Maybe Forms for geometrical shapes or objects all reduce to more fundamental concepts like the Form of Line Segment or Angle? — Seppo

That may be one way of looking at it. Plato certainly 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.

It seems to follow the inner logic of Plato’s explanatory framework which is hierarchical and necessarily leads from the many to the One.

In any case, all objects of knowledge and, in particular, the Forms need to be considered in the light of the Good (= the One) which is their ultimate source. The Forms merely serve as a ladder to ultimate reality. They can be reached only by transcending reason and they in turn need to be transcended in order to reach the highest.

The Platonic method is the Upward Way, Ano Odos, a process of vertical progress that takes the philosopher through a hierarchy of realities ranging from human experience to ultimate truth,

I see what you mean and I certainly don’t disagree. :smile:

However, expressions like "in accordance with the things said" may well be just a manner of speech.

Also, there may be a difference between the way Socrates presents his case to the court and the things he says privately to people who are close to him.

I think his statements in the Phaedo shouldn't be ignored. Would he spend the last hours of his life convincing others of things he himself doesn’t believe in?

I do agree that the impression one gets of Plato is that sometimes he simply wants to get people to think and other times he has some message to convey. But if he does have a message, it does not seem to be atheism. Questioning and examining beliefs, yes, because that is his (or Socrates') particular way. But this does not amount to outright rejection or denial.

At any rate, I know of no serious scholars who are taking the stance that Plato is an atheist. Nor is there any independent credible tradition that claims this to be the case. I could be wrong though.

the Form of Apple, the Form of Triangle) — Seppo

I think the idea that there is a Form for every conceivable thing under the sun is unwarranted. Different Forms would be perfectly capable to combine to form virtually any perceptible object.

Some of Plato's statements cannot be taken literally and are simply presented to make a point or illustrate an argument in order to make it easier for the reader to understand certain concepts. At the end of the day, readers need to exercise their own judgement. Plato simply shows the way ....

Ich gelobe, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland treu zu dienen, und das Recht und die Freiheit des deutschen Volkes tapfer zu verteidigen

Sure. That's the official pledge of all rank and file!

But anyone from corporal upward were vetted for political views, etc. It is wrong to imagine that someone from Finland fully understands how Germany was operated.

Plus, you still fail to understand the difference between offensive and defensive warfare.

How do you even imagine that half a million German troops would have been sufficient to overwhelm half a million or more French troops, in addition to British, American, and other Allies???

Surely, you understand that offensive warfare requires superior capabilities that the Germans didn't have?

Or perhaps you imagine that NATO was going to sit and watch the Germans beat the French?

And, of course, in case of German offensive war on NATO, the first thing to have been taken out of German reach would have been the US-made and -controlled tactical missiles, leaving the Germans to face French and British nukes! :grin:

If something is beyond space and time, then where could it be? — Corvus

Somewhere beyond space and time? I.e., within a form of awareness or consciousness where experience of time and space has not yet emerged.

You need to have some cognitive elements, visual or auditory, etc. in order to perceive space and time. Prior to this, there is no time and space. The Forms being unchanging, eternal, etc., cannot be anywhere else.

All determinate experience, including time and space, begins with the Forms. This is why Plato is actually serious about the Forms. It isn't just literary licence.

Plato's Forms and their corresponding Name are similar to the nama-rupa ("name and form") concept of Indian philosophy.

It sounds even religious. — Prishon

It may sound "religious" to the modern mind. But Plato's primary concern is never religion per se which is based on belief (pistis), but knowledge (noesis or gnosis) which is based on experience.

Religion, in so far as it plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge, is just an intellectual framework or ladder that leads to an actual experience that transcends both belief and reason.

Interestingly, McEvilly also says:

… the Persian employment of Greek mercenary soldiers continued in the fourth century, as Xenophon’s story makes clear; and trade also seems to have continued through the fifth and into the fourth century by a route that went from Central Asia by a series of waterways and portages – Oxus River, Caspian Sea, Kyros River, Black Sea. There is some reason to believe that Indian ascetics traveled this route and interacted with Black Sea shamans, ultimately influencing Greek philosophy through Diogenes of Sinope, who seems to have brought Indian-derived ascetic practices into the Athenian philosophical milieu. It is perhaps through this route that an Indian yogi came to Athens to talk to Socrates, according to a story told by Aristoxenus and thus extant at least as early as the fourth century B.C., (ap. Eusebius, Prep. Ev., XI.3.8).

- The Shape of Ancient Thought, p. 10.

In the Preparatio Evangelica, Eusebius writes:

… and man, he said, was a part of the world; and good was of two kinds, our own good and that of the whole, and the good of the whole was more important, because the other was for its sake.
‘Now Aristoxenus the Musician says that this argument comes from the Indians: for a certain man of that nation fell in with Socrates at Athens, and presently asked him, what he was doing in philosophy: and when he said, that he was studying human life, the Indian laughed at him, and said that no one could comprehend things human, if he were ignorant of things divine.
‘Whether this, however, is true no one could assert positively: but Plato at all events distinguished the philosophy of the universe, and that of civil polity, and also that of dialectic.’

That there was contact between Greece and India seems indisputable. More difficult to discern is the direction in which influence flowed and I think it is safe to assume that the interchange was far from one-way. In addition, there were other influences such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and India was just as receptive to outside influence as Greece IMO.

Be that as it may, the parallels are undeniable.

The math. forms are indeed not part of the physical world. But neither in an unaccessible metaphysical realm. — Prishon

Plato is a very complex writer and it is important to read him carefully and on his own terms. But I think that a first step in the right direction would be to bear in mind that the Forms are not the same as ideal objects.

An ideal object, e.g., an ideal triangle, is something that I form in my mind. But my ideal triangle is not the same as your ideal triangle; it is multiple as it exists in many minds; it is subject to time as it is not permanently fixed in the mind, etc.

In contrast, the Form of Triangle is one, unchanging, and eternal. It is beyond space and time and cannot be expressed in language.

The other peculiarity of the Forms is that they are at once (1) present in particulars through their properties and, therefore, immanent and (2) other than each and all particulars and, therefore, transcendent to them.

Acquainting ourselves with the concept of ideal objects is a necessary step toward understanding the Forms. But, eventually, we must go beyond the level of ideal objects in order to “attain to the knowledge of reality” as Socrates puts it in the Phaedo (66a).

Nice picture. But I don’t think it amounts to proof for your argument. :smile:

First, the Bundeswehr was established in 1955. The ECSC was founded in 1951 when Germany was under Allied military occupation and was completely demilitarized.

Second, the whole Bundeswehr leadership from corporal to general were handpicked for their allegiance to the European project.

Third, the “Bundeswehr nukes” were in fact short-range US missiles that were under NATO-US control and were stationed in Germany only to prevent the Germans from developing their own nuclear program.

Fourth, in the real world, it makes absolutely no difference that the Bundeswehr “had nukes”. The point is that in a war with France, for example, Germany would have faced France’s allies in addition to France itself.

The Bundeswehr was expressly designed with a defensive role in mind and its armed forces were smaller than those of France. It had no capability for large-scale offensive warfare at any time in its existence. This would have been the primary war deterrent.

As regards economic cooperation, this could have happened even without ECSC/EU membership. Wars between France and Germany only took place because of overambitious leaders like Napoleon. But the situation had vastly changed after the war.

It follows that there is no logical necessity for peace to be a product of ECSC/EU membership.

And, as already shown, the countries that formed the core of the ECSC, France and Germany, joined under external pressure. England only joined in 1973, twenty-two years after the Treaty of Paris of which it had not even been a signatory!

I can't do justice to McEvilly's book, it is about 700 densely-footnoted pages, all based on primary texts, but worth knowing about. — Wayfarer

Yes, McEvilly seems to be an interesting author. I don’t know if he is a historian, but he does make some valid points about Socratic and Platonic asceticism, and in particular, about parallels between Vasubandhu and Platonism:

Vasubandhu was writing about individual psychology, not about the universe at large, but since his view is that the mind creates the world, the effect is the same. Each level of being is described as a level of consciousness. As in Plotinus, the overlap between ontology and epistemology is virtually complete. Each realm of being is created by the next higher one through what Plotinus would call a poiesis/theoria, a making through contemplating (p. 572)

There is no doubt that in the Ancient Greek worldview going back to Homer and probably before, language calls things into being by naming them. The poets craft images of things by calling or naming them into existence. Poetry, poiesis comes from the verb poieo, “make”, “produce”, “cause”. Hence Plato calls the Maker or Creator of the Cosmos ho Poion (Timaeus 76c).

This suggests that consciousness generates or “calls into being” things by producing “name” (onoma) and “form” (eidos) or “sound” and “sight”. Eidos, translated as “Form”, literally means “the seen”, “that which is seen”. The image that a poet creates by naming things into existence is called eidolon which is nothing but the diminutive of eidos.

The poet is a creator who creates things at human level by bringing into existence entities that are heard as names and visualized as forms. The name (onoma) and the form (eidos) of a thing do not signify a preconceived or pre-existent entity, they literally make or impart being to the thing signified. The thing owes its very existence to having a name and a form.

And what human consciousness creates at individual level, the Universal Intelligence which is the source of the Forms (and their Names) creates at cosmic level.

We can distinguish two kinds of mathematical objects: concrete and abstract. For example, there are concrete triangles (like concrete "give way" road signs) and one abstract triangle, which is a property instantiated in all concrete triangles. The Platonist objects are the abstract ones. Some people think that the abstract objects don't "really exist", that they are just words or ideas in our heads. Yet these words or ideas express an objective similarity between concrete objects, so the abstract objects can also be understood as being in a sense "dispersed" in concrete objects. — litewave

Correct. But we must not forget the Forms.

There are (1) concrete or perceptible mathematical objects, (2) abstract or ideal ones, and (3) Forms.

For example, if we hand-draw a triangle on a peace of paper or in the sand, we have a perceptible triangle. But our thinking faculty tells us that this triangle is less than ideal. In doing so, we form the concept of an ideal triangle in our mind. This is the ideal object. However, we can only form an ideal object in our mind by referring to something like a universal form or pattern of which we can only have an innate intuition. This universal form or pattern is the "Form of the triangle".

The Forms are at once "dispersed in concrete (and ideal) objects" and transcendent in relation to them. This means that the Forms themselves are outside time and space, though their imperceptible properties are approximately perceptible in concrete objects like reflections of the sun in water.

At least in several countries, just like in my country, there was a referendum to join the EU. So you are incorrect. Or it's the part of history that you just brush aside in your argumentation. — ssu

I don't think I'm brushing aside anything. Finland may have preferred to be under EU domination than under Russian domination. But the EU is not about Finland.

My point was that the core countries that formed the ECSC which later became the EU, i.e., Germany and France, were pressured into forming an economic and political union by US corporations and their European collaborators. Therefore it was not a democratic project. In fact, there was strong opposition to it, especially in France as shown by the historical documents cited above and as acknowledged by historians.

Of course communists find satisfaction in a communist dictatorship like China becoming a world power whilst European economy, population, and influence are in decline. But not everyone agrees.

BTW, I don't think that the fact that there has been no war between France and Germany can be used as a pro-EU argument. If there has been no war, it is because Germany has no armed forces and France has no interest or means to start one as well as due to opposition from other powers and international law, not because of membership in the ECSC/EU. There is no connection between one and the other.

Finally, I ended my comment with something that was more essential than the truth about the quote itself. But you ignored it. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think I "ignored" it. I just had no objection to it.

If I understand your comment correctly, (1) you see no "usefulness in trying to explain Socrates' statement" and (2) you don't think it "can be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion".

As a matter of fact, I agree with that. Personally, I am not trying to explain Socrates' statement as I believe that it is not meant literally (as stated in the OP), and I never use it as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion. But others may do so, hence it can be discussed by those who take an interest in the topic.

I agree that European integration has been a top down operation, but what you cannot deny is that a) it has been a successful policy in Europe (integration has happened) and that b) Europeans have taken an active role in it. To observe that there were differing opinions was natural. Yes, I don't object your point: also bankers had their agenda, the US did play a major part. But my only disagreement is that you seem to fail to see that their agenda is just one part of the larger picture, it simply doesn't explain everything. For a complex historical phenomenon like the European integration process one narrative with few actors doesn't explain it all. — ssu

If US bankers and industrialists and their European partners played a major role, then that role needs to be acknowledged, not dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

Moreover, the idea of a "United States of Europe" does indeed go back to Anglo-American banking and industrial groups in the 1800's who already held interests on both side of the Atlantic. They owned railroad companies in Europe and America, financial institutions with branches in London, Paris, and New York, etc. Their original plan was to create a United Europe modeled on the United States and then integrate the two entities economically and politically.

Bankers and industrialists do not always exert influence directly. Most of the time they do it through lawyers, academics and other intellectuals, and politicians. Of course, Europeans were involved, but key actors like Monnet and Kalergi, for example, were funded by bankers and industrialists. Ordinary, independent Europeans were not involved nor did they ask for a United States of Europe to be created for them.

As regards the EU's success, I can see why a country like Finland is pro-EU, but I see no evidence that the EU has been an unmitigated success.

The EU may or may not have been “successful” for the first few decades of its existence, (depending on how you define “successful”) but this is no longer the case. The EU has many major problems. For example:

1. The EU has an ageing population.

2. The EU can only maintain its current population levels through mass migration from outside the EU and outside Europe. In January 2020 there were 37 million EU residents born outside the EU.

Statistics on migration to Europe | European Commission

3. There is significant population reduction especially in Southern and Eastern Europe. A fall of more than 30.0 % has been projected for Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, followed by others like Slovakia, Portugal and Greece. Even Finland is not very far behind.

Population projections in the EU – Statistics

4.The EU is in long-term economic decline.

EU percentage of world GDP | Statista

5. The EU’s largest trading partner used to be America. Now it’s Communist China!

List of the largest trading partners of the EU – Wikipedia

6. The EU has no defense forces. The only EU country with a proper military is France. Other EU countries are totally dependent on NATO. And NATO only defends them when its leadership has a political or economic interest to do so.

On the whole, large countries like Germany and France are doing well, but all the small countries that were hoping for a better future by joining the EU are actually the ones that are worst hit. A lot of them will be virtually wiped off the map in the near future. This does not sound particularly "successful" to me. England is already out and there is mounting popular Euroskepticism even in EU core countries like France.

Conclusion: (1) There is no evidence that Europe would have done worse without the EU and (2) the EU has got serious problems some of which seem to be terminal, therefore it cannot be called a “success”.

If this is what Platonists believe, then where do they think that these objectcs exist? If it's not inside our physical realm then in what realm do these objects exist and do they move inside of it? — Prishon

Good question.

I think that mathematical objects such as geometric shapes are related to Plato’s Ideas or Forms.
When we perceive something in visual cognition, for example, we really see shape, size, color, number, etc.

Therefore Shape would be something similar (though not identical) to an universal that awareness or consciousness uses to organize itself in order to generate determinate cognition.

As such, the Ideas or Forms seem to exist in latent or potential form within indeterminate forms of consciousness from where, on becoming activated, they emerge and generate particular objects of determinate cognition.

If we consider the following aspects or levels of intelligence,

1. The Good or the One;

2. Nous or "intellect" proper;

3. Logistikon, "intellectual" or "thinking" aspect;

4. Thymos or "emotional" aspect;

5. Epithymetikon or "sensual aspect" (relating to sense-perception),

then the Ideas or Forms are objects of the nous and the mathematical objects are objects of the logistikon. But the ultimate source of the Forms seems to be the Good or the One that may be described as a form of superordinate or universal consciousness.

I wouldnt stay unmoved, silent, and word free though. I would make contact. And shout it out! Let my thoughts give me a song. — Prishon

:up: :grin:

I need to roll this around a little. — Cheshire

It does take a bit of reflection, I'm afraid. But that's Plato for you :smile:

But these are Timaeus’, not Socrates’ words. — Leghorn

It is the Platonic perspective with which Socrates' statements are in agreement. Why would he spend hours in the Phaedo trying to convince people of the immortality of the soul and divine judgement in the after life, if he is an atheist?

Similarly, in Gorgias he says that he is convinced of divine judgement after death and urges all men to join him in this belief in order to save themselves in the other world (Gorgias 526e). He repeats this in the Republic (621c), etc.

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.

obviously the Emirate will be short of cash — ssu

Well, seeing that America is holding Afghanistan's foreign reserves, cash will probably start being a problem pretty soon. And if I'm not mistaken, Afghan currency is printed in England :smile:

But I think the whole thing is a huge intelligence failure on the part of the West (i.e., US & UK).

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Taliban start taking hostages ....

It sounds like giving labels to the different species of thought. — Cheshire

Yes. Plato's main intention here seems to be to distinguish between different forms of thought, in particular, discursive thought (dianoia) that uses words and images, and a higher, nondiscursive form (nous) that has the ability to somehow directly grasp more abstract concepts and "metaphysical" realities.

In other words, he is trying to explain how individual human intellect can connect with a higher form of intelligence that is the source of all knowledge and all truth, i.e., "the Good".

Basically, we may identify four different aspects of intelligence:

1. Nous or "intellect" proper.

2. Logistikon, "intellectual" or "thinking" aspect.

3. Thymos or "emotional" aspect.

4. Epithymetikon or "sensual aspect".

(4) relates to sense-perceptions and basic bodily desires.

(3) relates to emotions and will-power.

(2) relates to rational thought and thinking in general.

(1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward.

(1), the nous, is that faculty of the soul by which it is supposed to contemplate and "see" the Forms. Which is why it is referred to as "the eye of the soul".

The Wikipedia article you are quoting explains, quite clearly in my view, that "I know that I know nothing" is a paraphrase of Socrates' original statement:

This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know" (in Plato, Apology 21d).

Of course it is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato never existed and never said anything. However, as far as I am aware, this is not disputed by historians or scholars.

Well, it seems to me that you have a hyperactive and rather unhealthy imagination. I never said Franco should have killed you or your friends. By the sound of it, maybe it is you who would like to see me and my friends killed ....

I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that Greeks didn't approve of wisdom and money being exchanged for each other. I suppose they thought selling stuff was what ordinary people would do and so when the sophists asked for fees when imparting wisdom, they lost their distinctiveness as sages. Sages (wise folks) weren't supposed to care about dough! — TheMadFool

True. But I would say there is an additional aspect to this. If the philosopher were to charge a fee for his knowledge, he would place himself in a seller-buyer relation that may imply that he sells whatever the student wants to hear and this would compromise the image of incorruptibility associated with genuine higher knowledge.

However, as charging a fee and accepting donations appear to be two different things, maybe the teacher should be allowed to accept donations but only use a minimum of that for basic personal needs such as food and clothing, and use the bulk of it for the advancement of knowledge, e.g., building a school with library, lodgings for students and visitors, a park with a sanctuary for animals, and other things conducive to higher knowledge and contemplation of metaphysical realities ....

I suspect Socrates and Plato wanted it to be that way: ambiguous and open to interpretation. — Leghorn

Your suspicion possibly points in the right direction.

However, my own suspicion would be that Socrates does not only not deny the divinity of Sun and Moon, but positively acknowledges them as “Gods in heaven” as in the Republic (Rep. 508a) and in the Timaeus where the heavenly bodies are said to be divine, in fact, the whole Cosmos is an ensouled, living being:

We must declare that this Cosmos has verily come into existence as a Living Creature endowed with soul and reason owing to the providence of God (Tim. 30b)

Could it be that Plato became so popular precisely because he was not an atheist and that his views resonated with those of the majority of philosophy students?

I wonder: did he ever exclaim, as did his many interlocutors, in any of the dialogues, “by Zeus!”, or, “by Hera!”, or any of the other stock exclamatory theistic formulae? That would be an interesting topic of research. — Leghorn

As it happens, Socrates does use theistic expressions like "by Zeus" (Cratylus 423c; Rep. 345b) and "if God wills" (Phaedo 69d) quite frequently.

They are not always translated literally, but if you look at the Greek text, you will often find "nai/ma Dia", "yes/no by Zeus/God", etc.

I think he found Anaxagoras unsatisfactory and disappointing.

In any case, I don't see Socrates taking a huge interest in Anaxagorean materialism, and unlike Anaxagoras, he did not deny the divinity of Sun and Moon.

And I see no evidence that he preached atheism.

the idea that philosophy is a "higher knowledge" they shouldn't be paid for is silly, for more than one reason. — Ciceronianus

There seems to be a contradiction between placing a lot of value on higher knowledge and expecting to acquire it for nothing. Teachers of higher knowledge should not abuse their position but nor should their students demand free tuition.

Is that to say true knowledge is internalizing propositional truth into some refined state or knowledge is about a system/method/mode of thought? — Cheshire

Well, Socrates/Plato distinguishes between (1) discursive, propositional knowledge relating to thought (dianoia) and (2) nondiscursive, nonpropositional knowledge relating to intellect (nous).

(1) can be conveyed directly, through textual constructions that are addressed to and processed by discursive thought (dianoia).

In contrast, (2) nondiscursive, nonpropositional knowledge, is pre-predicative, i.e., logically prior to propositions and can only be conveyed indirectly, by means that address, and are processed by, our intuitive or contemplative faculty, viz., the nous.

Platonic knowledge proper (noesis or gnosis) has the Forms as its objects, therefore it is nonpropositional and is above JTB which is roughly at the level of Plato's right opinion (orthe doxa).

See also the end part of the OP.

Does anyone still think that JTB is a useful way of thinking about knowledge? — T Clark

Probably not too many. Certainly not Platonists.

It's interesting because it's contrary to a JTB approach to knowledge. — Cheshire

The way I see it JTB is more like a Stoic idea and is not the best approach to understand Socrates and Plato.

We must not forget that for Plato true knowledge is not about some propositions, but about Ideas or Forms.

Or infinite task (i.e. the journey is the destination). A philosophos (seeker) is not a sophos (sage). — 180 Proof

Well, according to Socrates, the only true sophos is God. But if the philosopher's goal is to become a sophos, then there must be greater self-knowledge and certainty along the way (at least in respect to some things). Otherwise, there is no progress.

Of course the possibility is always there, at least theoretically. But presumably, increased self-knowledge is accompanied by greater certainty. Otherwise, "Know Thyself" remains an unattainable goal.

if I recall correctly, Socrates in that passage attempts to distance himself from that natural philosopher, saying that Anaxagoras’ works can be so cheaply bought that the young can purchase them and learn these ideas without having to bother Socrates to learn them, “especially since they are so strange” that he would never espouse them. — Leghorn

Correct. In fact, in the Phaedo (98b) Socrates relates how he started his true philosophical career by renouncing Anaxagoras' materialism.

Had he been an atheist all those years, he would have been taken to court much sooner. But he was taken to court very late in life and only after falling out with Anytus and others (Meno 95a).

I think on the whole the arguments for Socrates being an atheist are very weak and unconvincing.

More generally, what we must not overlook is that religious beliefs were quite common among ancient philosophers, and it seems unwarranted to assume that they all were secret atheists.

"Know Thyself" implies 'to know that one does not know' with complete certainty — 180 Proof

It may well imply that. But I think there must be more to true self-knowledge than apparent absence of complete certainty.

I'm haven't read a lot of Greek philosophers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Socrates was talking about. After all, like some fools, he was put to death. Does that make sense in context: — T Clark

It isn't just fools that are put to death. But it does make sense. Obviously, we can only guess what really was going through his mind. In a way, it may be said that he was at once foolish and wise. Maybe a certain amount of "foolishness" or what appears to be such is needed in order to be truly wise.

Irrelevant as sophists too would be happy to receive financial assistance, no strings attached (donations). — TheMadFool

Well, I doubt anyone would refuse if the donation was generous enough and could be used in a good cause.

But would your equation be "Philosopher + Donation = Sophist"?

To know that I don't know is better than to think you know when you actually don't know. — TheMadFool

Correct.

However, what Socrates means by "right opinion" (orthe doxa) is, for example, if you knew the way to Larisa (the city where Meno was born) without yourself having traveled there, but from being told by someone who has personal knowledge of the way.

This kind of opinion would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion and may serve as right guidance (orthe hegesia) as a basis of right action (Meno 97b).

See also Knowledge and Opinion in Plato's Meno

It is illustrative and obviously not a personal inventory of Socrates knowledge. Has this really been confusing people? — Cheshire

Well, apparently, it continues to be a cause of consternation to some.

Yep, it might even come cheaper and leave you some extra pocket money for other things .... :grin:

Philosopher = Sophist - Payment — TheMadFool

:up: Well said. But what about philosophers that accept donations? :smile: