd be wary of saying, or rather projecting, that Plato 'believed in God', any more than did the Buddha (who explicitly did not). But I also agree that this doesn't make him an 'atheist' in the modern sense, either. I think what it requires us to do, is considerably broaden our understanding of what constitutes the religious or spiritual life.

Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. He even seems to have suffered from a version of the more characteristically Judaeo-Christian conviction that we are all miserable sinners, and to have hoped for some form of redemption from philosophy. — Thomas Nagel, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament

Ignoring the ill placed condescension, you do a good job of making assumptions and then arguing against them.

you do a good job of making assumptions and then arguing against them. — Fooloso4

What assumptions did I make? How did I argue against them?

In the Phaedrus, [Plato] makes Socrates maintain that a word, “once it is written, is tossed about, alike among those who under­stand and those who have no business with it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak” (275d9-e3).

A good passage to show the need for esoteric writing.

But this association with Christianity also colors or narrows our view of what religion is, in that depicting Plato's dialogues in those terms associates it with just the kind of dogma which Plato abhorred. — Wayfarer

I agree

His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. — Thomas Nagel, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament

Yes, this is why his search for the Good plays a central role. His inquiry whether it is of the self, the polis, or the cosmos is always centered on the "human things".

What assumptions did I make? How did I argue against them? — frank

Really? You posit a modern definition of atheism and then argue that it does not apply the charge of atheism against Socrates.

What do you make of the absence of God or gods in the discussion of the Good in the Republic. Why does Socrates say that the Good and not a god is the cause of all things? — Fooloso4

I've already told you why. Because Plato's monistic idealism believes in the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect (Nous) or Mind of God, as the cause of everything including the Gods.

You posit a modern definition of atheism and then argue that it does not apply the charge of atheism against Socrates. — Fooloso4

That's what you are doing. You decide in advance that Socrates was an atheist and then try to twist the term "atheist" to make it fit Socrates. Or, you take the actual charge of "introducing or inventing new deities" and try to reinterpret it as "atheism" in the modern sense. Unfortunately, without much success as only too evident.

But I also agree that this doesn't make him an 'atheist' in the modern sense, either. — Wayfarer

That's exactly what we've been trying to explain to @Fooloso4. Unfortunately, he seems to think that we only do so because we are "intolerant" of his views.

If he had even a shred of evidence for his "atheism" theory, it would be a different story. But he hasn't. He just keeps insisting that anyone who doesn't read Plato in an atheist sense is an ignoramus and an idiot.

I've already told you why. Because Plato's monistic idealism believes in the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect (Nous) or Mind of God, as the cause of everything including the Gods. — Apollodorus

But that is not what he says. There is no mention of universal consciousness or cosmic intellect or mind of god. No mention of gods at all.

Where did I say this? You make up shit and claim I said it.

Let's make a deal. Show me where I said all this and I will concede that I am wrong and leave the forum, and if you can't then you do the same. Deal?

Check out early Stoicism. It's fascinating.

That's exactly what we've been trying to explain to Fooloso4. Unfortunately, he seems to think that we only do so because we are "intolerant" of his views. — Apollodorus

I don't necessarily agree with fooloso4's interpretation, but I also don't feel the same compulsion to take issue with it. It can be a dialogue, where different contributors advance different interpretations which are considered on their merits. So-and-so sees it this way, whilst I see it like this. Some read it in a more secular perspective, some in a more religious perspective. It's also in keeping with the manner of the dialogues themselves.

Because Plato's monistic idealism believes in the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect (Nous) or Mind of God, as the cause of everything including the Gods. — Apollodorus

That is an interpretation made in hindsight, through the lens of later interpretations and cultural syncretism. Those terms are never used in the texts themselves this dialogue. They might be defensible, but that would be a thread about 'later developments in Christian platonism', not about this particular dialogue.

That said I agree with Rafael Demos' interpretation of Plato's philosophy of religion:

The place of God in the Platonic system has been the subject of long controversy among scholars. Too often the tendency has been to regard the idea of God as an undigested concept in Plato's mind, an afterthought, or, at best, a symbolic expression for the idea of the good. Yet, a study of the later dialogues, notably the Philebus, shows that God plays a necessary role in the Platonic metaphysics, and one distinct from that of the ideas. In the earlier dialogues God is mentioned rather incidentally; and a student who takes up the later dialogues after he has formed his views upon the basis of the earlier ones, is liable to interpret all references to God as implied references to the ideas. But it is not a question of how far one can go in interpreting one conception in terms of another, but of what Plato himself believed; and an unprejudiced reading of the later dialogues suggests that God, in Plato's mind, stands only for Himself, and is not a name for anything else. A question of this sort cannot be settled by a mechanical comparison of words and passages; Plato is at no point explicit on the connection of God with the good; one has to steep oneself in Plato and get, if possible, the pattern, the 'feel' of his mind. Clearly, to Plato religion is a genuine personal experience; in his references to God there is a suggestion at once of reverence and of intimacy; God seems to have been for him not an abstract conception but an immediate intuition. To reduce God to the ideas is to fail to do justice to the religious nature of Plato as distinct from his detached contemplative attitude. — Rafael Demos

So in that general sense, I agree with you and Frank that Plato is not an atheist in any meaningful sense, but neither does that make him 'a theist' in today's sense. That's what I was getting at in my previous post, and if it's hard to understand, then good, it needs to be.

They might be defensible, but that would be a thread about 'later developments in Christian platonism', not about this particular dialogue. — Wayfarer

Appollodorus was describing pre-Christian Platonism.

I think you're taking everything way too personally, and that is not a philosophical attitude. I don't want you to leave the forum, just to admit that, in the absence of any evidence, it is highly unlikely that Plato was an atheist. You've lost the argument anyway, so what's the point?

To correctly understand Plato, you need to read all his dialogues or at least the most important ones. If you do that with an open mind, you will see that monistic idealism is a much more accurate description of the ideas presented in them than "atheism".

Read the Timaeus and do some thinking about other dialogues you have read. What does Plato mean by "nous"? Are the individual minds the only form of intelligence? Could the Forms be part of a Universal Consciousness, or Cosmic Intellect? Etc., etc. There is no rush, take your time.

That's what I was getting at in my previous post, and if it's hard to understand, then good, it needs to be. — Wayfarer

Wow. Could you be a little more full of it?

Metaphysics is a difficult subject, that's all I'm saying.

Check out early Stoicism. It's fascinating. — frank

I have and I agree.

Appollodorus was describing pre-Christian Platonism. — frank

No. He sees it as a continuum.

No. He sees it as a continuum. — Fooloso4

I had meant that for Wayfarer, whose lecture included some misinformation.

But true, there are several centuries between Plato and Plotinus.

So in that general sense, I agree with you and Frank that Plato is not an atheist in any meaningful sense, but neither does that make him 'a theist' in today's sense. — Wayfarer

I agree. Incidentally, when I think of Plato or Platonism, I think Platonism and nothing else. I take Gerson's view (and that of Platonists themselves) that there is only one Platonic or Platonist system (with some variations) stretching from Plato to the present. I am using descriptions like "monistic idealism" exclusively when attempting to explain to others how I classify Platonism.

But I fully agree with Demos. Thanks for the quote.

I don't necessarily agree with fooloso4's interpretation, but I also don't feel the same compulsion to take issue with it. — Wayfarer

It really does seem perverse. Hour after hour, day after day.

It can be a dialogue, where different contributors advance different interpretations which are considered on their merits. — Wayfarer

Right, I have said exactly that. The dialogues are an opportunity to dialogue.

That is an interpretation made in hindsight, through the lens of later interpretations and cultural syncretism. — Wayfarer

Exactly, but he believes that it all timeless, part of cosmic consciousness.

that would be a thread about 'later developments in Christian platonism', not about this particular dialogue. — Wayfarer

But he seems to be more interested in trying to bury divergent views under an avalanche of words.

one has to steep oneself in Plato and get, if possible, the pattern, the 'feel' of his mind. — Rafael Demos

As he notes, there is scholarly difference of opinion. After a lifetime devoted to studying the dialogues some come to conclusions contrary to his. This is part of the dialogic process.

Thanks for the post. Perhaps some of it will get through.

But true, there are several centuries between Plato and Plotinus. — frank

And yet:

I take Gerson's view (and that of Platonists themselves) that there is only one Platonic or Platonist system (with some variations) stretching from Plato to the present. — Apollodorus

That review you linked to in Voegelin's blog is both inspiring and disheartening. Inspiring, because of the depth of the learning, and disheartening, because there's so much to know. :yikes:

I noted this remark in particular:

Although a Hegelian, Kierkegaard sided with Schleiermacher, declaring that Socratic irony pertained to an ineffable good, one that no predicates could capture. After this, the controversy died down for a time, largely because nearly everyone had become a Hegelian. In 1888, however, Friedrich Nietzsche accused Socrates and Plato of an irony that marked not a su­perior will to hide the truth from the many but a base fear of facing it.

The latter is the strongly expressed view of many here.

Do you think it's possible to admire both Plato and Nietszche? Personally, I can't see how it could be,

I haven't finished reading it yet, but will do so over the weekend, and thanks for posting it.

I havent read anything by Gerson, but I'm familiar with the view that Plato is compatible with later Platonists. Plotinus was influenced by Stoicism and Aristotle, so "compatible" definitely doesn't mean identical.

I agree with you that the dialogues stand on their own, but I don't think we can diagnose the metaphysics of either Socrates or Plato based on them.

And that proves what exactly? Of course Platonists see Platonism as essentially one system. "Platonism", "Middle Platonism", "Neoplatonism", etc., are modern concepts that make no sense to Platonists, as shown by Gerson.

As already stated, followers of Plato already referred to themselves as "Platonists" (Platonikoi) in antiquity and it would be absurd to claim that they were something else. Of course there were some variations according to different schools but that doesn't make the Platonism of one historical period a different system to the Platonism of other periods.

I'm familiar with the view that Plato is compatible with later Platonists. Plotinus was influenced by Stoicism and Aristotle, so "compatible" definitely doesn't mean identical. — frank

Correct. Like other Platonists, Plotinus did his best to fill whatever gaps he could by borrowing from Aristotle and others. But we must not forget that Aristotle learned a great deal from Plato and that Plotinus did not borrow anything that was incompatible with Plato's fundamental ideas that had come down to him through a long chain of teachers.

Plato’s Academy functioned from 387 BC to 529 CE and its members were naturally in touch with philosophers from other Platonic schools in Alexandria and elsewhere. So, there is no reason to assume any major modification or distortion in the Platonic tradition, just as there were few changes in the religious sphere.

Plato’s Academy functioned from 387 BC to 529 CE and its members were naturally in touch with philosophers from other Platonic schools in Alexandria and elsewhere. So, there is no reason to assume any major modification or distortion in the Platonic tradition, just as there were few changes in the religious sphere. — Apollodorus

There were a humongous amount of changes in the religious sphere during this near millenary, and chances are that any platonic oral tradition got heavily built upon and modified during the same very long period.

I said "essentially":

Of course Platonists see Platonism as essentially one system. "Platonism", "Middle Platonism", "Neoplatonism", etc., are modern concepts that make no sense to Platonists, as shown by Gerson. — Apollodorus

Of course there were some modifications or, rather, expansions of the Platonic teachings. But the original texts remained the same and any modifications or expansions of the system were essentially consistent with the original blueprint, as shown by Gerson and others.

IMHO there is no evidence that Plato was an atheist. Period/full stop.

Do you think it's possible to admire both Plato and Nietszche? — Wayfarer

Yes. I think they are kindred spirits. He says:

I am complete skeptic when it comes to Plato (Twilight of the Idols, "What I Owe to the Ancients")

He is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato because they are both skeptics and only a skeptic knows how to read and understand a skeptic.

I agree with you that the dialogues stand on their own, but I don't think we can diagnose the metaphysics of either Socrates or Plato based on them. — frank

I don't think there is much we can know about Socrates. Aristophanes gives us a comic caricature and neither Plato nor Xenophon give us a biography.

As to Plato, how do we diagnose his metaphysics if not based on the dialogues?

As already stated — Apollodorus

Yes, over and over again. That is your opinion. It does not become more then that by repeating it post after post.