If you think that was elegant you should see me do interpretative dance. I do all the major philosophers. — Fooloso4

I want to see your Heidegger dance first, just to test your interpretive powers...

I want to see your Heidegger dance first, just to test your interpretive powers... — Tom Storm

Appropriately enough, in this case the dance is as inelegant as his writing. It's got a good beat though, if you like ponderous marches.

My question was, if philosophical inquiry leads to aporia, then why would anyone engage in philosophical inquiry? — Apollodorus

Well, this is why people quit philosophy, no?

According to Socrates, knowledge of higher realities can be acquired only by looking into them with the soul alone by itself.

Through the Socratic method, under the guidance of the teacher.

The claim to the effect that "philosophical inquiry leads to aporia" is spurious and unfounded IMHO. — Apollodorus

Not at all. The above claim probably best describes many people's experience with philosophy, namely, that it "goes nowhere".

Plato does no more than to put us on the right track. The Truth-hunting has to be done by each lover of wisdom or seeker after truth, personally. — Apollodorus

Provided we take for granted that Plato knows and take him as our teacher.

At any rate, I think we are more likely to arrive at truth by actively hunting for it than by perpetually questioning things and living a life of self-imposed ignorance, uncertainty, and doubt.

"And what is the result of stress?
There are some cases in which a person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered.
Or one overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or two to stop this pain?'
I tell you, monks, that stress results either in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of stress.
AN 6.63

How are we to hunt for the truth, if we do it in some kind of vacuum, with no teacher or guide?
And how do we know whom to turn to to help us in our search?


Note how our notion of truth probably entails some kind of relating to others, however "thinking for ourselves" we might otherwise believe ourselves to be.

Note how our notion of truth probably entails some kind of relating to others, however "thinking for ourselves" we might otherwise believe ourselves to be. — baker

I think that those who feel that Plato's philosophy "goes nowhere" either misunderstand philosophy or fail in their efforts for some other reasons.

According to Plato, we already have knowledge of higher realities acquired in past lives.

We learn philosophical teachings from more knowledgeable and experienced people.

We intuitively know which philosophical teachings are correct, and when properly put into practice, they awaken our innate knowledge of higher realities.

When the soul contemplates metaphysical realities, it may be temporarily separated from the material world, but it is increasingly in communion with the metaphysical realities that are like itself (Phaedo 79d).

The more the soul advances on the Platonic Way Upward and its knowledge and consciousness expand, the more it is in unity with other souls, until oneness or union (henosis) with the One has been achieved.

You speak like a true believer.

Now, the question is how come some people are bothered by this. (For they are bothered, given the extensive critical communications on the topic).

For your own part, you already have an explanation for this: they are spiritually inferior to you.

For their part, I'm not sure. It could be many things -- envy, feeling threatened, bewilderment. It's something I've been keenly trying to figure out.

Here making a note to myself to reply to these posts. I need to think some more to make my reply concise.

For Plato, knowledge acquired through reason (episteme) is higher than belief (doxa), and knowledge acquired through personal experience (gnosis) is higher than knowledge acquired through reason.

However, right belief (orthe doxa) can serve as right guidance (orthe hegesia) that takes us to higher forms of knowledge (Meno 97b).

Unfortunately, even in Plato's time there were false philosophy teachers (Sophists) whom Plato warns against in his dialogues.

Why some seem to find the right teachers and others don't, is an interesting question. On Plato's scheme of spiritual evolution, it may be the case that some are (1) not sufficiently evolved or ready and/or (2) not discerning enough to find the right path.

But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't make an effort. By definition, the Platonic philosopher is one who loves knowledge and wisdom and actively seeks after it. And as the saying goes, "seek and you shall find" .... :smile:

For their part, I'm not sure. It could be many things -- envy, feeling threatened, bewilderment. It's something I've been keenly trying to figure out. — baker

You did not list simply disagreeing with the interpretation.
Assuming that criticism is only a result of a bad reaction to a manifestly true account is the rhetoric of an apologist, not of a critical thinker who judges for herself.

For their part, I'm not sure. It could be many things -- envy, feeling threatened, bewilderment. It's something I've been keenly trying to figure out. — baker

It is a matter of his rude disregard and intolerance for views on Plato that differ from his own. The moderators have seen fit to delete many of his posts. He insists not only that his beliefs about Plato and Platonism are true and others thereby false, but that he must have the last word. He deliberately misrepresents the views of those who see things differently, and disparages influential scholars he had not read because of such things as when they were born and because they had academic associations with "socialists", not knowing they are critical of socialism.

I do not envy or feel threatened or bewildered by his derivative interpretation. If is run of the mill. The kind of thing you find in any introductory text. There are, however, scholars doing what is in my opinion much more interesting, imaginative, and insightful work. They are able to make sense of each part of the dialogue as part of the whole. They are able to show both where the dialogues connect to each other and where they differ. In my opinion one must understand both the whole and the parts and not just take parts out of context.

When I was first introduced to Plato I was very much attracted to the idea of mystical, transcendent truth, and paid little attention to Socrates' claim of ignorance. In time it began to occur to me that I knew nothing of such transcendent truths. Following the work of highly regarded scholars I came to see Plato in a very different light. Rather than imagining I was in the process of escaping the cave, I came to realize I was seeing the images that Plato was casting on the cave wall, and like the other prisoners, mistaking images for the truth.

Well, this is why people quit philosophy, no? — baker

People can leave their jobs, wives or husbands, or move to another city or country. There is nothing different about quitting philosophy.

However, I think it is worthwhile taking into consideration that only some of Plato’s dialogues end in aporia, not all of them. In fact, most of them do not.

Besides, Platonism has been extraordinarily successful. From Antiquity to Late Middle Ages and beyond, it was the philosophical system.

Of course, people do not need to agree with everything that Platonism says. But if they find Platonism unsatisfactory, I think it would depend on which aspect of it they disagree with. In my experience, it often boils down to some misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

You did not list simply disagreeing with the interpretation.
Assuming that criticism is only a result of a bad reaction to a manifestly true account is the rhetoric of an apologist, not of a critical thinker who judges for herself. — Valentinus

The question was how come some people are bothered by Platonism (their extensive critical communications on the topic being evidence of being thusly bothered).

If they are simply disagreeing with the interpretation, why the extensive communication?

I am continually reminded of the story from the Buddha's first encounter with another person after he attained enlightenment. Namely, so the story, after he attained enlightenment, the Buddha wanted to tell people about it. So he told the first person he met on the road, "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one." The man shook his head, said, "May it be so" and went his way.

What I want to know is this: How come more people aren't like this man?

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. — Apollodorus

There's a similarity to this in Early Buddhism: In Early Buddhism, the basic prongs of the practice are sila, panna, samadhi (morality, wisdom, concentration).

However, if we encounter Gods or other metaphysical entities on our way to the highest, we will know this as and when it happens.

A similar sentiment can be found in Early Buddhism regarding the efficacy of the practice.

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.

A similarity to this can be found in Hinduism. A hierarchy of gods, the notion of a Supreme Deity (I'm a bit rusty on this by now).

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.

What a bizarre claim!!

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.

Yes, similar can be found in Early Buddhism (e.g.).
Further: frames of reference.

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.

I do not recall hearing about such a thing in any Dharmic religion that I know of, though.

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.

Similar can be heard from, say, the Hare Krishnas. I see no point in trying to go into who borrowed (or stole) whose ideas. I also think that the similarities could possibly be only superficial and overrated, and not some kind of evidence that the process is true/real.

Not everything in Platonism needs to have an equivalent in Dharmic religions. However, there are parallels. For example the Indian concept of consciousness generating cognition by means of nama and rupa is not very different from the Platonic concept of name (onoma) and form (eidos).

The question as to who borrowed from whom is irrelevant.

And no, it doesn't prove anything. The only valid proof is personal experience and this may well be subjective and distinct from other people's. This doesn't necessarily mean it's just imagination.

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.
What a bizarre claim!! — baker

Why is that so bizarre?

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. — Apollodorus

But he never walked that path himself, did he?

This is crucial, because if he never did what he instructs others to do, then on the grounds of what should we trust him and his advice?

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.

But can a person have this moral and intellectual foundation without first being religious?

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

Indeed. But can one do those preparatory practices outside of religon?

But he never walked that path himself, did he?

This is crucial, because if he never did what he instructs others to do, then on the grounds of what should we trust him and his advice? — baker

We have no means of determining this with 100% certitude. But contemplation of higher realities was advocated by Aristotle and other members of the Platonic school and it seems safe to assume that this was put into practice at least to some extent.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal experience. If the practice of contemplation leads you nowhere, then you may discontinue it any time. But most forms of meditation seem to have some effect. You may not become "omniscient" or "enlightened", but you may still achieve a sense of calm, focus, clarity, enhanced memory, and in some cases it may lead to lucid dreaming and other states of consciousness that you did not experience before.

But can a person have this moral and intellectual foundation without first being religious? — baker

Indeed. But can one do those preparatory practices outside of religon? — baker

I believe that one can. Perhaps not in all cases, but a lot of people seem to have a sense of what is right and what is wrong, fair, just, appropriate, good, etc. through upbringing and education, and perhaps through innate psychological tendencies, and independently of religious beliefs.

We may compare this to a natural belief in goodness and ability to discriminate between right and wrong, etc. that may be useful when traveling abroad. You need to possess certain attributes to avoid getting into trouble and to make the journey successful. The same is true of journeys to different states of consciousness and realms of experience.

It is a matter of his rude disregard and intolerance for views on Plato that differ from his own. — Fooloso4

Oh. This seems rather mutual.

The only valid proof is personal experience and this may well be subjective and distinct from other people's. This doesn't necessarily mean it's just imagination. — Apollodorus

When you put it this way, spiritual advancement is sometimes indistinguishable from mental illness. This is cause for alarm.

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.
What a bizarre claim!!
— baker

Why is that so bizarre?

Remember, they sentenced Socrates to death for failing to live up to the religious standards of their jurisdiction.

What I want to know is this: How come more people aren't like this man? — baker

That is a very good question.

The Buddha in the story did not follow up: " "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one" with "while you are an ignorant clod whose proximity to the temple of the only Truth is a stench in the nostrils of the Creator."

By deciding who is an anti-Platonist along with who is an anti-Christian, the mantle of authority donned by the Gift-from-Apollo involves a structure of judgement far broader than deciding Plato meant to say this or meant to say that.

For Plato,
/.../
But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't make an effort. By definition, the Platonic philosopher is one who loves knowledge and wisdom and actively seeks after it. And as the saying goes, "seek and you shall find" .... :smile: — Apollodorus

And what is the place of women in all this?

When you put it this way, spiritual advancement is sometimes indistinguishable from mental illness. This is cause for alarm. — baker

If it is indistinguishable then maybe this is what it is. But what about the other times when it is not?

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. Plotinus, for example, is not considered as mentally deficient.

If it has the opposite effect, and it impairs you mental faculties, then it is not spiritual advancement. This is why Platonists like Plotinus learned Platonism from a teacher and had his own school. You need a teacher to give you some guidance.

Anyway, in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle, who was a long-time disciple of Plato, says:

The following considerations also will show that perfect happiness is some form of contemplative activity. The Gods, as we conceive them, enjoy supreme felicity and happiness. But what sort of actions can we attribute to them? Just actions?… If we go through the list we shall find that all forms of virtuous conduct seem trifling and unworthy of the Gods. Yet nevertheless they have always been conceived as, at all events, living, and therefore living actively, for we cannot suppose they are always asleep like Endymion. But for a living being, if we eliminate action, and a fortiori creative action, what remains save contemplation (theoria)? It follows that the activity of God, which is transcendent in blessedness, is the activity of contemplation; and therefore among human activities that which is most akin to the divine activity of contemplation will be the greatest source of happiness.
Happiness therefore is co-extensive in its range with contemplation: the more a class of beings possesses the faculty of contemplation, the more it enjoys happiness, not as an accidental concomitant of contemplation but as inherent in it, since contemplation is valuable in itself. It follows that happiness is some form of contemplation (1178b)

And, in fact, people do experience various degrees of happiness when they practice contemplation or meditation. This is an undeniable fact. So, I can see no reason why people should get attacked for practicing theoria, dhyana, or whatever you want to call it, if they choose to.

On what grounds should philosophy prohibit contemplation and declare it antithetical to philosophy?

The Buddha in the story did not follow up: " "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one" with "while you are an ignorant clod whose proximity to the temple of the only Truth is a stench in the nostrils of the Creator." — Valentinus

Well, he didn't follow up with that there on the spot, but he elsewhere made very disparaging remarks about people (and that's putting it mildly).

Do you think that because so many religious and other preachers make a point of airing their contempt for other people, this means that a response other than shaking one's head and going one's way is called for?

And what is the place of women in all this? — baker

That would depend on what you mean by that question.

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. Plotinus, for example, is not considered as mentally deficient.

If it has the opposite effect, and it impairs you mental faculties, then it is not spiritual advancement. This is why Platonists like Plotinus learned Platonism from a teacher and had his own school. — Apollodorus

Think in terms of surviving in the modern economy and society at large. Here, critical thinking is mostly a hindrance, and goodness (as understood in humanism) is considered naive.
An argument can be made that a person is far better off in life if they think in superficial slogans, soundbites, black and white terms.

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. — Apollodorus

But enhance them in what way? You're getting into dangerous territory here, the land of "I do yoga in order to improve my business skills".

On this point, Early Buddhism says that all of one's practice is supposed to be done for the purpose of the complete cessation of suffering.

But in Platonism, the goal is what? Seeing God, the One? It seems rather intangible, in comparison to what Early Buddhism promises.

And, in fact, people do experience various degrees of happiness when they practice contemplation or meditation. This is an undeniable fact. So, I can see no reason why people should get attacked for practicing theoria, dhyana, or whatever you want to call it, if they choose to.

On what grounds should philosophy prohibit contemplation and declare it antithetical to philosophy?

It's not clear where this is coming from.

And what is the place of women in all this?
— baker

That would depend on what you mean by that question. — Apollodorus

It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks held a dim view of women.

Personally, I resent the prospect of taking up the study of Platonism, only to discover later on that people like me are by default disqualified from any higher knowledge.

It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks held a dim view of women. — baker

Well, we don't live in Ancient Greece, do we?

Plus, even in Ancient Greece women could be philosophers and teachers. Don't forget that according to Plato's Symposium, Socrates was instructed in the highest teachings of philosophy consisting in how to attain the vision of the Beautiful or Good, by Diotima, a woman!

This was not in the least surprising as there were many others.

“That women actually participated in philosophic activity comes as a surprise to many. But Gilles Menage (1984, 3) in the eighteenth century names sixty-five women philosophers in the Hellenistic age alone.”

In “Women Philosophers in the Ancient Greek World: Donning the Mantle,” Kathleen Wider “examines women philosophers in the Greek world primarily from the sixth through the third centuries B.C., with a focus on women philosophers during the late pre-Classical period of Greek history (sixth century), the Classical period (fifth-fourth centuries), and during the early stages of the Hellenistic world (late fourth-third centuries).”

“Although precise dates for the women Pythagoreans are unknown, we do know that some of them flourished in the sixth and early fifth centuries B.C. These include Theano, believed to be the wife of Pythagoras and the most famous of these women, as well as Myia, Damo, and Arignote who were probably daughters of Theano and Pythagoras.

Arete was the head of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy after her father Aristippus died in 350. Hipparchia flourished around 328 and is known for the fact that she abandoned a life of wealth and ease to marry Crates and live the simple life of a Cynic. Little is known about Pamphile except that she was a disciple of Theophrastus who headed the Lyceum after Aristotle.”

“The Pythagoreans saw the family as well as the city as a microcosm of the universe and the order and harmony of the universe was to be reflected in the city and family. Women were given an important place in Pythagorean thought and society because they were an important part of the family and were a necessary component in achieving order and harmony within it. Each person within the family was to perform her/his role well and keep her/his place assign ed by nature. The place of woman turns out to be the traditional one of wife and mother, subordinate to and submissive to her husband, but a woman can perform this role well only if her intelligence is developed.”

“Plato had women disciples and Socrates refers to his women teachers … The Stoic Diodorus Cronus who was active about 315-284 had five daughters who were logicians: Menexene, Argeia, Theognis, Artemisia, and Pantacleia.”

Women Philosophers in the Ancient Greek World: Donning the Mantle – JSTOR

The concept of women being "disqualified from higher knowledge" is NOT a Platonic concept. Intelligence is intelligence, whether it happens to reside in a male or female head.

Theano of Croton (6th century BC)
Aristoclea of Delphi (6th century BC)
Aspasia of Miletus (ca 470–400 BC)
Arete of Cyrene (4th century BC)
Hipparchia of Maroneia (4th century BC)
Nicarete of Megara (ca 300 BC)
Ptolemais of Cyrene (3rd century BC)
Aesara of Lucania (3rd century BC)
Catherine of Alexandria (282–305)
Sosipatra of Ephesus (4th century CE)
Hypatia of Alexandria (c. 360–415 CE)
Aedesia of Alexandria (5th century CE)
Theodora of Emesa (5th-6th century CE)

Women philosophers – Wikipedia

For myself, I have made an effort to stay away from disparaging language or assigning labels. In the context of talking about the meaning of Plato's text, I have tried to defend my reading and challenge others without appealing to arguments or agents based upon authority. On the level of honest differences of opinion, the interest in putting forth one view as superior to another does not directly engage the beliefs any interlocutor may have. The dialectic requires a better form of demonstration than simple reports of what each think is true.

Now it can and has been argued that dialogue of this kind is really nothing other than the conflict of competing beliefs. The topic comes up a lot in Plato. Having accepted that this form of demonstration as being worthwhile, I am not presuming my argument affirms or denies a set of beliefs. Apollodorus puts forth a view of the text that does not include a central theme that appears in them. It is fair to ask what that exclusion means for his interpretation.

Do you think that because so many religious and other preachers make a point of airing their contempt for other people, this means that a response other than shaking one's head and going one's way is called for? — baker

I think that depends on whether that contempt remains as a purely personal register or is the basis of denying other beliefs through the claim of authority. When the Christian church, for example, declared a view to be a heresy, it was merely a difference of opinion until the Church acquired the power to hurt people.

I am more interested in the nature of that weapon than whatever opinions are being protected by the one who wields it. When Apollodorus calls me anti-Christian, he has picked up that weapon.

As noted by Pink Floyd: "careful with that axe, Eugene."

When Apollodorus calls me anti-Christian, he has picked up that weapon. — Valentinus

Complete nonsense. A discussion is a discussion it is not waging war, not as far as I am concerned, in any case.

It all started when others called me "Neoplatonist", "Christian evangelist", and other names just because I disagreed with them or they disagreed with me.

I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem whatsoever with other people's views. The problem arose when others chose to deny accepted texts or provided fake translations as "evidence" against a mainstream reading and to promote what in the literature are fringe views.

I did not call you those names.

I only complained about your labels when you said this:

You hold identical beliefs.

You share the same anti-Platonist (and anti-Christian) commitment. — Apollodorus

Your inability to distinguish between your interlocutors is not a problem shared by said interlocutors.

I only complained about your labels when you said this:

You hold identical beliefs.

You share the same anti-Platonist (and anti-Christian) commitment.
— Apollodorus — Valentinus

As a matter of fact, the issue was the claim that "philosophical inquiry leads to aporia" to which I raised an objection.

Your response was:

Now that we have properly located your vision of cowardice and despair as coming from you, and not from any of your interlocutors — Valentinus

Note that this was before my comment above and that you said "we" and it looked like you reacted in response to one of my comments to Foolo. I failed to see why you thought there was a need for you to defend him as you did on the thread on Socrates and elsewhere.

Anyway, this is quite irrelevant. People agree on some issues and disagree on others, and that is that.

But I was not defending myself from your claims regarding aporia. I went through many efforts to get your meaning of the word out of my mouth. The cowardice and despair I was referring to is the view you characterize as my view. The property is coming from you and is now something that belongs me.

I did suggest your unwillingness to explain why Socrates pretended to be ignorant was less than valorous.