Strauss of course did not demonstrate that Plato was an atheist. — Apollodorus
And neither have you. — Apollodorus
He provides a careful, detailed interpretation of the dialogues and leaves it up to the reader to draw conclusions. — Fooloso4
What I have done is point to the fact that Forms are not gods. — Fooloso4
That's precisely why Platonism is a form of metaphysical idealism and not atheism. — Apollodorus
Aristotle's unmoved mover is not to be found anywhere in Plato. — Fooloso4
They exist within the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover, just like thoughts or ideas exist in the human mind. — Apollodorus
I said the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover: — Apollodorus
It doesn't matter what you call it. — Apollodorus
When the meaning of terms does not matter then it is all just arbitrary. — Fooloso4
Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, — Fooloso4
Of course he did not demonstrate that! — Fooloso4
The meaning is clear: intelligent first principle that transcends and contains all other things. What doesn't matter is the name you select to give it. — Apollodorus
You have admitted that Socrates does not deny the existence of the Gods: — Apollodorus
As I said, you are wasting your time. — Apollodorus
The Good as described in the Republic does not contain all other things. — Fooloso4
It does as described in the analogy of the Sun, that's why I've repeatedly told you to go back to the analogy and read it again. — Apollodorus
As to your claim that Socrates was an "atheist", the dialogues show very clearly that he was not:
“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods — Apollodorus
If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced. — Apollodorus
And, as I quoted, it does not include the bad. — Fooloso4
If the Good is the source of the existence of all known things, i.e., all known reality, in the same way the Sun is the source of light, then the Good must be the source of, and contain, everything that is real or known to us, in the same way particles of light are contained within the sphere of light radiating from the Sun. This is the logical implication. — Apollodorus
No, it means he makes them. — Fooloso4
"The good is not the source of everything; rather it is the cause of things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things." (379b)
The Good is an all-containing living being just like the Cosmos. — Apollodorus
“... although the good isn't being but is still beyond being, exceeding it in dignity (age) and power."(509b)
No, it means he makes them.
— Fooloso4
You are clueless, aren't you? — Apollodorus
“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods ( — Apollodorus
He makes them because he believes in them — Apollodorus
just like any other believers make images of Gods — Apollodorus
In the final analysis, there is no evidence that Socrates was an atheist and there is even less evidence that Plato was an atheist. — Apollodorus
If even Strauss failed to demonstrate that Plato was an atheist, how on earth do you imagine that you are going to succeed? — Apollodorus
This is really convoluted. If he makes them he knows their origin. — Fooloso4
So, Straussianism is not only controversial but positively biased and, as can be seen, can easily lead to unsubstantiated conclusions. — Apollodorus
Round and round you go .... — Fooloso4
I would be interested in seeing you demonstrate how Strauss came to unsubstantiated conclusions. I don't agree with him on many points but he has read the text carefully. — Valentinus
Straussianism is not only controversial but positively biased and, as can be seen, can easily lead to unsubstantiated conclusions. — Apollodorus
Of course he did not demonstrate that! — Fooloso4
“… In general his [Strauss’s] explicit statements about matters of importance cancel each other out. (Plato’s ideal city is in accordance with nature; Plato’s ideal city is against nature.) Questions are asked but not answered, or the answer may not come for many pages, and depend on the recognition of a verbal echo. Unexplained and perplexing transitions may carry the point. Crucial insights are dismissed or float by. A single parenthetical reference to the text under discussion may substitute for an argument; or a long list of references may fail to contain the single most important one … For readers of Plato unwilling or unable to take the bait, there is a more particular cause of exasperation and alarm: Strauss’s belief that in writing as he did was not innovating but following a long tradition of thoughtful writing inaugurated by Plato …” (G. R. F. Ferrari, “Strauss’s Plato”).
“Where will Plato take his stand in the battle raging over religion? We cannot as yet tell, though after reading Euthyphro we shall not be surprised to find Plato siding with the reformers of the mythical tradition. It is only in the Republic that Plato definitely joins the ranks of the expurgators and the reformers … Traditional subjects like religion, poetry, music, and gymnastics may retain their place but their content has to be revised, and they will have to be taught in a different spirit” (Solmsen pp. 64 ff.).
“The late Dr. Rashdall once complained, with some reason, that the neglect of the Laws by Oxford teachers of Greek philosophy had done much to blind their pupils to Plato’s sincere and passionate “theism”. If these teachers or their pupils will take the trouble to read these two excellent little books [Solmsen’s Plato’s Theology and Skemp’s Theory of Motion in Plato’s Later Dialogues, the blindness, it may be hoped, will be pretty thoroughly cured” (A. E. Taylor, “Review of Plato’s Theology by F. Solmsen”).
“… we should take note that, though religious faith in God was, of course, no novelty, Theism as a doctrine professing to be capable of scientific demonstration is introduced into philosophy for the first time in this section of the Laws [896e - 898d]. Plato is the creator of “philosophical Theism” (Plato: The Man And His Work, pp. 492-3).
“Atheism is treated by Plato as identical with the doctrine that the world and its contents, souls included, are the product of unintelligent motions of corporeal elements. Against this theory, he undertakes to demonstrate that all corporeal movements are, in the last resort, causally dependent on “motions” of soul, wishes, plans, purposes, and that the world is therefore the work of a soul or souls, and further that these souls are good, and that there is one ἀρίστη ψιχή, “perfectly good soul,” at their head. He indicates that atheism as an opinion has two chief sources – the corporealism of the early Ionian men of science, who account for the order of nature on purely “mechanical” principles without ascribing anything to conscious plan or design (889a - d), and the sophistic theory of the purely conventional and relative character of moral distinctions (889e - 890a). If these two doctrines are combined, atheism is the result” (p. 490).
The neoplatonists are really platonists. Maybe those who got disillusioned with official politics or were more inclined to study and mysticism. — Protagoras
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.