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

You may have suggested this, but I had no idea why as I had never claimed that "Socrates pretended to be ignorant". This has never been my interpretation of Socrates!

You may have suggested this, but I had no idea why as I had never claimed that "Socrates pretended to be ignorant". This has never been my interpretation of Socrates! — Apollodorus

I never claimed you claimed it. Your view amounts to assuming that to be the case when you do claim Socrates knew the truth. My bringing it up as a challenge is precisely for the reason that your interpretation does not explain the discrepancy. I am not putting words in your mouth. The logic that lead to my challenge comes from me.

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

Saying that I have an anti-Christian commitment falls well outside the bounds of reasonable discourse.

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

It does not matter what it seems. The goal is to go above and beyond prima facie appearance and experience, in a constant quest for the highest, until one reaches ultimate reality, i.e. that beyond which there is nothing higher.

What that is remains to be established when and if the highest has been reached.

In the meantime, no matter what you experience in contemplation, you need to go beyond that if you wish to attain the highest. Or, remain, at least temporarily, at a lower level should you prefer this. You do what you are comfortable with.

I never claimed you claimed it. Your view amounts to assuming that to be the case when you do claim Socrates knew the truth. — Valentinus

I do not know what "truth" Socrates knew. My position is simply that he is not as ignorant as some claim he is. In other words, my interpretation of his statement that he "knew nothing" is that it does not refer to everything but only to some things.

My position is simply that he is not as ignorant as some claim he is. — Apollodorus

The matter I brought up bears no relationship to any claim of ignorance than that made by Socrates himself. I am asking you to defend your view in light of a prominent feature of the text.

The whole "some people claim" groove is a lame form of argumentation. Who cares if you have won an argument in your own mind?

The matter I brought up bears no relationship to any claim of ignorance than that made by Socrates himself. — Valentinus

If Socrates' statements are your problem, then I'm afraid you will have to discuss that with him. I can't help you there.

If Socrates' statements are your problem, then I'm afraid you will have to discuss that with him. I can't help you there. — Apollodorus

Is that to say that your many attempts to say what is being said can be struck from the record?
You, after all, has seen themselves fit to say what is Platonist or not. The role you afforded yourself in the past is not consonant with telling me to work out the texts by myself.

Is that to say that your many attempts to say what is being said can be struck from the record? — Valentinus

I am saying what the text of the dialogues says.

The whole discussion started when others denied some sections of the text or attempted to read things into the text that are not there.

Other than that, everyone - including yourself - is free to interpret Socrates and Plato any way they choose.

The whole discussion started when others denied some sections of the text or attempted to read things into the text that are not there. — Apollodorus

You have the opportunity to explain the text as you understand it without regard to what others have said, including myself.

You claim an understanding of the texts that others have got wrong while gracefully extending the privilege to their false opinions to go unchallenged by you because the text belongs to you and your opinion of what is "there" or not. I am tempted to introduce a disparaging remark.

Leaving aside any other problems that such an approach may encounter, you have counted yourself outside of the problem of affirming or denying statements that us lesser beings must negotiate.

My previous comment aside, you still have not explained why Socrates claims to be ignorant when you wish to qualify the statement as not really meaning what it sounds like it means.

That is the only thesis I am trying to address. If it is not worthy of answering, just ignore it.

The text says the following:

I thought to myself, “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" (Apology 21d)

1. Socrates does know Greek, he knows his family, friends and other people, etc. In fact, he knows quite a lot.

2. Therefore, he means that some things are unknown to him, not all.

I thought this was obvious. If others believe that it isn't, it's their problem, not mine.

The importance of the statement involves the distinction between opinion and knowledge, as demonstrated throughout the dialogues.

It does not refer to whether he recognizes beings from one day to the next. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

The importance of the statement involves the distinction between opinion and knowledge, as demonstrated throughout the dialogues. — Valentinus

Knowing the distinction between opinion and knowledge is part of knowledge. I don't think anyone would argue that Socrates did not know the distinction. :smile:

Wow.

I am arguing for a distinction to be recognized and after pages of you dodging the problem, you now suggest that I am the one denying it because Socrates knows of the distinction.

It is rare when such heights of rhetorical persuasion have been reached by mortal man.

I am arguing for a distinction to be recognized — Valentinus

How was I to know that this is what you were arguing???

As already stated, I wasn't aware that this was an issue.

How was I to know that this is what you were arguing??? — Apollodorus

I don't know. How about all the efforts made to bring it to your attention? Or the attempt to separate the problem from other positions you had taken?

After that, how can I know what you are able to know?

Well, I don't know what you are able to know either.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing unclear in that passage. I am not responsible for others.

And why would you bring that to my attention when I had no problem with it?

Nor do you take responsibility for what you say.

In any case, I hope that your lack of accountability to others means you will no longer be claiming who other people are or what they think.

Don't worry, I will follow your example :grin:

Don't worry, I will follow your example :grin: — Apollodorus

Do you mean by dealing with statements as given rather than avoiding challenges they might incur?

Either that, or the other way around, as the case may be :smile: Anyway, have a nice day!

I accept the withdrawal of your arguments from opining what other people might think.
Good night.

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. — baker

Correct. However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. Naivety resulting in harm to yourself is not being good to yourself. Moreover, in the Platonic sense, goodness to yourself and others is accompanied by wisdom. In contrast, naivety is at the most goodness without wisdom, and may ultimately be no goodness at all.

People need to learn how to integrate philosophy with everyday life. It may not always be easy, but if philosophical reasoning and contemplation result in greater clarity of mind, power of discernment, better understanding of others, greater awareness of environmental issues, etc., then it can't be a bad thing.

Does anyone think the most astute Platonists of these times, being Islamic clerics and their Muslim followers are living an examined life in accordance to Islam?

That might be an interesting question. Without an argument, it leaves your reader to fill in what you have not.
I am done with guessing what other people might mean.

Does anyone think the most astute Platonists of these times, being Islamic clerics and their Muslim followers are living an examined life in accordance to Islam? — Shawn

Islam may entail some Platonist and Aristotelian elements but I think it is much closer to Judaism.

I would imagine that Iran likes to see itself as a state modeled on Plato's Republic with an Abrahamic twist, but like most Islamic states it is run by gangsters.

And I doubt that the Taliban even understand the concept of examined life let alone practice it. They are basically bandits using religion as a cover IMO.

Correct. However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. — Apollodorus

This is vague.

Christians can argue that God is always good to people, and that this also means he is good to those who he condemns for eternity. Christians were burning witches "for their own good". The Nazis believed it was for the own good of Jews that they be annihilated.

And so on. There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good.

Hardly any term is as vague as "good".

People need to learn how to integrate philosophy with everyday life. It may not always be easy, but if philosophical reasoning and contemplation result in greater clarity of mind, power of discernment, better understanding of others, greater awareness of environmental issues, etc., then it can't be a bad thing.

By modern standards, what would Plato be, in terms of socioeconomic theory? Probably not a socialist, but a capitalist. Can we be reasonably sure that he wouldn't support Trump? Or Hitler? Remember, in ancient Greece, they practiced selective infanticide; unfit or unwanted babies were removed from society. And that was deemed good.

However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. — Apollodorus

See, this is goodness, in every respect:

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley