The Good as described in the Republic does not contain all other things. — Fooloso4

It does as described in the analogy of the Sun, that's why I've repeatedly told you to go back to the analogy and read it again.

“The Sun, I presume you will say, not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation … In like manner, then, you are to say that the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the Good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the Good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power … (Republic 509b ff.).

If the Good is the source of the existence of all known things, i.e., all known reality, in the same way the Sun is the source of light, then the Good must be the source of, and contain, everything that is real or known to us, in the same way particles of light are contained within the sphere of light radiating from the Sun. This is the logical implication.

As to your claim that Socrates was an "atheist", the dialogues show very clearly that he was not:

“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.

Therefore, he was not an atheist.

I've rephrased that for clarity.

What I'm saying is that the issue is not whether he disbelieved in the Gods of Athens but whether he disbelieved in Gods in general.

If someone doesn't believe in one particular God, he may still believe in another God or deities.

If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced. Therefore, he was not an atheist.

I think you are becoming irrational now.

What you are saying is that you are unable to prove that Socrates was an atheist, so you bring "Spinoza" and "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" into it to prove that he was.

Edit. The charge against Socrates was not that he didn't believe in God but that he introduced "other new deities", thus showing irreverence. Irreverence is not "atheism".

When the meaning of terms does not matter then it is all just arbitrary. — Fooloso4

:grin: I think you are confused. The meaning is clear: intelligent first principle that transcends and contains all other things. What doesn't matter is the name you select to give it.

Anyway, the facts of the matter are these:

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

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

2. You also have admitted that Strauss did not demonstrate that Plato was an atheist:

Of course he did not demonstrate that! — Fooloso4

3. And you have failed to demonstrate that either Plato or Socrates was an atheist.

As I said, you are wasting your time.

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

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that he was an atheist.

You fill in "atheism" where the dialogues nowhere say this.

Aristotle's unmoved mover is not to be found anywhere in Plato. — Fooloso4

You are not paying attention. I said the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover:

They exist within the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover, just like thoughts or ideas exist in the human mind. — Apollodorus

It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is that it is an intelligent first principle that transcends and contains the Forms and everything else within itself.

The fact that there is no exact definition or description of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that Plato is an atheist. You are clutching at straws and wasting your time.

It remains for you an article of faith. — Fooloso4

Faith does not equal "atheism". So, unless you can prove that it does, you are talking nonsense.

He provides a careful, detailed interpretation of the dialogues and leaves it up to the reader to draw conclusions. — Fooloso4

In that case, why are you using Strauss to support your spurious theory that Plato teaches atheism?

What I have done is point to the fact that Forms are not gods. — Fooloso4

They don't need to be Gods. They exist within the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover, just like thoughts or ideas exist in the human mind.

That's precisely why Platonism is a form of metaphysical idealism and not atheism.

Are you sure English is your first language???

The philosopher first uses reason to think about the Forms and eventually "sees" or experiences them by means of the nous. This is the logical implication as pointed out by Plotinus and others.

Nothing to do with atheism. You're making it up.

Of course he did not demonstrate that! — Fooloso4

So, you actually agree with me.

Strauss of course did not demonstrate that Plato was an atheist. And neither have you.

I don't know what you hope to achieve by denying what you have already admitted.

It remains for you a matter of faith. — Fooloso4

They remain a matter of faith until experienced, like everything else.

Faith doesn't mean "atheism".

I can't say that I'm really convinced though.

I tend to think that violation of dignity is commonly associated with condescension or being exposed to ridicule, etc. But if God is good and, moreover, if he is not a person but just pure intelligence, etc., then I don't think the issue of violation of dignity needs to arise at all.

You object to being associated with the author of the book you touted, but can't seem to see that it is by a similar association you dismiss not only Strauss but generations of scholars who learned from him. — Fooloso4

Only in your imagination. You volunteered to tell us that Strauss is one of your most important scholars whose ideas you are using in defense of your spurious theory.

But Strauss's ideas were very controversial from the start. He didn't demonstrate that Plato was an atheist and neither have you.

They helped him emigrate, just as hundreds of other scholars were helped. What is clear if you would actually read him is that he was opposed to socialism. — Fooloso4

Irrelevant. The fact that they helped him does not mean that they didn't become friends or that their anti-Platonist ideas did not influence him.

They were anti-Platonists and they helped him promote anti-Platonism. In any case, he was promoting the same anti-Platonist line as they were.

It is not about telling you what to think. — Fooloso4

But that's exactly what you are doing. You have decided that Plato and Socrates were "atheists" without any evidence and you mock everyone who disagree.

So, I think we can all see what "zetetic" means to you.

As I said, when someone keeps indiscriminately using terms like "irony", "aporia", "zetetic", and the like, as if they were chanting incantations or trying to give themselves a false air of learning, you just know that they are engaging in sophistry for nefarious purposes.

They remain for us images, hypotheses. — Fooloso4

Socrates hypothesizes or speculates about many things. That doesn't make those things. e.g., virtue, beauty or justice, just speculation.

The point Socrates is making is that the philosopher first thinks about them and eventually "sees", i.e., experiences them.

We remain in the cave. — Fooloso4

Remain in the cave then. It doesn't bother me in the least. :grin:

All philosophical books written before the Enlightenment aim at both a wider audience and a small elite, able to understand the deeper meaning of the texts — Fooloso4

There you go again. Of course texts may have "a deeper meaning". The issue is to be able to provide evidence in support of what you claim is that deeper meaning.

So far, you have presented zero evidence for your claim that the Euthyphro or any other dialogue teaches "atheism".

Do you know what the content of the Tawney article is? Strauss was opposed to Marxism, Socialism, and historicism. — Fooloso4

Strauss was certainly close to Fabian Socialists like Laski and Tawney so presumably there was some influence?

But I suggest you read my post again. My point was that anti-Platonism was a trend arising from liberal, Christian Socialist and Fabian Socialist circles.

In any case, accusing Plato of "atheism" is just ludicrous unscholarly nonsense as you ought to realize yourself.

:rofl: Good try. Unfortunately for you, I never "touted" anything. It was a book I had just picked up and it discussed the rising use of psychological analysis in politics which myself and others here found an interesting topic.

So, I'm afraid you are clutching at straws there. According to you, first I was a "Christian evangelist", then a "Neoplatonist", and now I am supposed to be an "anti-semite" just because I disagree with Strauss and with you.

By your logic, anyone who disagrees with Marx is a "Nazi" and "war criminal". But I think by now you have amply demonstrated that logic (or even common sense) isn't your strength. To be quite honest, I think you may have some psychological issues that you need to address.

In any case, I don't think you are doing yourself a service by carrying on like this, but as I said, you can do as you please.

I am very worried for society as mothers leave the home to be equal to males. — Athena

Yes, this seems to be the trend in modern society. "Equality" is a very appealing concept, but as the experience of communist societies has shown, it is not a goal that is easily achievable. Not only that, but the attempt to artificially impose equality can result in new forms of inequality and other problems.

I suppose the original idea was to get women out of the house in order to join the army of factory workers that supported first capitalist and later communist production. But this led to fewer children being born and raised, and to population stagnation and decline.

The next problem that emerged was people's loss of interest in marriage. But without commitment to marriage and long-term relationships, this has resulted in a rising number of single mothers, and this in turn has given rise to new problems.

One aspect of the current cultural situation is that our heroes and role models are "celebrities" from pop to movie to social media stars who often live chaotic, dysfunctional lives, and whose own relationships are often dysfunctional and/or temporary. The majority presumably still see some form of longer-lasting relationship as the ideal, but whether this is actually achieved, or achievable, is another question.

So it looks like, ultimately, no changes to this trend are realistic unless and until the culture we live in changes. And for this to happen, we need substantial changes to the education system.

Well, Strauss has been accused of many things just as he and others have accused Plato.

However, as stated by R H Crossman, it had become fashionable by the first half of the 20th century "to pull Plato down from his pedestal". Crossman and other Fabian Socialists were at the forefront of this trend.

As Gerson points out, new interpretative procedures emerged in the 1800's and 90's that are fundamentally flawed and lead to absurd conclusions including that Platonic works have no metaphysical or even no philosophical content.

The problem with the esotericism of authors like Strauss is that it can lead to any number of readings that are ultimately incapable of being proved.

In addition to atheism, another "secret teaching" that classicists like G L Dickinson saw in Plato was homoeroticism.

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/literature/dickinson_gl_L.pdf

This may have constituted "secret teaching" in the eyes of late 19th and early 20th century readers, but it is highly unlikely that this is how Plato himself saw it.

And, of course, according to one's political inclinations, some saw Plato as a revolutionary and others as a reactionary - and this is still the case today.

I think this illustrates the danger of imposing modern readings on 4th-century BC texts. We can't simply dismiss more than two millennia of Platonism just because modern worldviews have changed.

Please quote where I said that. — Fooloso4

As usual, you make a claim, then deny having made it, keep asking when you made it, and then you accuse others of repeating themselves when they show you that you actually made it!

Anyway, this is your statement:

If the whole includes bad things then the Good cannot be the cause or the explanation of the whole.
As an explanation it is, as he says, naive and perhaps foolish — Fooloso4

And I also explained to you that evil does not exist as a substance or property but as an absence of substance, form, and goodness. That's why it is experienced as evil or bad. This is what evil is, the absence of good.

And, of course, evil can also be excess, not only privation, as pointed out by Aristotle and others.

So, I don't think it is as "naive and foolish" as you claim. In fact, there are many theories of evil none of which are 100% satisfactory. All of them have their limitations. Plato's isn't any worse than others.

If you don't like Plato, you are free to invent your own system. But from what I see you can't even find evidence for your claim that Plato was an atheist. Yours is an unfounded fringe position.

The mainstream position is that Platonism is a form of metaphysical idealism.

You have chosen to take the fringe position according to which Socrates and Plato were secret teachers of “atheism”. Nothing wrong with this, but you have failed to establish your position as I said you would from the start.

You have used Socrates’ trial in an attempt to show he was an atheist.

But the fact of the matter is that Socrates was not tried for atheism but for “impiety” or “irreverence” on the grounds that he “introduced new deities”. Hence, not atheism but at the most religious reform.

As Plato was not tried for anything, the strategy you adopted in his case was that he was teaching atheism secretly for fear of being take to court like Socrates.

In support of your theory, you cited Clement of Alexandria and Ibn Sina who, apparently, believed that Plato and/or the Greeks in general, concealed secrets in their writings.

You also cited Leibniz. But Leibniz actually classified Plato as an idealist which contradicts your argument.

Ibn Sina may have said that Plato and Aristotle were teaching secrets. But these secrets need not have been atheism.

“Secrets” could mean a number of things, e.g., knowledge unknown to the general public, allegorical passages referring to metaphysical realities, etc.

If the Church Fathers thought that Plato taught atheism, it is unlikely they would have chosen Platonic philosophy in support of their own teachings. In fact, Plato was regarded as a type of Ur-Christian.

Certainly, every moderately well-educated person in antiquity would have said that Plato’s teachings are about “becoming as godlike as possible”. Plato taught that man can become godlike by living a virtuous or righteous life:

“Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the Gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise” (Theaethetus 176a – b).

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Asection%3D176b

This became a central teaching of the Christian Gospels:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God” (John 1:12).
“He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came” (John 10:35).
“The people who are right with God will shine like the sun in their Father's kingdom” (Matthew 13: 43).
“So try to be like God, because you are his own dear children” (Ephesians 5:1).

In fact, we find that Plato’s disciple Aristotle was appointed head of the philosophical Academy of Macedon under King Philip II and tutor to his son Alexander.

Taking Plato’s teachings somewhat too literally, Phillip had already announced his wish to be treated as godlike or isotheos. Alexander himself followed in his father’s steps and declared himself a God: following his conquest of Egypt, he adopted the pharaonic title of “Son of God Re” and became “Son of Zeus” to the Greeks.

But Alexander was also a great promoter of Greek culture, including philosophy, which he propagated from Egypt to Persia and India, and so were his successors like Ptolemy Soter, the founder of the great library of Alexandria (Egypt) where the works of Plato and Aristotle held a place of honor. Under official state patronage, Platonism became the dominant philosophical school. And this would hardly have happened had Plato been a teacher of atheism.

In short, this is how Platonism was seen by Platonists and scholars from antiquity into the 19th century.

In the 1800’s under the influence of “enlightenment” ideas, liberalism, and "humanism", new schools of thought emerged, in particular, Christian Socialism and Fabian Socialism that began to “reinterpret” Plato in line with their political agendas.

The Fabians were particularly influential in leading universities like the London School of Economics and Political Science, Cambridge, and Oxford, where they sought to deconstruct Platonism as far as they could.

Judging by your posts, I had long suspected that you have been influenced by the Fabian Socialist authors of the 1930’s and, by your admission, Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein who started they career in the 1930’s.

I have shown that Strauss was an advocate of esotericism with close links to Fabian Socialism which explains your otherwise inexplicable fringe position.

"After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Higher Institute for Jewish Studies in Berlin for Paris,” after which he made his way to the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which had been founded by the Fabians and was funded by Rockefeller foundations.

“Some time during 1934, R. H. Tawney, at that time professor of economic history at the London School of Economics and at the very height of his academic fame and intellectual powers, took pity on an unknown, unemployed German-Jewish scholar, one recently exiled from his land of birth, and much in need of professional patronage and institutional preferment. His name was Leo Strauss.” - S. J. D. Green, “The Tawney-Strauss Connection: On Historicism and Values in the History of Political Ideas”, The Journal of Modern History Vol. 67, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 255-277 (23 pages) The University of Chicago Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2125059

Tawney was a member of the Fabian Society executive committee and Strauss became a close friend of his.

"Strauss moved in 1937 to the United States, under the patronage of Harold Laski"

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

Laski was a notorious Marxist and leading member of the Fabian Society executive committee, who frequently moved between the LSE and Rockefeller-funded US universities like Harvard and Columbia which had become centers of Fabian Socialism (which prompted David Rockefeller himself to write a thesis on Fabianism).

"Laski was one of Britain's most influential intellectual spokesmen for Communism in the interwar years".

"Laski returned to England in 1920 and began teaching government at the London School of Economics (LSE)"

And, "Strauss's closest friend was Jacob Klein" - Wikipedia

And now to Strauss’s teachings:

"Turning to the context of Strauss’s claims about esotericism helps to unravel a number of other important themes in his work, including what he calls the “theologico-political predicament of modernity,” the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns, and the relation between revelation and philosophy (what Strauss also calls “Jerusalem and Athens”)"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/#Cont

"In the late 1930s his [Strauss'] research focused on the rediscovery of esoteric writing, thereby a new illumination of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory."

Together with Fabian Socialists like Walter Lippmann, Strauss became a major influence on the intellectual classes of the time. However, his views were highly controversial from the start:

"Strauss's works were highly controversial during his own lifetime ... Strauss offered a deliberately provocative account of what might be called the "modernity problem" that had been widely debated in prewar European circles, but which was still relatively unknown to Americans of that era ...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/chapters/0625-1st-smith.html

If we add other writers like Bertrand Russell, G E Moore, G L Dickinson, R Crossman, etc., we can clearly see an anti-Platonist movement led by liberals, Christian Socialists and Fabian Socialists with a political agenda.

So, “Christian Socialism”, "Fabian Socialism", strange “reinterpretations” of Platonism, appeal to “puzzles” concerning analysis, "esotericism", “secret atheism”, etc., etc. All 1930’s politically-motivated, pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

I think the position of Vedanta especially in the Advaita tradition is very close to the Platonism of Plotinus. In discussing metaphysical realities, we have to start somewhere and for that purpose we use words, exactly as the Upanishads and other Shastras do.

Vedanta teaches that to 'know the Self' is not a matter of objective but of non-dual knowledge, jñāna, which is attained through meditation not discursive analysis. (Which, of course, sounds 'religious' to our ears.) — Wayfarer

Which I believe is exactly what I have repeatedly said. Except that to my ears it doesn't sound 'religious' at all.

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. — Deus

I fully agree. Though I've been accused of "evangelism" and all sorts of nonsense here, my position is closest to agnosticism which, from a purely philosophical perspective, seems preferable to unqualified atheism.

I can see no advantage in denying the existence of metaphysical realities on philosophical grounds.

I'll start with Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein, both Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. — Fooloso4

Well, I don't know if you realize this, actually you probably don't, but you are proving my point. You are talking about the 1930's there, are you not?

So, you may or may not have read Shorey, but as per your own admission, you have read others from the same period, exactly as I predicted from the start just by reading your posts!

"Turning to the context of Strauss’s claims about esotericism helps to unravel a number of other important themes in his work, including what he calls the “theologico-political predicament of modernity,” the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns, and the relation between revelation and philosophy (what Strauss also calls “Jerusalem and Athens”)"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/#Cont

"In the late 1930s his [Strauss'] research focused on the rediscovery of esoteric writing, thereby a new illumination of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory."

"After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Higher Institute for Jewish Studies in Berlin for Paris."

"Strauss moved in 1937 to the United States, under the patronage of Harold Laski"

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

Laski, of course, was a notorious Marxist and leading member of the Fabian Society (member of the executive) whose London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) was funded by Rockefeller foundations.

"Laski was one of Britain's most influential intellectual spokesmen for Communism in the interwar years"

"Laski returned to England in 1920 and began teaching government at the London School of Economics (LSE)"

And, "Strauss's closest friend was Jacob Klein" - Wikipedia

“Some time during 1934, R. H. Tawney, at that time professor of economic history at the London School of Economics and at the very height of his academic fame and intellectual powers, took pity on an unknown, unemployed German-Jewish scholar, one recently exiled from his land of birth, and much in need of professional patronage and institutional preferment. His name was Leo Strauss.”

S. J. D. Green, “The Tawney-Strauss Connection: On Historicism and Values in the History of Political Ideas”, The Journal of Modern History Vol. 67, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 255-277 (23 pages) The University of Chicago Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2125059

Like Laski, Tawney was a member of the Fabian Society executive committee.

So, "1930's", "Fabian Socialism", "esotericism", etc., etc. ....

I think you agree that there is no point looking into your other eminent scholars. Strauss himself is more than sufficient to demonstrate where you acquired your unsalutary fixation with "secret Platonic teachings", "atheism", strange "reinterpretations of Platonism", and the whole shebang. :grin:

I deny knowing them because I have never read them and they are not cited by the scholars I do read. — Fooloso4

And yet you sound very much like Shorey and other anti-Platonists of the 1930's onward.

Their usual method is to start by taking a dialogue in isolation of other Platonic texts, after which they use terms like "irony", "elenchos", "aporia", "skepticism", etc. to arrive at the most preposterous conclusions designed to demonize Plato and Platonists.

Anyway, if you are not reading scholars like Sedley and Gerson, who are leading in the field, which scholars do you actually read then???

all this bluster and noise provides a good cover by which you can avoid the substantive issues such as those raised in my last post regarding dialectic and Socratic philosophy. — Fooloso4

What "bluster and noise"? I have conclusively shown that Socrates' dialectic is sound and is quite capable of producing valid knowledge when correctly understood and applied:

What Socrates is saying is that in the same way we avoid looking directly at the Sun and look at its reflection in water, etc., we must avoid looking directly at the Good and start by looking at the objects of knowledge and the reasoning faculty whereby we know them.

The purpose of philosophical thought is to train the reasoning faculty to operate in harmony with the intuitive faculty and thus in harmony with truth and the Good. — Apollodorus

You even claimed to have correctly understood Socrates' analogy of the Sun. And yet you are saying that dialectic is "dangerous" and that Plato's concept of the Good is "foolish", in addition to claiming that he was a secret teacher of "atheism".

So, essentially, what you seem to be doing is to describe Plato in negative terms every time someone tries to extract something positive from the dialogues, and in positive term when you yourself believe to have discovered something negative in him, such as "atheism".

Surely, you must see the logical inconsistency and contradiction in your position?

This is what will power is all about, to endure suffering for the sake of a higher good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. If you put it that way, you could be right.

But what about "spiritual"? I tend to think that since the soul is immortal, non-physical, and the life-source in a living being, it wouldn't be wrong to refer to it as "spiritual". Or can we think of a better word?

You misrepresent what I say, claim you can quote where I said it, and when you are called out just pretend you never said it. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but I think what you are saying is totally and utterly untrue. It is you who is pretending that you never said it. You said Plato and/or Socrates secretly teaches "atheism" and now you say that you didn't.

Anyway, you are free to retract your statements, so it doesn't matter. What's the big deal?

As a matter of fact, I know far more than you think. And anti-Platonists like Dickinson, Shorey, and Crossman are rather notorious characters in the literature. That's why you deny knowing anything about them, because you don't want to be associated with their names. Subversive liberals, Christian Socialists, Fabian Socialists. It's all politically motivated, without a doubt.

In contrast, someone whose native dialect is a prestigious one can make it through life without ever adapting and without ever speaking anything but it, — baker

Yes, I think that tends to happen anywhere.

But in some places discrimination can happen in reverse, too. For, example, if you had an upper-class accent in some parts of England, some might label you as being "posh" or something along those lines but maybe this is more among older people who tend to be more set in their ways. I think younger people in general tend to be more tolerant. So, maybe age is another factor.

Also, in countries with high immigration rates it may be different than in those where immigration is lower.

Not at all, I just hadn't realized you were still there. But I see you're still looking for evidence of Plato's non-existent "atheism" .... :grin:

Anyway, as I said, I think you deliberately misunderstood Socrates' analogy.

Socrates compares knowledge with perception, right?

In physical perception such as sight, the Sun radiates light which enables the faculty of sight through which objects become visible and are seen.

Similarly, the Good emanates truth which enables the faculty of knowledge through which objects become knowable and are known.

In the case of visual perception, the sequence is:

Sun > light > sight > object seen.

In the case of knowledge, the sequence is:

Good > truth > knowledge > object known.

The inner organ of knowledge is reason through which we engage in discursive thought (dianoia) to arrive at valid knowledge. But reason is inseparably connected with the nous through which we know by means of non-discursive or “intuitive” apprehension (noesis). In turn, the nous is connected with truth and its source, the Good.

What Socrates is saying is that in the same way we avoid looking directly at the Sun and look at its reflection in water, etc., we must avoid looking directly at the Good and start by looking at the objects of knowledge and the reasoning faculty whereby we know them.

The purpose of philosophical thought is to train the reasoning faculty to operate in harmony with the intuitive faculty and thus in harmony with truth and the Good.

Dialectic is only dangerous when reason is used incorrectly and out of sync with the nous/truth/Good.
There is nothing contradictory there.

I think you have agreed that according to Plato, philosophy is a way of life. But a way of life necessitates some form of intellectual framework that guides us in everyday life.

This is what Plato presents in the dialogues. It may not be perfect in the absolute sense of the word, but it doesn’t have to be, as long as it is sufficiently clear to provide a form of guidance on the basis of which we can live our lives both outwardly and inwardly.

I know enough to criticize their methodology and so does Gerson. Of course you would disagree with the criticism since you are following the same flawed methodology.

Also, it is the same word used to describe the "Passion" of Christ, referring to the very strong will of Jesus, to proceed and continue in his course of action intended to deliver us from a corrupted spirituality. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the "Passion" of Christ refers in the first place to the suffering of Christ from late Latin passio "suffering, experience of pain". Though, I guess you can use it in the sense of "strong will" if you want to.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=passio

It would be fallacious to infer that as it is moral to monitor a young child's every move, it is therefore moral for me to monitor my neighbour Jenny's every move. — Bartricks

In the case of a human monitor, sure. But, presumably, there is a difference between a human and God? If God is our creator, sustainer, etc. then he is like our parent, which is why he is actually referred to as "father" in religious texts.

Another great contribution from Ffee Pie. — Bartricks

Ffee Pie? I thought it was Britney ... :wink:

There is nothing missing. It is not a syllogism. — Fooloso4

That's what I'm saying, it isn't a syllogism because it doesn't show how you arrive at that conclusion.

So it must be just random and unconnected statements then.

You, on the other hand, use his criticism of those scholars to dismiss other sholars. — Fooloso4

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

The fact is that Gerson is not criticizing the scholars, he simply points out that their procedure is flawed.

Maybe this upsets you because their procedure and conclusion sounds very much like your own?

A position of skepticism, which rejects philosophical positions, cannot be said to provide a theoretical framework. So any supposed theoretical framework would have to come from some principles other than those found in Plato. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, even a "position of skepticism" is a position.

But I think you are probably talking about radical skepticism there, which in my view is a form of nihilism. This is not what Plato is doing. The way I see it Plato is using skepticism more as a style of argument and mode of inquiry leading to knowledge than a rejection of all positions.

We didn't get any education in philosophy in high school, so I wasn't exposed to Plato or Platonism until university. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “we”, but some school kids have parents and some parents have Plato on their book shelf, so there is no need to wait for university. And, if I’m not mistaken, there are certain places called “libraries” where books may be borrowed and read, should there be an interest to do so .... :smile:

Gerson may be right about Platonism being about building a theoretical construct out of "Ur-Platonism", but if he is, this shows how far the Socratic way of life is from Platonism. — Fooloso4

This is your logic:

1. Gerson may be right about Platonism being about building a theoretical construct out of "Ur-Platonism".

2. But if he is, this shows how far the Socratic way of life is from Platonism.

Something is missing there, viz., the logical connection between premise (1) and premise (2).

And you are not paying attention. What Gerson is saying is that, into the 19th century, scholarship saw Platonism exactly as the Platonists did.

It was in the 1800’s, after Schleiermacher, that scholars began to look at the individual dialogues in isolation from the corpus of Platonic works and the system of thought associated with it, and this has led some of them down a rabbit hole resulting in absurd claims to the effect that the dialogues have no philosophical content at all.

Gerson doesn’t need to name those scholars (though he does refer to Shorey and others earlier in the book) because we know exactly who they are. They are mainly liberals, Christian Socialists and Fabian Socialists starting with G L Dickinson (The Greek Way of Life) and R H S Crossman (Plato Today) who taught Classics at Cambridge and Oxford.

Crossman who had been a Classics don at Oxford wrote:

“Since the war it has become quite fashionable to pull Plato off his pedestal. But when Plato To-day was published, the idea was novel and made quite a stir”.

So, the practice of arbitrarily atomizing the dialogues started in the 1800’s and culminated in the 1930’s with a complete reinterpretation of Plato from which all metaphysical and even philosophical content was deliberately excised.

As Gerson points out, this procedure is obviously flawed and can lead to absurd results - as may be seen from unsubstantiated claims that Plato was an “atheist”.

I think what Apollodorus was referring to is the position of "spirit", sometimes translated as "passion" (which I prefer), in Plato's tripartite soul. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not exactly. The way I see it, the soul or spirit proper is the nous. But the nous is attached to a mind-body (psyche kai soma) compound:

A. Nous (intellect, spirit, pneuma).
B. Psyche (mind): (1) reason, (2) emotions, (3) sensations.
C. Body (soma).

For this reason, the whole nous-psyche and even the nous-psyche-soma compound may be referred to as (embodied) soul (psyche).

The mortal part is the body (soma) and the immortal part is the nous-psyche (intellect-mind) part.

"Spirit" must not be confused with the "spirited/emotional part" which is just one of the three aspects of the psyche or soul.

The issue I see, as soon as you say 'it', then you're near to committing the fallacy of reification. To say 'it' is 'something' - life-giving or whatever - is to set yourself apart from 'it', to make of 'it' a something, a 'this' as distinct from 'that', an object, or potential object, of perception. — Wayfarer

I know what you mean. However, you could refer to the soul as “I” when talking about your own soul but when talking about soul in general, it would be “it” or, in Greek, “she”. But Greek doesn’t need a personal pronoun, so we are back to “soul” or “spirit” psyche and “spiritual” psychikos.

Psyche was already used by Homer in the sense of “departed soul, ghost” and by Pindar in the sense of “immaterial and immortal soul”. And of course it was used with reference to “conscious self”, “various aspects of the self”, “moral and intellectual self”, “primary substance and source of life”, “spirit of the universe”, etc.:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=yuxh/

The adjective “spiritual” ψῡχῐκός psychicos of or related to the soul, opposite of σωματικός somaticos of or related to the body, was also in use:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=yuxiko/s

My point was that there is no reason why English “spiritual” can’t be used to refer to the soul. Aristotle uses it while also drawing a clear distinction between spiritual (psychicos) and bodily (somaticos).

“After Courage let us speak of Temperance; for these appear to be the virtues of the irrational parts (of the soul) … Now we must make a distinction between pleasures of the body (somatikai) and pleasures of the soul (psychikai)…” (Arist. Nic.Eth. 1117b)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1117b