Right, and that's exactly all I've been saying; that such knowledge is not demonstrable, even to oneself.. no matter how sublimely confident and perfectly convinced one might be that one possess such knowledge. — Janus

If one is "sublimely confident and perfectly convinced", then no further demonstration is necessary.

It might turn out, at death, that one was correct, if consciousness survives death,

but no one could know it in advance, and you could never know it was anything more than a lucky intuition in any case.

How can you possibly know that?? To rightly say what you're saying requires omniscience!!!!

At least if you turned out to be wrong you'd never know, could never be proven to be wrong. I have no argument with anyone who feels so convinced they know something as to not entertain even the shadow of a doubt, provide they don't seek to impose their beliefs on others, or expect others to be convinced by their personal conviction and profession of certainty.

So the real issue is about feeling offended by other people's pride, confidence, and certainty?

If you don't want to think freely, but would rather have other's impose their thoughts on you then you are at least free to do that. It's up to you. At least be honest and admit to yourself at least if not to others,

Oh, come on, this is false dichotomy you're operating with. Either think for yourself, or have others impose their thoughts on you. This is so impoverished!
I myself am not much of an optimist, but even I don't believe that humans relate to eachother only in a competitive and adversary way.

To say nothing of how your view requires epistemic autonomy, which is highly problematic in and of itself.

that there is no possibility of absolute rational certainly, or certainty of any truth, even if certainty of personal conviction is possible

What a strange thing to say, your very claim undermines itself.

But just like ordinary religious people nowadays, Plato et al. didn't arrive at their certainties by doing concentration and meditation techniques, did they?

I find it more likely that they were born and raised into their religion, and then later on propped it up with fancy explanations and justifications. As is common for religious people. — baker

Well, no one is born in a cultural vacuum, are they? Least of all educated people like Plato. Of course Plato made use of the materials available to him in the particular cultural context of his time.

However, it is important to understand that Plato did not blindly adopt the religious beliefs of Athenian society. On the contrary, he introduced a new theology with the cosmic Gods ranking above the Gods of mainstream religion, and a supreme non-personal God above the cosmic Gods.

Plato's introduction of the Forms and, above all, the Form of the Good clearly elevates religion above personal Gods. In fact, contemplating the Forms requires no religious beliefs whatsoever. Even atheists can do that.

And, of course, there is a strong probability that Socrates did practice some form of contemplation or meditation. It would seem strange for someone to advocate the contemplation of metaphysical realities and not practice it themselves.

The Symposium (220d-e) certainly relates how Socrates one morning remained standing motionless and absorbed in thoughts until next morning when he prayed to the Sun after which he went on his way, and that this was a habit of his. It is not difficult to imagine him in that state of contemplation or inner vision in which the soul has ascended to and entered the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and changeless where it dwells in communion with the realities that are like itself. See also Phaedo:

But when the soul inquires alone by itself, it departs into the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and the changeless, and being akin to these it dwells always with them whenever it is by itself and is not hindered, and it has rest from its wanderings and remains always the same and unchanging with the changeless, since it is in communion therewith. And this state of the soul is called wisdom (phronesis) (79d)

However, it is important to understand that Plato did not blindly adopt the religious beliefs of Athenian society. On the contrary, he introduced a new theology with the cosmic Gods ranking above the Gods of mainstream religion, and a supreme non-personal God above the cosmic Gods. — Apollodorus

So he did something similar as, for example, Christian theologians did and do: Adopt a religious foundation and build on it. I see nothing special about this.

Plato's introduction of the Forms and, above all, the Form of the Good clearly elevates religion above personal Gods. In fact, contemplating the Forms requires no religious beliefs whatsoever. Even atheists can do that.

But can atheists do it in a way that will have the same positive, life-affirming results as when religious people contemplate the Forms?
My personal experience is, they can't. Without that religious foundation that had to be internalized before one's critical thinking abilities developed, contemplation of "metaphysical realities" doesn't amount to anything.

And, of course, there is a strong probability that Socrates did practice some form of contemplation or meditation. It would seem strange for someone to advocate the contemplation of metaphysical realities and not practice it themselves.

But what is meant by "contemplation of metaphysical realities"?

I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
Psalm 119:15 (NIV)

Does it not simply mean 'to obey religious decrees' and all the "contemplation" and "reflection" are really just about bearing in mind the extent and the details of the religious decrees?
I don't think it includes contemplating the possibility that the "metaphysical realities" might not be real at all.

The Symposium (220d-e) certainly relates how Socrates one morning remained standing motionless and absorbed in thoughts until next morning when he prayed to the Sun after which he went on his way, and that this was a habit of his. It is not difficult to imagine him in that state of contemplation or inner vision in which the soul has ascended to and entered the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and changeless where it dwells in communion with the realities that are like itself (see also Phaedo).

But the method, the method of this absorption is not known to us! And this method is crucial for understanding what exactly it was that he was doing when "standing motionless". I can "stand motionaless" but I will have ascended to the realm of the pure as much as a mole hill. Because I don't have the method.

one's practice should bear some results by which to judge whether one is heading in the right direction or not. — baker

Of course, I agree with that, and there’s plenty of commentary on it, but what I’m resisting is the utilitarian tendency to treat everything as a means to an end. As the Western tradition puts it, rather than seeking reward through virtue, virtue is its own reward.

If one is "sublimely confident and perfectly convinced", then no further demonstration is necessary. — baker

That's not the point. I haven't argued against people being sublimely confident and perfectly convinced. They would feel no need for demonstration to be sure. But their sublime confidence and perfect conviction is no good rational reason for anyone else to believe what they are so perfectly convinced of.

It might turn out, at death, that one was correct, if consciousness survives death,

but no one could know it in advance, and you could never know it was anything more than a lucky intuition in any case.

How can you possibly know that?? To rightly say what you're saying requires omniscience!!!! — baker

How could you possibly know that consciousness survives death before you have died? You might say via remembrance of past lives. But how could you know those memories are accurate or are actually memories at all and not some other phenomenon like tapping into the so-called akashic records or whatever? We don't even know for sure if our own fairly distant memories in this life are accurate or factual rather than fantasized.

Oh, come on, this is false dichotomy you're operating with. Either think for yourself, or have others impose their thoughts on you. This is so impoverished!
I myself am not much of an optimist, but even I don't believe that humans relate to eachother only in a competitive and adversary way.

To say nothing of how your view requires epistemic autonomy, which is highly problematic in and of itself. — baker

We are discussing a particular context here; beliefs about the nature of life and death. What other alternative could there be apart from thinking about it carefully, weighing all the evidence, such as it can be, and deciding for yourself versus believing what someone else tells you because you believe they are enlightened or whatever?

And it's not true that "epistemic autonomy" is required, whatever that could even be. All that's required is the resolve to weigh the "evidence" and decide for yourself, and take no one else's word as to what you should believe, just on account of thinking they have access to some 'knowledge' that lesser mortals cannot access.

that there is no possibility of absolute rational certainly, or certainty of any truth, even if certainty of personal conviction is possible

What a strange thing to say, your very claim undermines itself. — baker

It's one thing to say that what I said "undermines itself" and another to fail to explain why you think that. That complete rational certainty is not possible does not entail that people cannot be absolutely convinced of anything, if they are blind, willfully or otherwise, to the fact that complete rational certainty is not possible.

Forgive me, O sage, for not being 'initated' in the Platonic mysteries of transcendental woo & reification fallacies. :yawn:

Of course, I agree with that, and there’s plenty of commentary on it, but what I’m resisting is the utilitarian tendency to treat everything as a means to an end. — Wayfarer

Oh, like the idea of doing yoga in order to "improve" one's "sex life" or "business negotiation skills".
The horror, the horror!

there are massive lawsuits all throughout the US yoga industry, with people suing for ownership of Sanskrit words. So, yeah, that. It’s called ‘corruption’.

Yet the idea of corruption is what keeps the hope alive that there is something more, something true to all this.
How can you classify something as "corruption", when you don't know the original?

But their sublime confidence and perfect conviction is no good rational reason for anyone else to believe what they are so perfectly convinced of. — Janus

Nobody said it was. Why would/should it be?

How could you possibly know that consciousness survives death before you have died?

Because you have attained some higher knowledge that allows you to know such things.

I don't know whether consciousness survives death or not. My issue is with the form of your argument: you're making definitive claims about things you admit not to know.

You wouldn't make claims about the number of red socks in Tom's sock drawer before looking into Tom's sock drawer. But why make claims about, in this case, consciousness after death, as if you would fully understand the matter, even though you haven't died yet and even though you don't have some higher knowledge that allows you to know such things.

We are discussing a particular context here; beliefs about the nature of life and death. What other alternative could there be apart from thinking about it carefully, weighing all the evidence, such as it can be, and deciding for yourself versus believing what someone else tells you because you believe they are enlightened or whatever?

It's not like there is an actual need to decide about such things! Nobody is putting a gun to your head or a knife to your throat forcing you to decide one way or another.
Whence this need to decide about whether there is consciousness after death??

that there is no possibility of absolute rational certainly, or certainty of any truth, even if certainty of personal conviction is possible

What a strange thing to say, your very claim undermines itself.
— baker

It's one thing to say that what I said "undermines itself" and another to fail to explain why you think that. That complete rational certainty is not possible does not entail that people cannot be absolutely convinced of anything, if they are blind, willfully or otherwise, to the fact that complete rational certainty is not possible.

You're saying, with complete rational certainty, that complete rational certainty is not possible. And you don't see a problem with that?

So he did something similar as, for example, Christian theologians did and do: Adopt a religious foundation and build on it. I see nothing special about this. — baker

Plato bridged the gap between the religion of the masses and the philosophy of the intellectual elite. This is what his theology does. It offers the less spiritually advanced a path to higher intellectual and spiritual experience.

But can atheists do it in a way that will have the same positive, life-affirming results as when religious people contemplate the Forms?
My personal experience is, they can't. Without that religious foundation that had to be internalized before one's critical thinking abilities developed, contemplation of "metaphysical realities" doesn't amount to anything. — baker

Not religious but moral and intellectual foundation. Religion is about belief (pistis) which is OK in the lower stages, but by definition, Platonism goes beyond religion or belief to the stages of reason (dianoia) and inner vision (noesis).

Religion is about obeying and worshiping the Gods. Philosophy, i.e., philosophia, is about desire or love of wisdom, it is the all-consuming desire to transcend your present condition and experience of yourself and of life.

Plato is about intelligence and transcendence. The Platonic Way is the Upward Way (he ano odos), the Way of Righteousness and Wisdom, i.e., the way of moral conduct and spiritual insight, the ascent that takes you from where you are (wherever that is) to the highest.

Religion serves the purpose of preserving order and ethical conduct in society. It also inspires us to think of something higher but beyond this it is left behind and philosophy, i.e., intellectual and spiritual training takes over. Plato is totally committed to intelligence. What distinguishes humans from inanimate objects is intelligence. Intelligence is what defines us. To deny intelligence is to deny who we are and makes no sense. Philosophy is knowing oneself and knowing truth, and the two are ultimately identical.

But what is meant by "contemplation of metaphysical realities"?

I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
Psalm 119:15 (NIV) — baker

There are of course different forms of contemplation (theoria), some involve contemplation of scriptural passages, others involve contemplation of the cosmic Gods, Forms, or the One.

Does it not simply mean 'to obey religious decrees' and all the "contemplation" and "reflection" are really just about bearing in mind the extent and the details of the religious decrees?
I don't think it includes contemplating the possibility that the "metaphysical realities" might not be real at all. — baker

For Plato, what the contemplative (theoros) contemplates (theorei) are the Forms, the realities underlying the individual appearances, and one who contemplates these atemporal and aspatial realities is enriched with a perspective on ordinary things superior to that of ordinary people (A W Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in Its Cultural Context).

The Symposium speaks of contemplating the Beautiful (211d) and the Republic of contemplation of the Form of the Good (517c-d).

But, ultimately, the metaphysical realities are you. Of course you contemplate the possibility that the lower aspects of yourself such as body and mind might not be real, but you cannot doubt that your higher self, which is identical with the realities you are contemplating, is eminently real. The closer you get to the realities you are contemplating, the more you experience yourself as your true self. It is like the centers of two circles that get ever closer to one another until they occupy exactly the same space and position and become one. Focusing, centering, and grounding yourself in a higher and more stable reality.

But the method, the method of this absorption is not known to us! And this method is crucial for understanding what exactly it was that he was doing when "standing motionless". I can "stand motionaless" but I will have ascended to the realm of the pure as much as a mole hill. Because I don't have the method. — baker

The method is known if you read the dialogues carefully. The Phaedo and the Republic tell you exactly what it is. The Good or the One is the ultimate telos of philosophical life. The One is to the intelligible world what the Sun is to the sensible world. Hierarchy of Light, Sun, Intelligence, Reality, One.

The process involves unification, concentration, interiorization, elevation, and expansion of consciousness.

This is what the Forms are about. If you follow them they take you to the One.

There are different stages of experience and realization, accomplishment, or perfection and, therefore, different methods and stages of practice.

As stated before, there are several methods or paths of achieving the goal: (1) religious and devotional practices (theourgia), (2) the mystery traditions (mysteria), and (3) philosophy proper based on intellectual training and contemplation (theoria). Religion is only necessary where required by the practitioner's level of intellectual and spiritual development.

Philosophical practice begins with the cultivation of virtues (self-control, courage, wisdom, righteousness). Self-control and courage lead to indifference to material things and physical and emotional needs, and overcoming fear of death.

The verb meletao, “to take thought”, “meditate”, also “practice” is used by Socrates with reference to “practicing dying” (Phaedo 67e). Of course “dying” here does not mean literally dying but being “dead” to the material world, body, sense perceptions and everything else aside from the soul and pure reason:

In fact, then, Simmias,” said he, “the true philosophers practice dying, and death is less terrible to them than to any other men. Consider it in this way. They are in every way hostile to the body and they desire to have the soul apart by itself alone (67e)

Depending on your stage of intellectual and spiritual development, if the stages of spiritual progress are purification (katharsis), illumination (ellampsis), oneness (henosis) then contemplation or meditation on light is a logical first step. Light dispels the inner darkness, empties and purifies your mind and sanctifies it in preparation for the inner vision of the light of consciousness.

Plotinus says:

[one must] wait quietly till it appears, preparing oneself to contemplate it, as the eye awaits the rising of the sun; and the sun rising over the horizon (from “Ocean,” the poets
say) gives itself to the eyes to see.

- Awaiting the Sun: A Plotinian Form of Contemplative Prayer

Many times it has happened: Lifted out of the body into myself; becoming external to all other things and self-encentered; beholding a marvellous beauty; then, more than ever, assured of community with the loftiest order; enacting the noblest life, acquiring identity with the divine; stationing within It by having attained that activity; poised above whatsoever within the Intellectual is less than the Supreme: yet, there comes the moment of descent from intellection to reasoning, and after that sojourn in the divine, I ask myself how it happens that I can now be descending, and how did the soul ever enter into my body, the soul which, even within the body, is the high thing it has shown itself to be (Enneads 4.8.1)

Among methods, Plotinus also enumerates learning about the Good by analogies, abstractions, understanding, upward steps toward it, purification and cultivation of virtues by means of which one becomes at once seen and seer, and the Supreme is no longer seen as an external:

Here, we put aside all the learning; disciplined to this pitch, established in beauty, the quester holds knowledge still of the ground he rests on, but, suddenly, swept beyond it all by the very crest of the wave of Intellect surging beneath, he is lifted and sees, never knowing how; the vision floods the eyes with light, but it is not a light showing some other object, the light is itself the vision … With This he himself becomes identical, with that radiance whose Act is to engender Intellectual-Principle …(Ennead 6.7.36)

But you need to go through the purification stage to insure that you are psychologically and morally stable and strong, otherwise any metaphysical experience can throw you off balance and do more harm than good.

If the philosopher is intellectually and spiritually not ready, then they must revert to the preparatory practices, otherwise they are wasting their time.

Because you have attained some higher knowledge that allows you to know such things. — baker

There cannot be demonstrated to be any such higher knowledge, though. Even the person who purportedly has such knowledge cannot be sure (as opposed to feeling sure) that it is true knowledge. It's a conviction that things are a certain way; if things turned out to be that way it just means that the conviction would have turned out to be in accordance with reality.

The problem is that no one could ever be sure of that being the case. Knowledge as it is normally understood is always uncertain, and consists in there being found no good reason to doubt, and that what we believe is also true. But the latter is what is always rationally uncertain.

If you wanted to be strictly accurate there is no possibility of certain knowledge that anything is the case, so really humans don't have propositional knowledge at all, they just have beliefs. That said of course within limited contexts we can be said to know things for certain, like I know I am sitting here typing on a laptop, or I know it is raining because I can see the rain falling and things getting wet.

It's not like there is an actual need to decide about such things! Nobody is putting a gun to your head or a knife to your throat forcing you to decide one way or another.
Whence this need to decide about whether there is consciousness after death?? — baker

That's a silly comment, given what Ive been arguing. I've been using that as an example; I'm not claiming the individual should decide one way or another. That's a matter of faith, of personal conviction, and up to the individual. I sometimes doubt you even read what I've written. I'm not even saying someone should not follow what some purported sage has to say; just that doing that is not an example of thinking for yourself, but rather of allowing someone else to do your thinking for you.

Thank you, this will take some processing.

You are welcome. And you can have this for after dinner: :smile:

People are sometimes surprised to hear that Platonism involves contemplation and meditation. However, concentration, contemplation, and meditation are central practices in traditional Platonism and they are clearly described in the dialogues.

For example, in the Phaedo, Socrates says:

Purification turns out to be the very thing we were recently talking about in our discussion [at 64d-66a] namely parting the soul from the body as much as possible and habituating it to assembling and gathering itself from every part of the body, alone by itself, and to living alone by itself as far as it can, both now and afterwards, released from the body as if from fetters (67c-d)

The confusion arises in the mind of the modern reader due to the fact that nowadays such practices are associated with Eastern traditions. This is a fundamental mistake that leads to a misunderstanding of the whole Platonic project.

In particular, the popular association of contemplation and meditation with Eastern traditions results in the unfounded assumption that such practices can be performed exclusively in the “lotus” or padmasana posture associated with those traditions.

The truth of the matter is that sense-withdrawal, concentration, contemplation/meditation can be practiced in any position or situation.

For example, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra, a 7th century Sanskrit text says that meditation can be done whilst lying down and about to fall asleep; traveling on horseback or carriage; moving one’s body; looking at the sky or landscape, etc:

If the energy of breath is meditated upon at dvadashanta [twelve-fingers distance in the heart, throat or between the eyebrows] (at the time of sleeping) one will attain mastery over one’s dreams [a form of lucid dreaming] (55)
One should concentrate on the state when sleep has not yet come, but the external awareness has disappeared (75)
Whether one is seated on a moving vehicle or whether one moves one’s body slowly, one attains a peaceful mental state [through concentration] (83)

In the same text we also find a very Plotinian (or Platonic) meditation on light:

One should direct one's gaze on space which is filled with variegated light of the Sun or of a lamp. There itself one's own essential nature will be revealed (76)

There seems to be some kind of affinity between light and consciousness that is also apparent from Socrates' comparison of knowledge, truth, and the Good with the Sun (Rep. 509b). Visualization or contemplation of light seems to stimulate the mind into entering higher states of consciousness. Even exposure to physical light, e.g. sunlight, can stimulate the brain and have a positive effect on moods, inducing states of calm and focus, and enhancing memory and learning, i.e., intelligence.

So, it seems that looking at light is like intelligence looking at itself as in a mirror. But this can be properly grasped only through practice and by detaching ourselves from body, sense-perceptions, and thoughts, exactly as indicated by Socrates, in order for the soul to perceive things that are pure and immortal like itself (Phaedo 79d).

At any rate, Socrates’ emphasis on sense-withdrawal, concentration, contemplation, wakefulness, sobriety, his imperviousness to extreme cold and heat, the fact that he is always awake, alert, and sober, his habit of being absorbed in thoughts for long periods of time, all indicate practices and mental states akin to those described in Eastern traditions. And, whilst yoga postures do not seem to occur in Ancient Greece, philosophers did engage in physical and even military training, thus providing a balancing counterweight to intellectual effort and training.

Certainly, Plotinus is unlikely to have been seated in a yoga posture when he was swept away on a vision of inner light. And similar experiences are recorded in the monastic tradition of early Hellenistic Christianity.

For example, the 4th-century CE theologian Evagrius Ponticus (De Oratione) counts visions of inner light as indicative of spiritual progress, and these are sometimes explained as the nous, the soul’s organ or faculty of contemplation and insight, seeing its own light in an experience where the distinction between subject and object or knower and known subsides to give way to an experience of oneness (henosis).

Of course, the process of ascent, the Platonic Way Upward, is ongoing. It must be continued to the ultimate telos or end.

There cannot be demonstrated to be any such higher knowledge, though. — Janus

So? There is no need for such demonstration.

Even the person who purportedly has such knowledge cannot be sure (as opposed to feeling sure) that it is true knowledge.

How can you possibly know that??

It's a conviction that things are a certain way; if things turned out to be that way it just means that the conviction would have turned out to be in accordance with reality.

How can you possibly know it's merely a conviction?

The problem is that no one could ever be sure of that being the case. Knowledge as it is normally understood is always uncertain, and consists in there being found no good reason to doubt, and that what we believe is also true. But the latter is what is always rationally uncertain.

If you wanted to be strictly accurate there is no possibility of certain knowledge that anything is the case, so really humans don't have propositional knowledge at all, they just have beliefs. That said of course within limited contexts we can be said to know things for certain, like I know I am sitting here typing on a laptop, or I know it is raining because I can see the rain falling and things getting wet.

You're taking for granted a measure of uncertainty and human incapacity for knowledge. You could be overstating the case, taking for granted that humans are necessarily thusly incapable. All in all, you are making definite claims about things you yourself admit to not having certainty of.

It's not like there is an actual need to decide about such things! Nobody is putting a gun to your head or a knife to your throat forcing you to decide one way or another.
Whence this need to decide about whether there is consciousness after death??
— baker

That's a silly comment, given what Ive been arguing.

Perhaps I need to adjust my style and be less colloquial.

I've been using that as an example; I'm not claiming the individual should decide one way or another. That's a matter of faith, of personal conviction, and up to the individual. I sometimes doubt you even read what I've written. I'm not even saying someone should not follow what some purported sage has to say; just that doing that is not an example of thinking for yourself, but rather of allowing someone else to do your thinking for you.

My point is that you're presenting the matter in either-or terms, while I think that the decision as you put it forward is not even necessary. It's avoidable, much if not most of the time. For the most part, we do not actually need to decide whether what someone claims is the truth or not.

It seems that most people, when they hear a claim, have the impulse to decide whether it is true or not, to decide whether the person is lying or not, or trying to deceive them or not. I contend that much if not most of the time, this is not necessary at all, and it would be a waste of energy and time to investigate each and every claim. Many, if not most claims that one hears in one's life, can be put aside without deciding about them, without this having any negative consequences for oneself.

You are welcome. And you can have this for after dinner — Apollodorus

Thank you, but I have to unplug the computer and all electronic devices now, because we have a storm coming.

You're taking for granted a measure of uncertainty and human incapacity for knowledge. You could be overstating the case, taking for granted that humans are necessarily thusly incapable. All in all, you are making definite claims about things you yourself admit to not having certainty of. — baker

I am saying that it could never be demonstrated that anyone could know anything absent empirical evidence or logical self-evidence. If someone thinks they directly and certainly know something without any such evidence, how could that ever be demonstrated to be the case, even to themselves? You say it doesn't need to be demonstrated, and of course someone who is 100% convinced that they have such knowledge it doesn't need to be demonstrated, meaning they don't feel in need of any demonstration. Are you saying it is possible that their purported knowledge could be infallible?

Even if it were possible for humans to have infallible knowledge of things without empirical evidence or logical self-evidence, I would still claim that they could not know that they know; they could only feel (possibly) 100% sure that they do, and conviction, no matter how strong can never be be a guarantee of truth.

In any case even if, for the sake of argument, it be granted that it is possible that someone could have infallible knowledge of the true nature of reality, what possible relevance could it have for the rest of us who could have no way of knowing that their knowledge is infallible?

Since the topic of this thread is the examined life, it is appropriate once again, to examine what it is that you know in distinction from what it is you believe and why it is you believe it. One might believe that Plato's poetry is revelation, but he himself tells us otherwise. We know nothing of life before or after death or of the soul apart from the body in life. Socrates repeatedly qualifies such stories by saying things like "if these things are true" (67b). It turns out that the purification he talks about in mystical turns is nothing other than phronesis:

… and maybe moderation and justice and courage and phronesis itself are nothing but a kind of purifier. (69c)

As always, Plato returns us from the flights of imagination to our life here and now.

The problem is:

… if we can know nothing purely in the body's company, then one of two things must be true: either knowledge is nowhere to be gained, or else it is for the dead. (66e)

We are "in the body's company". Accordingly, as long as we are human beings, knowledge is nowhere to be gained. Separation from the body, to the extent it is possible while alive, is taken by some to mean asceticism. But Socrates in not an ascetic. Eros, as can be seen for example in the Symposium, is of fundamental importance to him. Rather than asceticism he advocates phonesis as the way of minimizing the distractions from philosophy. We should not overlook the fact, as we are told (60a), that Socrates, a seventy year old man, has a young son.

The examined life is not about stories of death and transcendent realities, it is a matter of self-knowledge, which means knowing that we do not know anything about such things. And so, we do not know if these are "likely stories" or "if they happen to be true". They are images on the cave wall, and when mistaken for truth bind us more securely to the cave wall.

Those who think that concentration and contemplation requires "asceticism" seem to be as psychologically deficient as those who think that meditation can be practiced only in the "lotus" posture.

The same applies to those who claim that having a son precludes one from contemplating metaphysical realities but not from talking all day long about them. Their inability to see the absurdity of their claim is all too characteristic.

But nothing beats those who imagine that Plato wrote books for the sole purpose of teaching ignorance and "aporia" .... :lol:

Calling things you know nothing about "metaphysical realities" illustrates the problem. We know nothing of life before or after death. We know nothing of the separation of body and soul. The examined life requires at least enough honesty and self-awareness to admit this.

Plato did not "teach" ignorance and aporia. These are things that one must come to know on their own. The problem is, as Simmias says in the Phaedo:

“It seems to me, Socrates, as perhaps you do too, that in these matters certain knowledge is either impossible or very hard to come by in this life; but that even so, not to test what is said about them in every possible way, without leaving off till one has examined them exhaustively from every aspect, shows a very feeble spirit; on these questions one must achieve one of two things: either learn or find out how things are; or, if that's impossible, he must sail through life in the midst of danger, seizing on the best and the least refutable of human accounts, at any rate, and letting himself be carried upon it as on a raft - unless, that is, he could journey more safely and less dangerously on a more stable carrier, some divine account.” (85c-d)

Not knowing is not the goal, it is the condition within which one begins to philosophize. What is sought is the best and least refutable “human accounts”. But it is a way that is fraught with danger. And so, Socrates tells stories in the guise of "some divine account" for those who are unable to navigate the dangerous waters. Stories that will guide them in their ignorance of their ignorance. Stories that are grabbed hold of like a life saving raft, as if they have become privy to "metaphysical realities".

Regarding religious considerations, the core of the Platonic project is encapsulated in several statements in the dialogues such as the following from the Republic:

We shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil, and so we shall hold ever to the upward way and pursue righteousness with wisdom always and ever, that we may be dear to ourselves and to the Gods both here and in the hereafter (Rep. 621c)

The phrase “upward way”, ano odos, indicates that Platonism is a process of vertical progress that takes the philosopher through a hierarchy of realities ranging from the human experience to ultimate truth, and that the means of entering it are righteousness (dikaiosyne) and wisdom (phronesis}, i.e., ethical conduct and spiritual insight.

However, if we encounter Gods or other metaphysical entities on our way to the highest, we will know this as and when it happens. So, we need not be overly concerned with the Gods.

Plato has a hierarchy of divine entities consisting in ascending order of (1) Olympic Gods, (2) Cosmic Gods, and (3) Creator God who is the Good or the One. The One is the unfathomable and indescribable Ultimate Reality, and the goal on which the philosopher must fix his mind.

All we need to know about the One is that it has two aspects, one in which it looks as it were “inward” and has no other experience than itself, and one in which it looks “outward” and sees the Cosmos which is the One’s own creation.

Now, supposing someone, e.g. a Greek, is a religious person, they may choose to worship the Olympic Gods by going to the local temple, or simply reciting a hymn or prayer to them at home. If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them. But it may still help to acknowledge the Gods on a different level.

For example, starting with the astronomical facts, if you are facing north, you have the Sky above and the Earth below, the setting Moon in the west is to your left and the Sun rising in the east is to your right. By picturing that arrangement in your mind, you organize your inner world, and put yourself in touch with a larger reality. The simple acknowledgement of Sky, Earth, Moon, and Sun, already has a psychological and spiritual effect on your psyche.

In Jungian terms, you may create a mental mandala consisting of an outer circle described by the twelve Olympic Gods representing the heavens with the twelve houses of the zodiac and twelve months of the year. Inscribed in the outer circle, you visualize a square with Sky, Earth, Sun, and Moon on its four sides. Inside the square, you visualize the ocean with the Island of Paradise (the Island of the Blessed) in the center, and think of yourself as being there.

You can make it as detailed and intricate as you want, though it is best to keep it as simple and as realistic as possible. In any case, the purpose of visualizations of this type is to place the meditator in the right frame of mind, i.e., to facilitate detachment from everyday external surroundings and induce a state of consciousness in which new forms of awareness and experience may be explored. The rest is a matter of practice, always following the basic sense-withdrawal, concentration, and contemplation pattern.

The point I am making is that contemplating the Forms, e.g. the Good or the One, is an essential element of Platonism and Socrates repeatedly speaks of the need for the soul to look at intelligible or metaphysical realities “alone on its own” whilst turning away from the world of appearance (Phaedo 79d). But this is something that actually transcends religion. It is a highly flexible and adaptable procedure that can be practiced by anyone, including atheists and Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims or Jews, and using cultural elements from any tradition.

But nothing beats those who imagine that Plato wrote books for the sole purpose of teaching ignorance and "aporia" .... :lol: — Apollodorus

The only one who is imagining that view is you yourself. Nobody that I know of characterizes the unfolding of the Dialectic to be antithetical to contemplation of an ultimate reality. Plato's many profiles of how we are bound by opinions involves comparing it to an experience of knowledge that we wish for. Nowhere is it claimed by Socrates that seeking knowledge while recognizing the difficulty of doing so is stupid.

Socrates does, however, argue strenuously against those who do. The objection to Thrasymachus frames the scope of the Republic. The call to not accept ignorance as a final condition are the closing words of Socrates in the Gorgias:

For it seems shameful that, being what apparently at this moment we are, we should consider ourselves fine fellows, when we can never hold to the same views about the same questions--and those too the most vital of all--so deplorably uneducated are we! Then let us follow the guidance of the argument now made manifest, which reveals to us that this is the best way of life--to live and die in the pursuit of righteousness and all other virtues. Let us follow this, I say, inviting others to join us, not that which you believe in and commend to me, for it is worthless, dear Callicles. — Plato, Gorgias, 327d, translated by W.D. Woodhead

Now that we have properly located your vision of cowardice and despair as coming from you, and not from any of your interlocutors, you can also take ownership of your claim that the life of discourse, so eagerly enjoined by Socrates, is actually a front for a group seeking mystical communion with the real. Because, if Socrates is only pretending to be ignorant, the entire process of the Dialogues is a sham.

Nobody that I know of characterizes the unfolding of the Dialectic to be antithetical to contemplation of an ultimate reality. — Valentinus

Good try. Or, perhaps, not so good.

From what I see, some claim that Socrates could never have contemplated metaphysical realities (1) because he had a young son and (2) because the realities he was talking about don't exist ....

In other words, having a young son prevented Socrates from contemplating metaphysical realities, but not from endlessly talking about them, or from drinking poison.

And, anyway, the inquiry "leads to aporia". So, it's all crystal clear then :smile:

You make several good points. Recognition of our ignorance is the essential condition for philosophy. Following Thrasymachus, Gorgias, and other sophists, there are two frequent but diametrically opposed mistakes that are made. The first is that we cannot overcome our ignorance and so rhetoric and other more forceful means of persuasion are taken to be ends in themselves. The second is that our ignorance is overcome by what we are told, that knowledge can be put in the soul.

It is ironic that some claim to take what is said in the dialogue at face value and yet ignore Socrates' profession of ignorance. The reason, I think, is clear. If Socrates is ignorant regarding the things above and the things below, namely, Forms and Hades, then nothing he says about such things can be taken at face value; and so, the illusion that one has become knowledgeable based on what the dialogues say about such things cannot be maintained.

Because, if Socrates is only pretending to be ignorant, the entire process of the Dialogues is a sham. — Valentinus

Exactly, and this is why some will never even begin to understand Socratic philosophy.

From what I see, some claim that Socrates could never have contemplated metaphysical realities (1) because he had a young son and (2) because the realities he was talking about don't exist .... — Apollodorus

It is never clear whether you are incapable of understanding what is said, or if you just imagine that your argument will appear to be persuasive if you deliberately misrepresent what is said.

The point about his son has nothing to do with "metaphysical realities", it has to do with how we are to evaluate what he says about pleasure and the body and the extent to which they interfere with philosophy.

Contemplation of "metaphysical realities" is not contingent on the existence of such. To contemplate does not mean that one sees the Forms or whatever your imagined "metaphysical realities" are. It is a movement toward rather than from what is hoped to be seen.

The call to not accept ignorance as a final condition are the closing words of Socrates in the Gorgias — Valentinus

That's great. However, it seems to contradict the claims of your alter ego:

If Socrates is ignorant regarding the things above and the things below, namely, Forms and Hades, then nothing he says about such things can be taken at face value — Fooloso4

Socrates, in other words, is supposed to have died an "ignoramus". So, what hope do the rest of us have??? :grin:

The only ignoramus here is you! What seems to you to be a contradiction is not.

You only see my comment through the lens of your ongoing argument with Fooloso4. I am not talking about that.

Your comments about ignorance relate to how to make sense of what Socrates is doing when he talks about ignorance. You have made a number of comments that emphasize a mystical experience in relationship to reality. If the ubiquitous discussion of ignorance in Plato is not really an admission of ignorance, what is one to make of all that talk? It is not about what Socrates knew or not. We will never know. But your model of Plato does not explain the discursive environment Plato was trying to create.

I challenge you to answer my question without reference to what other people might have said.

I challenge you to answer my question without reference to what other people might have said. — Valentinus

I fail to see on what basis you can do that when you never care to answer my questions.

Plus your comments seem to be indistinguishable from @Fooloso4's own statements.

Yes, I do emphasize a "mystical" experience in relationship to reality, but only because this seems to be the logical conclusion to inquiry into abstract realities, and because this is the mainstream interpretation of Plato.

In contrast, your and your alter ego's interpretation makes no sense to me whatsoever. There seems to be an excessive focus on "Plato's dialogues' ending in aporia" that explains absolutely nothing.

To begin with, I don't think that lack of knowledge can serve as a basis for action as taken by Plato. Would Plato found a school if all he had to teach was "ignorance and aporia"? As tradition has it, Plato sailed to Syracuse in an apparent attempt to promote his political philosophy there. I very much doubt he did this on the basis of ignorance and aporia.

Plato's discursive environment simply aims to encourage readers to examine their beliefs and accept those that make most sense when placed under rational scrutiny. Anything else is just the imagination of anti-Platonist aporeticists and esotericists.

I can accept that some readers may see dialogues like Euthyphro as ending in "aporia", but where is the "aporia" in other works like the Republic or Laws???

I fail to see on what basis you can do that when you never care to answer my questions. — Apollodorus

I answer your questions when they are directed to comments I make. I don't when they refer to arguments you are having with others. The paucity of the former has come to my attention.

Plato's discursive environment simply aims to encourage readers to examine their beliefs and accept those that make most sense when placed under rational scrutiny. — Apollodorus

How does that encouragement relate to the insistence that we know much less than we think we do? Is the emphasis upon ignorance a ruse being employed by someone who knows the answers?

There are certain sets of opinions Socrates did not want other people to keep having. He made great efforts to undermine the basis for them. He was killed for questioning some traditional points of view. Your description does not capture the element of struggle on display in many dialogues.

I can accept that some readers may see dialogues like Euthyphro as ending in "aporia", but where is the "aporia" in other works like the Republic or Laws??? — Apollodorus

As discussed before, we have not established a shared meaning for the term. I agree that different dialogues end very differently. The term is only useful if it compares one kind of statement to another. If we cannot agree upon that difference as matter of description, then insisting upon its meaning will not help illuminate the differences of how the dialogues are read.

In the context of my challenge, that issue returns to asking what the point of all these differences amount to.