Do you know what the content of the Tawney article is? Strauss was opposed to Marxism, Socialism, and historicism. — Fooloso4

Strauss was certainly close to Fabian Socialists like Laski and Tawney so presumably there was some influence?

But I suggest you read my post again. My point was that anti-Platonism was a trend arising from liberal, Christian Socialist and Fabian Socialist circles.

In any case, accusing Plato of "atheism" is just ludicrous unscholarly nonsense as you ought to realize yourself.

All philosophical books written before the Enlightenment aim at both a wider audience and a small elite, able to understand the deeper meaning of the texts — Fooloso4

There you go again. Of course texts may have "a deeper meaning". The issue is to be able to provide evidence in support of what you claim is that deeper meaning.

So far, you have presented zero evidence for your claim that the Euthyphro or any other dialogue teaches "atheism".

"secret teaching" — Apollodorus

If you were to do more than judge a book by not even reading the cover you would see that what Strauss is talking about is not a teaching in this sense of the term. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It is teaching in the way Plato describes in the Republic. It does not put something in the soul, it turns it around so that it can see. And, of course, here you will be mistaken in thinking it is the Forms that are seen.

The fact of the matter is, we do not see the Forms. Whatever you think it may be possible for us to see, what we can see here and now, if we are self-aware and honest, is that we do not see the Forms. They remain for us images, hypotheses. We remain in the cave.

Strauss was certainly close to Fabian Socialists like Laski and Tawney — Apollodorus

They helped him emigrate, just as hundreds of other scholars were helped. What is clear if you would actually read him is that he was opposed to socialism.

My point was that anti-Platonism was a trend arising from liberal, Christian Socialist and Fabian Socialist circles. — Apollodorus

Strauss was educated in Germany not England. He was not liberal or Christian or a socialist.

So far, you have presented zero evidence for your claim that the Euthyphro or any other dialogue teaches "atheism". — Apollodorus

That's because I never said that they do. You have a distorted view of what the Socratic teaching is. It is not about telling you what to think, it is about teaching you how to think. It is zetetic. It is about inquiry, examination, evaluation, not indoctrination or insemination. Not the disclosure of revealed truths.

They remain for us images, hypotheses. — Fooloso4

Socrates hypothesizes or speculates about many things. That doesn't make those things. e.g., virtue, beauty or justice, just speculation.

The point Socrates is making is that the philosopher first thinks about them and eventually "sees", i.e., experiences them.

We remain in the cave. — Fooloso4

Remain in the cave then. It doesn't bother me in the least. :grin:

They helped him emigrate, just as hundreds of other scholars were helped. What is clear if you would actually read him is that he was opposed to socialism. — Fooloso4

Irrelevant. The fact that they helped him does not mean that they didn't become friends or that their anti-Platonist ideas did not influence him.

They were anti-Platonists and they helped him promote anti-Platonism. In any case, he was promoting the same anti-Platonist line as they were.

It is not about telling you what to think. — Fooloso4

But that's exactly what you are doing. You have decided that Plato and Socrates were "atheists" without any evidence and you mock everyone who disagree.

So, I think we can all see what "zetetic" means to you.

As I said, when someone keeps indiscriminately using terms like "irony", "aporia", "zetetic", and the like, as if they were chanting incantations or trying to give themselves a false air of learning, you just know that they are engaging in sophistry for nefarious purposes.

That doesn't make those things. e.g., virtue, beauty or justice, just speculation. — Apollodorus

Unless they are things known that is exactly what they are. They are not things that you know. They are things that Socrates says are his opinion, that is, not things he knows.

The point Socrates is making is that the philosopher first thinks about them and eventually "sees", i.e., experiences them. — Apollodorus

Right, and the problem is, the gap between one and the other. You have not bridged that gap. It remains for you a matter of faith. Socrates, by his own admission, did not bridge the gap, they remain for him a matter of opinion.

Remain in the cave then. It doesn't bother me in the least. — Apollodorus

You have not managed to take even the first step, the awareness that the cave you are in is not the real world. You have not even learned from Plato to see your own ignorance.

... their anti-Platonist ideas did not influence him. — Apollodorus

You have no idea who or what influenced him. You are way off on this.

In any case, he was promoting the same anti-Platonist line as they were. — Apollodorus

And this is something you know from not having read him!

...engaging in sophistry for nefarious purposes. — Apollodorus

Not only are you blinded by fear but by paranoid conspiracy theories.

It remains for you a matter of faith. — Fooloso4

They remain a matter of faith until experienced, like everything else.

Faith doesn't mean "atheism".

They remain a matter of faith until experienced, like everything else. — Apollodorus

Are you claiming to have divine wisdom, to have seen the Forms themselves?

Faith doesn't mean "atheism". — Apollodorus

Faith does not mean knowledge. Socratic philosophy is driven by the recognition of ignorance.

Are you sure English is your first language???

The philosopher first uses reason to think about the Forms and eventually "sees" or experiences them by means of the nous. This is the logical implication as pointed out by Plotinus and others.

Nothing to do with atheism. You're making it up.

The philosopher first uses reason to think about the Forms and eventually "sees" or experiences them by means of the nous. — Apollodorus

So the story goes, but Socrates, despite having told the story, denies having seen the Forms. Plato never introduces anyone else in the dialogues who has seen the Forms. You have not seen the Forms and so you cannot know if they even exist. It remains for you an article of faith. Shadows on the cave wall you mistakenly take to be reality. You cannot even tell the difference between the image and that of which it is an image.

It remains for you an article of faith. — Fooloso4

Faith does not equal "atheism". So, unless you can prove that it does, you are talking nonsense.

Faith does not equal "atheism". — Apollodorus

Faith is the absence of knowledge. You are talking about something you know nothing about.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, he does not affirm their existence. You cannot see that they are absent in his account of the Good, you fill in where they are not with things that are not said anywhere in the dialogues.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that he was an atheist.

You fill in "atheism" where the dialogues nowhere say this.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that he was an atheist. — Apollodorus

He does not affirm the existence of gods either. The question of Socrates atheism is made explicit in the Apology (26c )with the distinction between not believing in the gods of the city versus not believing in the gods at all. Meletus forgets that the original charge was that he taught about novel gods (26b) and now asserts that he does not believe in the gods at all. Socrates nowhere denies the charges, he point to Meletus' contradiction. He also points to the sun and moon without ever saying that he believes they are gods. In fact, he cites Anaxagoras, who denies they are gods. Rather than deny he is an atheist he leads us to the question of whether he is like Anaxagoras. In the Phaedo, when he introduces the Forms, he again, brings Anaxagoras into the discussion.

Spinoza serves as a good example of the complexity of the problem. He never explicitly denied the existence of gods either, but he too was found guilty of atheism, and to this day the issue has not been resolved. If God is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then Spinoza was an atheist, but by equating God and Nature some will say he is a pantheist or panentheist, but others will deny that Nature is God and so conclude that he was an atheist.

By the standards of the city Socrates was an atheist. By the standard of Orthodox Judaism Spinoza was an atheist. Those who hold that God is the supreme being might regard Platonism atheism. Those who hold that God is not a being but the ground of being might regard belief in a supreme being atheistic.

In other words, your concern for whether Socrates was an atheist is simple-minded and uninformed by anything but your own narrow beliefs.

I think you are becoming irrational now.

What you are saying is that you are unable to prove that Socrates was an atheist, so you bring "Spinoza" and "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" into it to prove that he was.

Edit. The charge against Socrates was not that he didn't believe in God but that he introduced "other new deities", thus showing irreverence. Irreverence is not "atheism".

What you are saying is that you are unable to prove that Socrates was an atheist — Apollodorus

No, that is what you assume I am saying. I have told you many times that it is not. But you ignore what I say and make up something you think you can argue against.

The charge against Socrates was not that he didn't believe in the Gods of Athens but that he introduced "other new deities" — Apollodorus

Read the passages I cited and what I actually said.

I've rephrased that for clarity.

What I'm saying is that the issue is not whether he disbelieved in the Gods of Athens but whether he disbelieved in Gods in general.

If someone doesn't believe in one particular God, he may still believe in another God or deities.

If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced. Therefore, he was not an atheist.

I see you still do not understand. If the Good and God mean the same thing the whole question of atheism becomes meaningless.

The question of atheism was meaningless anyway since Socrates was not an atheist. He believed that the charge against him was wrong. That's why he contested it.

Your statement was this:

By the standards of the city Socrates was an atheist. — Fooloso4

What the city of Athens believed is beside the point. The only thing that matters is whether or not he was an atheist. And that can only be decided on the basis of evidence.

1. There is no evidence that he was an atheist by the standards of the city.

2. There is no evidence that he was an atheist in general.

3. There is even less evidence that Plato was an atheist.

That's why you can't find any evidence and you're still looking for it! :rofl:

He believed that the charge against him was wrong. — Apollodorus

He does not deny it.

What the city of Athens believed is beside the point. — Apollodorus

Too bad you were not around to tell Socrates and the court and Plat and Xenophon and others that.

Too bad you were not around to tell Socrates and the court and Plat and Xenophon and others that. — Fooloso4

Do you really not realize the absurdity of what you are saying, or are you just pretending?

Whether someone is guilty or not depends solely on the evidence.

Miscarriage of justice isn't unheard of. If Socrates was taken to court and/or sentenced for political reasons or because the jury erroneously believed he was guilty, that doesn't make him guilty as charged.

Suppose the state takes you to court on some cooked-up charge or you are set up by someone who holds a grudge against you and you get sentenced to death and executed. Does that make you guilty of the crime alleged???!!!

Yes. You have stated your opinion several times now. I have explained why I think you are mistaken. If anyone is reading this and is interested they can go back and read it. But it now seems likely that no one is. There is only so many times people will hear you repeat yourself before they lose interest.

It isn't about opinion, it's about evidence. You can opine anything you wish. But you shouldn't pretend that you have evidence when you have none. Very simple really.

You read Plato as if it was revealed religion. In order to maintain the illusion and protect your beliefs you ignore everything in the text that is a threat to your beliefs. And because it has been said you believe your opinions are the truth.

If you say so ....

I don't just say so, we have a record of it across several threads. You have shown yourself to be just as ridiculous as Euthyphro.

So, because you are unable to provide evidence for your claims, that makes others "ridiculous"?

I don't think so. :grin:

When you close your eyes the evidence cannot be seen. It is all right here for anyone who might read it to make up their own mind.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that he was an atheist.
— Apollodorus

He does not affirm the existence of gods either. — Fooloso4

It follows that Socrates was the prototypical agnostic. I agree with him here. We don't really know how many gods there are: 0, 1, 2, a million, or 3.1416...