What about the pre-Socratics? They were decidedly anti-mythos in seeking to replace mythos with logos and thereby marginalizing (or even in some cases eliminating?) "the gods". — 180 Proof

Exactly. In some cases.

As I have said many times before, and as long shown by scholars like A E Taylor (Plato: The Man And His Work) and others, Plato not only has a theology, but positively criticizes and even mocks atheism.

The main problem stems from the fact that when modern readers read Socrates' statements, for example, they fail to recognize that the Sun for Plato is a God and that the Good is likewise a form of deity, simply because Platonic deities do not conform with mainstream concepts of God. In other words, the dialogues are not viewed through the perspective of 4th century BC Athens but 21st century CE Chicago which are worlds apart geographically, culturally, and chronologically.

Yes, and that's why I emphasized the pre-Socratics because with Plato the waters start getting muddy again, that is, mythos gets reintroduced or reemphasized in philosophy. The Hellenistic era sought to minimize this but the rot had already run deep by the Common Era and Greek-Roman educated Christians began in earnest to co-opt the ready-made Neoplatonic mythifications and conjure with them a powerful syncretic theology – theocentricity – that almost completely eclipsed logocentric philosophy for the next millennia and a half.

Well, I disagree. Ancient Greek mythos is not the same as Modern English myth. It is simply an account or narrative intended to illustrate an argument. A Platonic mythos has several levels of meaning and one of its purposes is to evoke in the reader thoughts, emotions, or attitudes that are more complicated to convey by other means.

The Platonic mythos doesn't "eclipse" philosophical thought or logic at all, on the contrary, it stimulates dialectic and inspires the reader on many different levels. If all you can see in Plato is a steaming pile of nonsense, then you may benefit from considering that beauty (or pile of steaming as the case may be) is in the eye (or head) of the beholder ....

Yes, and that's why I emphasized the pre-Socratics because with Plato the waters start getting muddy again, that is, mythos gets reintroduced or reemphasized in philosophy. — 180 Proof

Parmenides proem begins with a mythical journey:

Welcome, youth, who come attended by immortal charioteers and mares which bear you on your journey to our dwelling. For it is no evil fate that has set you to travel on this road, far from the beaten paths of men, but right and justice. It is meet that you learn all things — both the unshakable heart of well-rounded truth and the opinions of mortals in which there is not true belief. (B 1.24–30)

With Plato too there is a concern with both truth and opinion, the unchanging and changing, logos and mythos. Plato's writings should be seen in light of his contentions with the poets and sophists. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/) Both address "the opinions of mortals in which there is not true belief". In other words, persuasion is not intended to replace opinion with truth. Its function is twofold.

First, to change opinion, not replace it. The intention of the noble lies in the Republic are not to mislead. The myth of the metals is considered to be both necessary for the city and beneficial. The myths of the soul in the Phaedo too are beneficial. Plato may think it is good that mortals be of the opinion that are fixed, eternal truths accessible to the few, but that does not mean that it is true that there are Forms.

Second, to guard against misologic. Plato employs mythos in the service of logos. Reasoned argument has its limits. On the one hand it does not lead to knowledge of the whole, and on the other it does not persuade those who are most fixed in their beliefs about such things as gods and an immortal soul that their opinions are not truths. It makes use of myths to alter prevailing mythologies.

Plato does not appear to be 180's strength. But at least he tried ... :smile:

:up:

You are easily outraged! The quote is with regard to his ignorance. His knowing how to live in the face of his ignorance is what the examined life is all about. — Fooloso4

That's bizarre. Nothing in what he says suggests he had such ignorance. Rather, that like a good boy scout, he was dead sure of right and wrong, good and bad.

I think "religious preachers" is a bit exaggerated. Plato, in any case, is working with religious ideas that were already current at the time. Like other Greek philosophers, he is simply trying to make those ideas acceptable to thinking people by supporting them with rational arguments. — Apollodorus

But did he arrive at his certainty about those religious ideas by those same rational arguments with which he's trying to persuade thinking people?

Plato's idea of the Forms was already present in latent form in Greek culture, religion, and language. Plato's theory is a logical development of existing elements.

Which is all the more reason to suspect that he did not arrive at his certainty about those religious ideas by those same rational arguments with which he's trying to persuade thinking people.

Similarly, Socrates does not reject religious beliefs, he merely wants thinking men to examine their beliefs and only accept those that can be supported by reason.

So he was doing something similar as Descartes in his Meditations?

Nor can these states be transmitted or even described to others. If nothing else, this suggests that we should not dismiss things just because science cannot find them and put them under the microscope. — Apollodorus

But why should we accept them?

From the Apology:

For I am conscious that I am not wise either much or little. (21b)

I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. (21d)

“Human wisdom is of little or no value.” (23a)

“This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom.” (23b)

Plato went to enormous lengths NOT to preach. To see him as a preacher is an injustice to his memory. His dialogues are models of reasoned persuasion. — Wayfarer

When there is a power differential between two people, we cannot talk of reasoned persuasion anymore, then it's preaching.
I don't find preaching irksome, I just want things to be called by their name. Yes, that's plebeian, but so am I.

They sometimes contain exhortations and obviously have a religious aspect to them, but characterising him as a preacher looses the very real distinction between philosophy and religion. I think we tend to characterise it like that, because we tar anything religious with the same brush. — Wayfarer

Not I. I have my own reasons. I think philosophers are generally given way too much credit and assumed to be more different than religious preachers. It seems that in a mad rush to create a world and society of their own, secularists have adopted some old thinkers for their secular purposes, while downplaying the actual religious agendas of those thinkers. Like Descartes, for example, that Trojan horse.

Don't you find it odd that people who supposedly were so skeptical about their own abilities to obtain proper knowledge, nevertheless had so much to say, with utter certainty, about gods and ideas and a number of other things?
— baker

If by 'people', you mean those who speak through the Platonic dialogues,

No, I mean people like Socrates who goes on saying how little he knows -- and yet he's so sure about so many things!

many of their utterances were not at all marked by 'absolute certainty'. There is much weighing up, arguments for and against, doubts raised and not always dispelled.

It's more likely that this is just for show, the Socratic method. Not real doubt or uncertainty.

Plato himself is very diffident in respect of his arguments about philosophical ultimates. He's no tub-thumper. Of course for subsequent generations Platonism became absorbed into the Christian corpus, and then it began to assume a dogmatic character that it originally didn't have.

I think you're painting the ancients as more rosy, egalitarian, skeptical, humble then they really were.

“Human wisdom is of little or no value.” (23a)

“This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom.” (23b)

/.../ — Fooloso4

Oh come on. These are just exaggerations in the name of humility, not statements of factuality.

not statements of factuality. — baker

And this is a statement of your assumptions.

You said:

Nothing in what he says suggests he had such ignorance. — baker

Each of his statements suggests he had such ignorance. How do you reconcile these statements being made in the name of humility with the part where he says he is wiser than everyone else? What do you make of his changing the oracle's saying that no one is wiser than Socrates to Socrates' claiming that the oracle declared that he is the wisest? (21b) Those are two different claims.

Which is all the more reason to suspect that he did not arrive at his certainty about those religious ideas by those same rational arguments with which he's trying to persuade thinking people. — baker

Are you practicing your Buddhist sophistry, sorry, debating, skills on us? :grin:

Logic was just emerging and every system of rational thought is based on the elements available in the current culture of the time. Plato simply made use of what he had at his disposal. What would you have liked him to do, invent everything from scratch?

The Forms are a type of universals. First, in Greek religion, the Gods were personifications of natural phenomena, states of mind, human occupations, moral values, etc., that served as a form of universals that enabled Greeks to organize and make sense of the world they lived in.

Second, the Greek word for Form, eidos, means “form”, “kind”, “species”. So, it makes sense to speak of a particular x as being a form or kind of a universal X.

Third, Plato follows the reductivist tendency already found in Greek philosophy, and in natural science in general, that sought to reduce the number of fundamental principles of explanation to the absolute minimum, hence the “first principle” or arche of the earliest Greek philosophers.

So, the Forms are consistent with Plato’s explanatory framework which is hierarchical.

Fourth, it is an undeniable fact that all experience, for example, visual perception, can be reduced to fundamental elements such as number, size, shape, color, distance, etc. that constitute a form of natural universals.

Fifth, it is a common feature of the Greek language as spoken at Plato’s time to form abstract nouns by adding the definite article to the neuter adjective. Thus the adjective “good”, agathos, which is agathon in the neuter, becomes the abstract noun “the good”, to agathon. This enables the Greek philosopher to speak of “the Good”, “the Beautiful”, or “the True”. Plato was making philosophy and logic for Greeks, not for non-Greek speaking people.

Sixth, eidos comes from the verb eido, “I see” and literally means “the seen”, “that which is seen”. This reflects the fact that for Greeks in general and for Plato in particular, to know was to see, thus knowledge or wisdom being a form of mental looking or seeing. Which is why in Plato, invisible realities are seen with the “eye of the soul”.

So, when Socrates talks to Meno or Simmias about Forms, it makes perfect sense to them.

But why should we accept them? — baker

No one says that we should. But if we are trying to reconstruct what Socrates meant by examined life, etc., we need to look into known states of consciousness that are in agreement with Socrates' statements in the Phaedo and elsewhere.

It seems unquestionable that certain concentration and meditation techniques lead to an experience of peace and calm followed by joy, clarity, and what has been described as something akin to “love”, as well as experiences of "light." I don’t think that people need to have their experiences certified, approved and stamped by scientists, but science seems to agree to some extent:

In a 2012 study, researchers compared brain images from 50 adults who meditate and 50 adults who don’t meditate. Results suggested that people who practiced meditation for many years have more folds in the outer layer of the brain. This process (called gyrification) may increase the brain’s ability to process information.

Meditation: In Depth | NCCIH (nih.gov)

Research has shown that the perception-meditation continuum of increasing arousal of the sympathetic nervous system is not the same as the perception-hallucination continuum.

A Cartography of the Ecstatic and Meditative States - JSTOR

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence of "omniscience" or anything of that kind, but there is some evidence that it isn’t all just hallucination. This is sufficient basis for further investigation.

Socrates relates that he had dreams in which he was ordered to write poems to his master Apollo (Phaedo 60d-e). People have precognitive dreams. How does science explain this?

Yes, I realized that the first is conviction that someone else knows and the second is conviction that oneself knows. Still both just amount to conviction. — Janus

And if one uses this conviction as a starting point, and then practices accordingly, then -- so the official theory -- one attains the fruits of the Path.

If you believe that is possible, then fine, but you should be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that believing that cannot ever be anything more than a matter of faith, — Janus

How can you possibly know that?
The world of spirituality is a world of hierarchy and exceptionalism. Some people are said to be capable of things that others cannot even dream of.

This is a philosophy forum and if you want to claim that extraordinary knowledge is possible then it is incumbent on you to explain how that extraordinary knowledge could constitute knowledge in any sense that could be justified by logic, reason or empirical evidence.

Actually, he doesn't have to. If he did it, he'd be playing by your rules.

Are we here to find a guru?

Are you? The world of spirituality operates by its own principles. And if you choose to enter it, you need to bear this in mind, or you'll waste a lot of time.

I think you're painting the ancients as more rosy, egalitarian, skeptical, humble then they really were. — baker

Your opinions are not supported by the texts. You will never find Socrates boasting of anything.

I think we don't recognize gnosis, noesis and so on as 'knowledge that' because 'knowledge that' should be determinably communicable and transparently justifiable. — Janus

It is deteminably communicable and transparently justifiable within the appropriate cultural domain. Again, that has been replaced in modern culture by science, but science doesn't deal in the realities of being, only that of objects and forces.

I suspect the endless and insufferable Marvel movie franchise will spawn a world faith — Tom Storm

George Lucas set the precedent.

From the egological point of view, the idea of a 'superior being' is always interpreted as a claim, and a threat, or as a power-structure. No doubt religious institutions have exploited this dynamic, as do political organisations and leaders. But it ought not to be forgottten that in the Christian faith, the higher being manifested as a lowly indigent, in the person of Jesus, subject to all manner of insults and punishment by death.

It is deteminably communicable and transparently justifiable within the appropriate cultural domain. Again, that has been replaced in modern culture by science, but science doesn't deal in the realities of being, only that of objects and forces. — Wayfarer

Even if that were so what is understand to count as knowing in the common sense of "knowing that" is democratic, not cultic or elitist, not confined to a limited world of the arcane and esoteric.

Having said that I remain unconvinced that what you claim there is so. When the zen master certifies the genuineness of the understanding of the acolyte, I think the truth in that is no more transparent and self-evidently determinate than when the critic certifies the greatness of an artwork.

It is seems clear how knowledge is generally justified: either through empirical observation, or logical entailment. The zen teacher's certification of a student understanding falls into neither of those categories, just as the aesthetic judgements don't.

This is not to say that aesthetic judgements or certifications of religious understanding are without value or significance within their worlds, it is just to say that they are not, and can never be, knowledge in the common sense in the common world. In the common world they could only ever have the status of faith and dogma.

And if one uses this conviction as a starting point, and then practices accordingly, then -- so the official theory -- one attains the fruits of the Path. — baker

All I've been saying is that this purported fact can never be demonstrated in the sense that what is counted as knowledge can.

If you believe that is possible, then fine, but you should be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that believing that cannot ever be anything more than a matter of faith, — Janus

How can you possibly know that?
The world of spirituality is a world of hierarchy and exceptionalism. Some people are said to be capable of things that others cannot even dream of. — baker

I don't rule out the possibility of such capabilities; all I'm saying is that they cannot be demonstrated. If Gautama believes he can remember his past 5000 incarnations, how could that ever be proven? How could even the Buddha know that he is not deluding himself or mistaken?

Actually, he doesn't have to. If he did it, he'd be playing by your rules. — baker

That's a silly statement. Philosophy consists in rationally supported argument. I have yet to see any argument explaining why I should believe that the purported truth of what the Buddha believes he knows can be rationally or empirically tested.

Are we here to find a guru?

Are you? The world of spirituality operates by its own principles. And if you choose to enter it, you need to bear this in mind, or you'll waste a lot of time. — baker

Yes, I know that and I've already explored that world for more than twenty years and found it wanting. Are you happy with the world of spirituality, and if so, why would you be wasting your time here in the world of logic, rational argument and empirical justification?

But it ought not to be forgottten that in the Christian faith, the higher being manifested as a lowly indigent, in the person of Jesus, subject to all manner of insults and punishment by death. — Wayfarer

Correct. The supreme example of humility and obedience to a higher reality. Humility and obedience were central to the early monastic orders. Without humility and obedience you were out of the door, on your way, and on your own.

It is seems clear how knowledge is generally justified: either through empirical observation, or logical entailment. — Janus

As I've said before, this stance is essentially positivism. You always react angrily against that, but look at the definition:

positivism a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.

In the common world they could only ever have the status of faith and dogma. — Janus

What if 'the common world' is the mind-created projection of the ego, with no inherent reality?

Anyway, enought argument for the day. I have to go and paint a wall.

Anyway, enought argument for the day. I have to go and paint a wall. — Wayfarer

“My daily activities are not unusual,
I’m just naturally in harmony with them.
Grasping nothing, discarding nothing.
In every place there’s no hindrance, no conflict.
My supernatural power and marvelous activity:
Drawing water and chopping wood.”

Layman Pang

As I've said before, this stance is essentially positivism. You always react angrily against that, but look at the definition:

positivism a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism. — Wayfarer

I'm not going to react angrily against that. I may have reacted impatiently against that in the past because I don't think it is in any sense justified. I recognize way more than can be scientifically or logically verified and I can't understand why you apparently can't see that.

Everything is relevant only within its context, though. Intersubjective knowledge is that, and only that, which can be empirically or logically verified or at least tested. But as I have said many times we can know, in senses of knowing which are other than "knowing that" many other things.We know in this other sense through the arts, music and poetry and religious faith and practice; I have never denied any of that. So, why would you be surprised when I become frustrated and impatient when you apparently misunderstand what I am saying and accuse me of being a positivist?

What if 'the common world' is the mind-created projection of the ego, with no inherent reality? — Wayfarer

I think there is no reason whatsoever to believe that is true. Even if it were true there could be no conceivable way to demonstrate it. Believing that could not change a thing; you would still be run over and killed by the semi-trailer you stepped in front of no matter how enlightened you are.

Without humility and obedience you were out of the door, on your way, and on your own. — Apollodorus

I'm OK with humility, but I have no truck with obedience; that is for pets and children.

I agree. But the spiritually unenlightened or unevolved is like a child until he or she has evolved. The children of God (ta tekna tou Theou) must grow to become godlike or Gods. Until that time, they are children who owe obedience to their Father.

The pater familias in Greek and Roman culture was the supreme authority in the house. He was always addressed as "father", not "George" or "Basil" or some other personal name. God himself is addressed strictly as "Father" or "Lord", out of obedience, humility, and respect.

I'm OK with humility, but I have no truck with obedience; that is for pets and children. — Janus

And public servants...

I agree. But the spiritually unenlightened or unevolved is like a child until he or she has evolved. The children of God (ta tekna tou Theou) must grow to become godlike or Gods. Until that time, they are children who owe obedience to their Father.

The pater familias in Greek and Roman culture was the supreme authority in the house. He was always addressed as "father", not "George" or "Basil" or some other personal name. God himself is addressed strictly as "Father" or "Lord", out of obedience, humility, and respect. — Apollodorus

I am happy with the idea of obedience to the "still small voice" of conscience, but I accept no external authority.

And public servants... — Tom Storm

Thanks for reminding me...an oversight... :lol:

I am happy with the idea of obedience to the "still small voice" of conscience, but I accept no external authority. — Janus

I agree. However, the path of humility and obedience is voluntary. No one was forced to become a monk. There was a trial period during which both the novice and the superiors could make up their mind. And monks were free to leave any time they wanted.

OK, I agree that freely chosen submission to authority is fair enough and may be the way for some or even many people; but I don't accept that it must be the way for all is all.

It's only for the select few. So you have nothing to fear :smile:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it ... For many are called, but few are chosen ... (Matt 7:14; 22:14)