I'm not saying it should be benign in this case.

On the contrary, as every political entity, including nation-states, are motivated by self-interest, we should assume that China is not benign toward the West.

But are pro-choicers not also Christians?

So, would you say that the main dividing line is between pro-Choicers and Christians?

That sounds very open minded to me.

And it seems that your mind hasn't fallen out - not yet in any case.

So you must be doing something right ....

Sure. I have no problem with that at all.

I'm not entirely sure what the deal is in practice, but I don't want to be a spoilsport. So, yes.

In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved. — Banno

I must agree on the poverty of arguments bit. On both sides.

Unfortunately, different people have different levels or degrees of knowledge and understanding of the issues involved (in any discussion) and this can lead to unnecessary frustration and hostility. A more philosophical and detached attitude might help, but it won't change much about the poverty of arguments.

There is a huge divide in my country between pro-choicers and Christians. — Gregory

What country is that if I may ask?

How about you, @Apollodorus? — Valentinus

Well, I don't want to have the last word, so I am currently unable to say anything.

Besides, I am busy studying Straussianism .... :wink:

All he really has proven is that they should continue the discipline of dialectic. — Gary M Washburn

I doubt that anyone would object to dialectic.

However, there is no logical or philosophical prohibition against drawing conclusions, however temporary or provisional, from dialectic.

Unless, perhaps, by "dialectic" we are to understand radical skepticism, nihilism or something else along those lines ....

That's my point. — Gregory

That's my point, too.

At least Jesus didn't fall from his horse. Other than that, as I say, same difference. :wink:

"Jesus is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true") — Gregory

Sure. But there are some who might think "Marx or Stalin is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true". Same difference, no?

Incidentally, on the occasion of the 1945 victory parade in Moscow, Stalin had intended to ride through the parade himself, but he fell from the horse during the rehearsal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Victory_Parade_of_1945

He nearly almost made it only that he didn't quite make it. Apparently, he couldn't even ride.

But I'm sure someday soon he will come down in a tank or something. And a tinfoil hat. Providing he is sober enough, that is.

But definitely something to look forward to, I figure :grin:

God forbid anyone should open their mind completely up, and thereby have full capacity to use it. — Yohan

Absolutely right.

And what shall we say of those whose mind is so small that it can easily "fall out" and, God forbid, become lost without trace? :wink:

I think guilt is something that all people experience in some form or other. As for "tingling sensations", I somehow find it difficult to see what could be harmful about them.

Yes, you do sound like the kind of person that would have heard of a number of therapies, not just that one.

As for myself, I'm too busy discussing Plato's dialogues and I'm beginning to enjoy learning from the Straussian methodology. I'm sure Plato himself would have been delighted.

Anyway, have a nice day. And enjoy your drink.

What is the point? — SteveMinjares

Good question. I guess if it's an atheist forum then there would be a natural tendency to keep reinforcing the atheist position?

I think philosophical discussions on belief vs atheism should be conducted from a neutral position but that isn't going to happen as people tend to get worked up over things and it tends to descend into mud-slinging and insult-trading.

Personally, I think this is a shame because it is a topic that seems to be of interest to many people (obviously, in some parts of the world more than in others) and both sides can learn from one another.

Finding another forum is probably the best option, depending on what exactly it is that you want to discuss, etc.

I'm not talking about your opinions. I was pointing out that you repeatedly asked me to show where the dialogue says that the Sun is a God when I had already done so, and when you can see for yourself that this is the case:

"Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun” (508a)

Which part of the passage above do you find difficult to understand?

After over two thousand years of Plato scholarship a great deal of disagreement remains. — Fooloso4

No one disputes that there is some disagreement on certain points of textual interpretation.

However, when you say things like "the dialogue doesn't say that the Sun is a God" when the text of the dialogue clearly says so, and you repeatedly ask people to show where it says so after being shown already, then this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of denying unquestionable fact, which raises the question as to why you are doing it.

There is no need for my "opinions" to convince anyone. They are the mainstream view already and have been for a very long time!

It is your opinions that are fringe and you have had the chance to produce evidence in support of them but you have failed to do so, as I said from the start you would.

Unfortunately, you refuse to acknowledge this and keep starting over and over again. :grin:

Nothing changes when you repeat your opinions about what you believe the poets believed yet again. — Fooloso4

Sorry but you seem to have some comprehension problems there. I am not talking about "poets". I am talking about Socrates making literary images of deities (metaphysical or spiritual entities) he believed in, in the same way Greek artisans made images of Gods they and their community believed in.

This is what Socrates says when he relates that he is taken to court "for making other new deities" and this is confirmed in the Symposium where it is said that he is full of speeches that are like images of deities.

It is not talk about something that is a reality, it is talk about a hypothetical. — Fooloso4

Wrong again. Here are your own words:

Yes, he is talking about reality. — Fooloso4

The text itself says "realities".

But you now confirm that the Forms are hypothetical. — Fooloso4

Of course not. "Hypothetical" is what you said:

The beings are hypothetical. — Fooloso4

Are you retracting your statement?

With fanatical frequency you have returned to that question. — Fooloso4

I have returned to that question simply because with fanatical frequency you have raised that question. You are defending the fringe position of Strauss and Bernardete, and I am defending the mainstream position of Gerson and Sedley. That is what discussion and dialectic is about, isn't it?

Right, we have discussed this. — Fooloso4

Of course we have. And yet you keep asking me where it says that the Sun is a God!!!

A theology of false speeches — Fooloso4

It is not a "theology of false speeches" at all. The Platonic corpus contains a theology that includes (1) Gods like the Sun, (2) Forms, and (3) a Supreme Deity represented by the Good.

I have given you a list of leading scholars of Plato to familiarize yourself with Plato's theology:

D. Sedley, Plato’s Theology
D. Sedley, Plato’s Timaeus and Hesiod’s Theogony
L. Gerson, From Plato’s Good to Platonic God
P. Panagiotis, Plato’s Theology in the Timaeus
F. Solmsen, Plato’s Theology

And yet you refuse to read even one of them and keep insisting that Straussianist esotericism and sophistry is the only correct way to read Plato.

As I said many times, there is nothing wrong with holding a fringe opinion. But at least you should (1) acknowledge that it is a fringe opinion and (2) be able to provide some evidence in support of your claims and not make statements that either are not true or are contradicting your own claims, like your claim about Ibn Sina, your repeated suggestion that the dialogue (Rep 508a) doesn't say that the Sun is a God even when this is contrary to the evidence, etc., etc.

More generally, you seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the dialogues are the product of 4th-century BC Greece and that it is not right to impose 21st-century ideas either on the dialogues or on their author.

The failure of the argument is the result of the limits of argument. No argument can determine the fate of the soul. — Fooloso4

This is not said in the dialogue. On the contrary, Socrates and Cebes agree that the immortality of soul has been proved:

Then the soul is immortal.”
“Yes.”
“Very well,” said he. “Shall we say then that this is proved?”
“Yes, and very satisfactorily, Socrates (105e).

This conclusion is reaffirmed at 107c:

As it is, however, since the soul is evidently immortal ...

And reaffirmed again at 114d:

However, since the soul turns out to be immortal ...

No one is asking for your opinion on the validity of Socrates' argument. What matters is that the argument is accepted as conclusive by the characters in the dialogue.

mention of charms and incantation occurs several times throughout the dialogue. — Fooloso4

Where exactly? And what translation are you using?

Meantime, let me refresh your memory one more time:

It is because the arguments fail that he used myths to persuade, charms and incantations. — Fooloso4

But you have not demonstrated this to be the case. As already stated, 114d does not say "charms and incantations".

The verb used is ἐπαείδω epaeido “sing to someone as to soothe him” which is the same verb used at 77e in the sense of “sing someone’s fear away”.

This is your own definition: "sing to one so as to charm or soothe him". Not "charm" but "charm OR soothe" depending on the situation.

And in the situation under discussion it is "soothe" as Socrates' intention is to soothe or comfort his companions in the face of his imminent death.

Therefore, the literal translation is:

There is a need to sing such things to oneself [as to soothe oneself] wherefore I myself have been prolonging my story for long

So NO "CHARMS" AND NO "INCANTATIONS".

You could if you really wanted to, substitute "chant" for "sing", as Sedley and Long have done:

One must chant such things to oneself (no mention of "charms" or "incantations")

But even then it must be borne in mind (1) that the action described by the verb "chant" has the purpose of "soothing" and (2) that it very obviously refers to "such things" viz. the immortality of soul and afterlife which were discussed up to that point.

As the issues relating to soul such as immortality have already been settled and agreed on, it is not and cannot be about "persuading" but about soothing or comforting with thoughts of the things agreed on.

So, basically, you are mistaking a very free English translation for the Greek original and are reading far too much into it because it serves your Straussian agenda. And that is where you problem comes from. You (deliberately) see things that are not there!

Here is your own statement from page 15:

The second allows the dialogues to open up, to give a view of a complex terrain of interrelated questions and problems, or in some cases leading the reader into a labyrinth, and in all cases aporia. — Fooloso4

Your Straussianist methodology causes you to construct a labyrinth from things that are not in the text and become lost in it. Which is why you can't expect people to take you seriously.

That may very well be what religious people believe. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Religious people do not think that when making images of deities they make the deities whom the images represent.

Otherwise said, Socrates makes literary or metaphorical images of metaphysical realities he believes in, in the same way an artisan in 4th-century BC Athens would make images of Gods he believed in.

Perhaps the true form of speech about the gods is that they do not exist. — Fooloso4

Perhaps. But you have no evidence that this is the case.

Investigate the truth of beings through speech. A speech about beings is not the reality of beings. — Fooloso4

It is a speech about realities. You said that yourself:

Yes, he is talking about reality — Fooloso4

A talk about a reality is a talk about a reality, i.e. a talk about something that is a reality.

And it could be a wrong opinion. Without knowledge we cannot determine whether it is right or wrong. — Fooloso4

If without knowledge we cannot determine whether an opinion is right or wrong then we cannot claim that it is wrong without evidence to show this to be the case.

His makes his characters speak. — Fooloso4

Yes, that's what I'm saying. He speaks through his characters!

The dialogues raise questions about the gods that are never resolved. The gods are absent from the discussion of what you call metaphysical reality in the Republic. — Fooloso4

If the questions about the Gods are never resolved then you cannot insists that they are.

The Gods are mentioned without being discussed in detail because the Republic is about the ideal city and because the theology culminates in the Good. Plato's theology is a hierarchy of metaphysical or spiritual realities, as pointed out by Sedley, Gerson and other scholars of Plato:

D. Sedley, Plato’s Theology
D. Sedley, Plato’s Timaeus and Hesiod’s Theogony
L. Gerson, From Plato’s Good to Platonic God
P. Panagiotis, Plato’s Theology in the Timaeus
F. Solmsen, Plato’s Theology

Where in the dialogue does it say that the sun is a god? — Fooloso4

I have told you this many times.

“Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?” (Rep 508a).
“This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision.” (Rep 508b - c ).

The Sun is "one of the divinities (i.e. Gods) in heaven". Can't you read???

Socrates and Adeimantus are not agreeing to what the gods actually are or even if they are but rather to what the stories of the gods, that is, what the theology should be if the city is to be just. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Socrates and Adeimantus do not deny the existence of the Gods. And if they agree what the theology of the city should be, then there is a theology that is agreed on.

So, you do agree after all! :grin:

Well, if the Republicans are a political party, then presumably there is a political position somewhere like conservatism, capitalism, anti-socialism, etc.

kinda like feminists getting government to pass wage gap legislation even though wage gap is a myth hah — MikeListeral

Is that a joke or do you really mean that wage gap is a myth?

As it stands, both sides of the spectrum are loony, and it's best to not associate with them. — darthbarracuda

I agree. I think what tends to happen is that extremists start with some idea (like the Communist Manifesto) that sounds good on paper and that appeals to them emotionally, after which they get carried away and can no longer think rationally. And that's where "revolution", "jihad", or other forms of violence take over.

So, it seems that it all starts with emotions or some other psychological factors.

it does not follow that in making the gods the poets did something other than create them. — Fooloso4

Making images of something means making images of the objects represented, not making the objects themselves. It is important to understand the difference.

Religious people do not think that when making images of deities they make the deities represented by the images.

A statue of Zeus was an artistic representation of the God residing on Mount Olympus, not Zeus himself. Likewise, the metaphorical images of deities that Socrates makes are representations of the deities Socrates believes in, not the deities themselves.

Once again, follow the argument. The true form must come later, much later, when philosophy is introduced to those who are old enough and mature enough and properly suited to it. — Fooloso4

Once again, follow your own statement. If a speech about the Gods has a true form, then it has a true form. The issue is the form or content, not the time.

No, the onus is on you to read the dialogue. It is clear from the context. — Fooloso4

No, the onus is on you to show that I don’t read the dialogue. Not reading a dialogue in a Straussian or Anti-Platonist sense does not mean not reading it.

Once again, a hypothetical is not a reality. — Fooloso4

Once again, the issue is not the reality but Socrates’ belief in it.

So I thought I must take refuge in discussions and investigate the truth of beings by means of accounts [logoi] … — Fooloso4

Exactly, investigate the truth of beings, i.e., realities, not imaginary things. As I said, it is important to understand the difference.

On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest; and whatever seems to me to be consonant with this, I put down as being true, both about cause and about all the rest, while what isn’t, I put down as not true.” (99d-100a) — Fooloso4

“Putting something down as being true” means believing it to be true. He is talking about realities.

Belief in a metaphysical reality is an opinion. — Fooloso4

An opinion can be right opinion. And belief in a metaphysical reality is still a belief. If Socrates believes in metaphysical realities then it is incorrect to say that he does not believe in metaphysical realities.

The dialogues are not about Plato's or Socrates' opinions, they are about the critical examination of our own opinions. — Fooloso4

Opinions about what?

Plato creates distance between himself and the dialogues. He never says anything in the dialogue. — Fooloso4

Of course he doesn’t. He speaks through his characters.

To assume that what Socrates says in the dialogues is either a record of what he man's beliefs or a reflection of Plato's own beliefs is an assumption without support. — Fooloso4

In that case, the claim that Socrates or Plato do not believe in God/s is an assumption without support. Exactly as I’ve been saying all along. Good to see that you finally agree!

Anyway, as I said, the Sun is a God and the Good is (1) said to be the creator of the Sun and (2) is likened to the Sun.

Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?(Rep 508a).
This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision. (Rep 508b - c ).

Therefore the Good is a deity. The Good as the supreme deity above all other Gods is the core of Plato’s theology.

Socrates and Adeimantus … surely agree as to this, that the gods are superhuman beings, that they are of superhuman goodness or perfection (381c1 - 3). That the God is good is even the thesis of the first theological law. From this it follows that the God is not the cause of all things but only the good ones. This amounts to saying that the God is just: the first theological law applies to the God the result of the conversation with Polemarchus according to which justice consists in helping friends, i.e. sensible men and is not harming anyone … the other theological law asserts the simplicity of the God and is to some extent a mere corollary of the first” (98-99) … those who have come to accept that theology are best prepared for accepting the doctrine of ideas … (121)

- L. Strauss, On Plato’s Republic

So, obviously, there is a theology even in the Republic, and if we take other dialogues (Timaeus, Laws, etc.) into consideration, we can see that Plato does not abolish God/s but simply constructs a philosophy that can also serve as a theology, exactly as shown by eminent scholars like Solmsen and A. E. Taylor and admitted, however begrudgingly, even by hardened atheists and anti-Platonists like Strauss.

Incidentally, concerning your claim that according to Ibn Sina, Plato “concealed secrets in parables and images”, the fact of the matter is that the "secrets" referred to by Ibn Sina were metaphysical teachings that Ibn Sina feared to espouse openly under strict Islamic rule and that he himself was teaching covertly:

The identification of the heavenly bodies with God is said to have been the esoteric teaching of Avicenna

- L. Strauss, Farabi's Plato, 391

Thus not “atheism” and not “contrary to Neoplatonism” but consistent with it.

It is your assumption that incantations and charms are lies. — Fooloso4

This is what you are implying. Here is your statement from page 12 to refresh your memory:

“Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. I show how and why each of the arguments fail. It is because the arguments fail that he used myths to persuade, charms and incantations.” — Fooloso4

1. Socrates’ arguments for the immortality of the soul do not fail in the dialogue. He and Cebes agree that the immortality of the soul has been proved at 105e:

“Then the soul is immortal.”
“Yes.”
“Very well,” said he. “Shall we say then that this is proved?”
“Yes, and very satisfactorily, Socrates.”

See also Phaedrus 245c.

2. You are using weasel words to imply that Socrates has failed to demonstrate the immortality of the soul and is resorting to “charms and incantations” to persuade his companions.

3. However, the Greek text does not say “charms and incantations” or “over and over again”.

The text simply says:

“There is a need to sing such things to oneself [as to soothe oneself] wherefore I myself have been prolonging my story for long [presumably, to overcome his own fear]”.

Obviously, the verb “sing” does not refer to “incantations”. It refers to “such things”, i.e. what has been said during the dialogue concerning the soul’s immortality and afterlife.

4. It follows that Socrates is not using “charms and incantations” to persuade his companions of the immortality of the soul. He has already persuaded them and is now telling them to “sing it to themselves” as in a soothing song sung to a child to drive away fear, i.e. to take courage and comfort in what he has told them and what has been agreed on.

IMHO there is a very big difference between what the text actually says and what you imply that it says.

You need to show more respect for people and not constantly try to take us for a ride with unwarranted Straussianist sophistry.

People are "taken in" by their own greed. If they wouldn't be so greedy, they wouldn't settle for buying cheap low quality export stuff (from China or anywhere else). — baker

That's what I meant. You get taken in by something only if and to extent that you give it the power to do so.

But that still doesn't make China a benign entity.

The question is whether or not the soul is immortal. — Fooloso4

Socrates answers that question in the affirmative:

"Then the soul is immortal.”

“Yes.”

“Very well,” said he. “Shall we say then that this is proved?”

“Yes, and very satisfactorily, Socrates.”

And:

... since the soul turns out to be immortal ... these are the reasons why a man should be confident about his own soul ....

Socrates clearly states that the soul is immortal and urges his companions to have confidence in their own souls.

This is not a proof it is an assertion. — Fooloso4

It is an assertion that is accepted by Socrates and Cebes as proof. What atheists and sophists believe is not the issue.

Your objection was to the terms 'incantations' and 'charms'. — Fooloso4

Correct. "Incantations" and "charms" are not in the Greek text, and the same applies to your "over and over again". Hence you made them up for the purpose of Straussian esotericism and sophistry.

Of course no one tells you lies and at the same time tells you that they are lies! — Fooloso4

Exactly. And no one tells himself lies. Therefore Socrates is not lying either to himself or to his companions!

Of course the stories are made with the intent that they be believed. That does not mean the person who makes the stories believes that what he makes up comes to life like Pinocchio. — Fooloso4

"Making" is not the same as "making up". There is no logical necessity for a person who makes speeches about Gods to either (1) disbelieve in Gods or (2) make things up.

It is perfectly possible for a person who makes speeches about Gods to actually believe in Gods.

Do speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false? Must they [children] be educated in both but first in the false? — Fooloso4

If speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false, then they have one form that is true.

The onus is on you to show that Plato's speeches about the Gods are false.

do some research on what the term 'atheist' meant as it was used then. — Fooloso4

That is not the issue. The issue is whether Socrates was an atheist in the sense of "not believing in God/s".

You have admitted that Socrates does not deny the existence of the Gods:

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, — Fooloso4

So, on what basis do you claim that he is an atheist?

When it comes to making images of gods they do. Or do you think the gods they tell stories about actually existed? — Fooloso4

As usual, you confuse "existence" with "belief in existence". There is no logical necessity for a person who makes poetical images of Gods to either (1) disbelieve in Gods or (2) make things up.

It is perfectly possible for a person who makes poems about Gods to actually believe in Gods.

It is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that Socrates was making literary or metaphorical images of metaphysical realities that he believed in and, possibly, that he experienced personally.

The hyperuranion beings if only believed and not known are not metaphysical realities but hypothetical. — Fooloso4

The issue is whether Socrates and Plato believe in metaphysical realities. You have failed to show that they don't.

If the soul is not like those examples then the argument still fails because the cases used in the argument are not comparable. — Fooloso4

You are confused.

Of course the soul is special, being unlike anything else. The comparison is made with certain qualifications. Otherwise no comparison can be made.

However, as Sedley and Long point out, the proof is already provided at 105c - e:

[105c]“What causes the body in which it is to be alive?”

“The soul,” he replied.

[105d] “Is this always the case?”
“Yes,” said he, “of course.”

“Then if the soul takes possession of anything it always brings life to it?”

“Certainly,” he said.

“Is there anything that is the opposite of life?”

“Yes,” said he.

“What?”

“Death.”

“Now the soul, as we have agreed before, will never admit the opposite of that which it brings with it.”

“Decidedly not,” said Cebes.

“Then what do we now call that which does not admit the idea of the even?”

“Uneven,” said he.

“And those which do not admit justice and music?”

[105e] “Unjust,” he replied, “and unmusical.”
“Well then what do we call that which does not admit death?”

“Deathless or immortal,” he said.

“And the soul does not admit death?”

“No.”

“Then the soul is immortal.”

“Yes.”

“Very well,” said he. “Shall we say then that this is proved?”

“Yes, and very satisfactorily, Socrates.”

If you want to quibble over the difference between 'again and again' and 'repeat' then go ahead. — Fooloso4

If you want to invent things that are not in the original text and believe in your own inventions, then go ahead. But in that case don't expect anyone to take you seriously. :grin:

According to Liddell and Scott:

2 sing as an incantation, ἃ αἱ Σειρῆνες ἐπῇδον τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ X.Mem.2.6.11; χρὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπᾴδειν ἑαυτῷ Pl.Phd.114d, cf. 77e; ἐ. ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς τοῦτον τὸν λόγον Id.R.608a; ἐ. τινί sing to one so as to charm or soothe him, Id.Phdr.267d, Lg.812c, al.:—Pass., Porph.Chr.35: abs., use charms or incantations, Pl.Tht.157c; ἐπαείδων by means of charms, A.Ag.1021 (lyr.), cf. Pl.Lg.773d, Tht.149d. — Fooloso4

Yes, "sing to one so as to soothe him". Exactly as at 77e where Socrates says:

You must sing to him every day until you drive it [the fear] away

Socrates' intention is to soothe or comfort his friends with a narrative that he believes in, not to tell them lies and also them them that he is telling them lies.

Your claims are illogical and absurd and stand refuted.

You might presume so, but in making stories about the gods does not entail the existence of gods. — Fooloso4

More Straussian straw men!

Making stories about the Gods may not entail the existence of Gods, but it may entail belief in the Gods described in the stories. The only alternative is to assume that the story makers, and by implication Plato, are liars which is absurd IMHO.

And Plato's philosophy is not Greek religion. Your failure to see the difference is why you cannot understand Plato's philosophy and see only religion. — Fooloso4

I see what the text says. If the text says "God/s" then it is irrational to claim that it doesn't.

“Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?” (Rep 508a).

“This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision.” (Rep 508b - c ).

1. The belief that the Sun is a God is Greek religion.

2. The belief that the Sun God is the offspring of the Good (which, by implication, is divine) is Platonic religion.

3. Plato combines traditional religion with his own theology.

Right, there you go again, ignoring the text. (26c) — Fooloso4

Here is the text:

[26c] these very gods about whom our speech now is, speak still more clearly both to me and to these gentlemen. For I am unable to understand whether you say that I teach that there are some gods, and myself then believe that there are some gods, and am not altogether godless and am not a wrongdoer in that way, that these, however, are not the gods whom the state believes in, but others, and this is what you accuse me for, that I believe in others; or you say that I do not myself believe in gods at all and that I teach this unbelief to other people. “That is what I say, that you do not believe in gods at all.” You amaze me, Meletus! Why do you say this?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D26c

The statement "you do not believe in Gods at all" is not the charge on which Socrates is being tried, it is an allegation that Meletus makes during the trial. You seem to be confusing one with the other.

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthyphro 3b).

Xenophon says the same:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the Gods worshiped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced.

Like the poets, he is a maker of images without originals. Or do you think the Olympian gods or any other gods they made actually existed? — Fooloso4

1. Poets don't always make images without originals.

2. The issue is not whether the Gods existed but whether the image-makers believed in the Gods images of whom they were making.

3. There is no evidence that Socrates did not believe in the metaphysical realities or beings he described or under whose inspiration he believed he was acting.

the Fascist promises social programs, and thats all the Social Democrat is interested in. He wants a share in the exploitation and the plunder. The Social Democrat wants higher wages and wants to tax billionaires to fund those programs, but this keeps these billionaires in place. — Albero

That's exactly why Britain's Fabian Socialist leaders described socialism as a "business proposition".

The Fabians presented themselves as a compromise between communism and capitalism. As leaders of the British Left, they led the masses in a non-revolutionary direction on condition that the big bankers and industrialists contributed to higher living standards for the masses and nice incomes for the Fabians themselves, who not only controlled the Labour Party but also the education system as well as dominating the intellectual classes from which any rebellion against money interests could have emerged.

The Fabian model was then reproduced in America in the early 1900's.

I think "movement" is change in sensory perception, especially, but not exclusively visual perception.

What we really perceive are invisible particles or units of color that our mind builds into an "object" or patch of color that undergoes changes in relation to itself and other "objects" or patches of color.

Isn't it just as plausible to say that the soul, which is immortal, is withdrawn from the body at death, meaning that, the body is what perishes? — Wayfarer

It isn’t “just as plausible” but far more plausible (and logical) if we read the text carefully. I think that point was already settled at page 13:

In their Introduction, Sedley & Long say:

“… in this concluding moment Socrates and his companions are in no doubt as to what it amounts to: soul must leave the body and go to Hades.” — Apollodorus

The main proof now ensues at 105c - d. Another member of the same class is soul: it always imports life to what it occupies, and is itself incapable of being dead. This is already enough to show that it is “deathless” or “immortal” (105e), in the strong sense that its death is as impossible as an even trio or a hot snowball …

The point of the argument’s continuation at 105e - 107a … is to establish a strictly supplementary point, one that at last puts to work the ‘retreat or perish’ principle … the snowball can (a) retreat from the heat or (b) stay and melt, but cannot (c) stay and become a hot snowball.

Soul, however, is a special exception. If upon the approach of death it were (b) to perish, it would also (c) take on the opposite property to the one it bears, that is, become a dead soul. Therefore in the special case of soul, perishing is ruled out, and on the approach of death there is only one thing left for it to do: it retreats …

- D. Sedley & A. Long, Meno and Phaedo

Bearing in mind that Socrates and his companions were Greeks living in 4th-century BC Athens, it follows that ‘retreat from death’ means leave the body and go to Hades as explained at 106e - 107a.

It is a direct quote. Here's another translation:

... and he ought to repeat such things to himself as if they were magic charms ... — Fooloso4

Right. So "again and again" is not in the Greek text!

And neither is "as if they were magic charms".

The text simply says "sing to oneself". And the verb used is ἐπαείδω epaeido "sing to" which is the same verb used at 77e in the sense of “sing someone’s fear away”.

But, obviously, you can't read Greek and you always use translations that suit your Straussian agenda.

In any case, the story about "chanting incantations again and again" is your own invention.

speech about gods, that is, theologia, will be the creation of the founders of the city — Fooloso4

Well. if there is "speech about the Gods", then presumably there are Gods to speak about.

He replaces the gods with the Good. He does not call the Good a god. — Fooloso4

Plato compares the Good to the Sun. The Sun is a God in Greek religion.

I don't have to insist on it, just read the Apology. I've already cited the relevant passages. — Fooloso4

Right, so there you go again. You are implying that Socrates was an atheist. But he was charged with "making new deities". And those deities were beings he believed in.

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthyphro 3b).

Xenophon says the same:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the Gods worshiped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced.

It definitely isn't a reference to mantrams. It is a Greek expression similar to singing a lullaby to a child to soothe them and is perfectly consistent with 77e where it expressly refers to singing away a child's fear.

Nothing to do with "incantations" or "Socrates convincing himself" of something he believes to be a myth.

If he does believe it to be a myth, why would he try to convince himself? And why would he say "since the soul turns out to be immortal", etc.?

Rather, the fact is that Socrates simply tells the story - mythos can perfectly well mean "story" or "account" - to comfort his friends (and perhaps to overcome his own fear) as would be entirely normal in the situation. After all, he was only human.