Wisdom has always been the philosopher's holy grail and that, to my reckoning, includes, not as an auxilliary but as a central component, knowledge of right and wrong. — TheMadFool

Correct. Hence the cardinal virtues of (1) Temperance, (2) Fortitude, (3) Prudence, and (4) Justice or Righteousness, shared by both Platonism and Christianity. In fact, the development of the virtues was seen as a preliminary step to philosophical training proper.

Knowledge of right and wrong, or righteousness (dikaiosyne) was absolutely central to Greek philosophy and philosophers were concerned with right and wrong as much as they were with knowledge and ignorance or truth and falsehood.

"The four cardinal virtues appear as a group (sometimes included in larger lists) long before they are later given this title. Plato identified the four cardinal virtues with the classes of the city described in The Republic, and with the faculties of man. Plato narrates a discussion of the character of a good city where the following is agreed upon. “Clearly, then, it will be wise, brave, temperate [literally: healthy-minded], and just.” (427e; see also 435b) Temperance was common to all classes, but primarily associated with the producing classes, the farmers and craftsmen, and with the animal appetites, to whom no special virtue was assigned; fortitude was assigned to the warrior class and to the spirited element in man; prudence to the rulers and to reason. Justice stands outside the class system and divisions of man, and rules the proper relationship among the three of them."

Plato's Four Cardinal Virtues - Gutenberg PDF

It may also be worthwhile noting that physical training was also part of a philosopher's life, as was physical work among the Christians, later encapsulated in the phrase ora et labora "pray and work".

"The Christian metaphysic is rooted in the biblical metaphysic of God as "Maker of Heaven and earth".[5]:25 Philosopher Mark Smith explains that, in the Bible, a fundamental ontology is embodied in language about power, where the world and its beings derive their reality (their being, their power to exist, and to act) from the power of God (Being itself). Theology and philosophy professor Jaco Gericke says that metaphysics is found anywhere the Bible has something to say about "the nature of existence".[26]:207 According to Rolf Knierim, the Bible's metaphysic is "dynamistic ontology" which says reality is an ongoing dynamic process.[26]:208 In this view, God "gives the universe its basic order", and its "formal statistical patterns", generally referred to as natural laws, but also allows them to develop organically with minimum interference."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics#Metaphysical_foundations

In some ways the Bible may help.for some people, but it is questionable to what extent The Bible provides a foundation in metaphysics and ethics. I am not sure that The Bible does provide this, — Jack Cummins

I think the Bible does provide some metaphysical as well as ethical teachings but they tend to be in an undeveloped form which is why it is important to see how the Church Fathers viewed these matters.

Christian ethics - Wikipedia

The Metaphysical Idealism of the Eastern Church Fathers - academia.edu

Great, please share any Christian philosophy there... . I would also recommend delving into those old testament wisdom books (Sirach, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc. they are easy reads) as there is a so-called treasure trove of information that mirrors Greek philosophy & Existentialism. — 3017amen

Correct. The writings of the Church Fathers also make interesting reading and it is instructive to see the close connections between Christian and Greek philosophy and how Christianity largely understood philosophy in Platonic terms.

The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: φιλοκαλία "love of the beautiful, the good", from φιλία philia "love" and κάλλος kallos "beauty") is a collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by spiritual masters of the Eastern Orthodox Church mystical hesychast tradition. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life".

Philokalia - Wikipedia

Obviously, the Philokalia is something for those who are more mystically inclined. But I think it is important to bear in mind that Christian philosophy is far from mere intellectual pursuit but, like Platonism, it aims to bring us closer to God or Ultimate Reality which, incidentally, also ought to be the final objective of philosophy in general IMHO.

Philokalia PDF

I am not sure that it is about relief, but more about rash decisions in a state of panic. — Jack Cummins

Good point. It seems plausible that in most cases it comes down to rash decisions motivated by overpowering emotional states that the person in question is unable to control. For example, grief over the loss of a loved one, unrequited love (or infatuation), shame, guilt, etc. If this is so, then presumably a lot of people would act differently if given a second chance. Only that, of course, there is no second chance.

It is interesting that Christianity actually banned suicide and, viewed from this perspective, it was the right thing to do. I suppose that it also had to do with the biblical injunction against killing and with "bearing one's cross" in imitation of Jesus.

But I think this can also go too far in the opposite direction. A ban can make us prisoners of society and seems to suppress the idea of free will. So, I tend to believe that a blanket ban is unreasonable. It should be left to the individual to decide to what length he or she is prepared to "bear the cross" and I think that society can act in ways that can only be described as cruel if it insists on applying a general prohibition in every single case.

I would like this thread to develop over a couple of weeks, rather than just be one that fizzles in a few days, because the ideas within Christianity are at the core of thinking in Western culture. — Jack Cummins

That seems like a reasonable expectation. After all, with all its downsides, Christianity has given mankind quite a lot. I think it would be interesting to explore the connection Christianity has had with social justice movements because many early socialist and communist thinkers were also committed Christians and saw their movement as an expression and fulfillment of the Christian faith. For example, the 1844 Communist Credo (which inspired the Communist Manifesto) read, "What is the goal of Christianity? The salvation of all men through love, freedom, and justice". And, of course, it was not atheists like Marx and Engels that had the greatest influence on the social justice movement but Christians who felt that their faith obliges them to take an interest in social issues.

I think it would also be interesting to look into Christian philosophy itself because some seem to be under the false impression that either Christianity has no philosophy or that it is just Platonism with some minor modifications. The misconstruction of Christianity as a purely religious system that has nothing to offer to philosophy and its dismissal as somehow "defective" if not fundamentally opposed or inimical to philosophical inquiry, certainly seems unwarranted and out of place.

Christian Philosophy - Wikipedia

Well, as already stated, the difficulty arises from an incorrect or incomplete grasp of Greek or Platonic terminology.

The world is generally admitted to exist. If we philosophize about the world, that doesn’t mean that the world is just philosophy or philosophizing, right?

Similarly, perception is generally admitted to exist. If we hypothesize about what it is or how it comes about, it doesn’t mean that perception itself is mere hypothesis.

Now we know that the world exists because we perceive it through our faculties of sensory perception, such as sight.

By sight we mean seeing physical objects. But if we analyze the objects of sight, what we actually see is color, shape, size, distance (between different objects and between objects and ourselves as the perceiving agent), etc.

Color, shape, size, etc., are universals held in common by all objects of sight. They are things we see, not hypotheses. The Forms are similar to these universals though also different in that they are prior to the particulars.

The Ancient Greek word for “see” is eidon which is the same as Latin video, “I see”. Greek το εἶδος to eidos literally means “the seen”, “that which is seen”, or “visible form”, hence English “Form”.

So, Greek “idea” is not the same as English “idea”, it is something that is actually there and that we can see.

If we arrange what we see in ascending order we have:

1. Physical object.
2. Mental object perceived internally.
3. Properties that make up the mental object.
4. Eternal, unchanging “Forms” to which the properties belong.

English “idea” is what we perceive mentally and think about in discursive thought (dianoia).
Platonic “Idea” (“Form”) is what we see in a kind of non-discursive, intuitive perception (noesis) or contemplation.

Similarly, English “theory” is just a mental construct. Greek θεωρία, theoria, is much more than that. It is “contemplation” as in observing something that is seen.

It is somewhat similar to the difference between thinking and lucid dreaming. In lucid dreaming we don’t just think about an object, we actually see it and are perfectly conscious of the fact that we see it as well as of ourselves as the seeing subject.

Edit. So, Socrates often uses hypotheses to prove the validity of a concept, not to deny it. He does this, for example, with the immortality of the soul and concludes that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d). Socrates does not deny the Forms, he merely attempts to find ways of mentally describing or defining them.

For Plato, the Forms are indescribable, eternal realities, that are above discursive thought and can only be referred to in negative terms. For example, this is what the Symposium says about the Form of Beauty:

“It neither comes to be nor perishes, neither waxes nor wanes … nor again will the beautiful appear to him [the philosopher] like a face or hands or any other portion of the body … or piece of knowledge … but itself by itself with itself existing for ever in singularity of form” (211a ff.)

“In that state of life above all others, a man finds it truly worth while to live, as he contemplates essential beauty […] there only will it befall him, as he sees the beautiful through that which makes it visible, to breed not illusions but true examples of virtue, since his contact is not with illusion but with truth” (211d – 212a).

This is not the description of a “hypothesis”, it is the description of a metaphysical reality. We can hypothesize about the Forms but we are always a few steps away from them. We can only experience them in direct metaphysical experience.

It is clear how hypotheses are used in Plato, including in the Phaedo, where Simmias says:

“The argument about recollection and learning, on the other hand, has been provided by means of a hypothesis worthy of acceptance […] and I have accepted that hypothesis on both sufficient and correct grounds” (92d - e).

The hypothesis then, is a provisional thesis adopted to explore its consequences and arrive at a conclusion. Because of the metaphysical nature of the Forms, Socrates does not always come to a definitive definition or conclusion about the Forms even though he comes sufficiently close to point us in the right direction.

Philosophical language was only being developed at the time and no “scientific” definition or description was possible or, indeed, needed as the Forms were meant to ultimately be experienced through a form of perception that can be developed through mental training.

Plotinus gives a more detailed account of the Forms, but ultimately, all we can say in general philosophical terms is that the Forms stand at the threshold between indeterminate and determinate consciousness, where self-aware consciousness begins to perceive things other than itself. The Forms are the underlying patterns that consciousness uses to organize itself in order to produce determinate perception.

Whilst ordinary perception is a cognition arising from mental operations following contact with a sense-object, perception of the Forms arises from activities within consciousness (nous) itself and independently of sense-objects. Because the Forms stand at the very root of experience, at a stage where the (mental) objects and discursive thought or language related to the objects have not yet emerged, they are impossible to describe. They, nevertheless, are very real. In fact, according to Plato and other Platonists, the Forms are more real than physical reality itself. Like energy particles to physical matter, the Forms are the ultimate constituent elements of subjective experience (i.e., experience directly produced by consciousness) at both cosmic and individual level.

SO if they are not a hypothesis, what are they? — Banno

Plato gives no detailed or scientific definition because they are said to be metaphysical realities. But they are a type of eternal universals, “ideal forms” (eidea) or “patterns” (paradeigmata) after which all objects of the world are fashioned.

If the Forms were “hypotheses”, then ultimate reality itself would be not a reality but a hypothesis which is absurd.

The dialogues suggest that the Forms can be experienced, so, clearly they are not hypotheses.

Using the geometry analogy mentioned by Socrates, a hypothesis is a provisional thesis intended to show how a particular concept may be formulated philosophically, not to show that it is a hypothesis.

I suppose the confusion comes from the similarity of Greek eidos and idea with English idea, i.e., some kind of vague belief or fancy. The Greek terms mean much more than "mental idea" or "thought", which is why "Form" is often used as a technical term to refer to what is meant in the dialogues.

Theory of Forms

Leads to utter nonsense .... — creativesoul

Just because you say so?

But hey, that would mean that logic has some benefits too — 3017amen

Maybe it has indeed. And what better place to find that out than a prestigious philosophy forum like this?

I think it is you who are playing a game of hide-and-seek by refusing to answer legitimate questions. How do you propose to have a conversation when you refuse to explain what you are trying to say and on what basis?

My feeling is that you are grossly mistaken. Socrates does not say that the Forms are "hypothesis".

The truth of the matter is that Socrates does use hypotheses, but not to show that what he is looking for is a hypothesis.

In fact, he uses geometry (see also Meno) as an analogy or model for how hypotheses may be used to solve a problem.

Similarly, he uses hypotheses to show that virtue or the good ultimately derives from wisdom, not that wisdom is a "hypothesis".

This is why you are unable to show where Socrates says "Forms are hypotheses" or which two statements of his you think can be combined to arrive at that conclusion.

If you cannot put one statement together with another I cannot help you. — Fooloso4

Well, why don't you put the two statements together and show us how to do it?

So, this is one statement:

"On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest"

What is the other statement that by putting it together with the first, would in your opinion amount to saying that "the Forms are hypothesis"?

I would be hesitant to do anything aside from examine Plato's use/sense given what we can know about the historical context. — creativesoul

Reading the dialogue in a Platonic sense or senses is exactly what I have been proposing. Unfortunately, some started bringing Abrahamic religions into it and derailed the discussion.

According to Plotinus, the human soul emanates from the One and eventually returns to the One. So, yes, it is essentially divine, as Plato says.

The human soul is all the gods.

That follows, you know? — creativesoul

Of course I know. That's exactly what Plotinus and other Platonists are saying, not to mention followers of Advaita Vedanta and other monistic systems, as earlier pointed out by @Frank.

I personally think that we are well equipped to do much better. — creativesoul

I tend to think so too. Unfortunately, the text isn't very helpful.

That's why I suggested, as others have done, to see if the dialogue has a range of meanings from the literal to the moral to the metaphysical. I believe this would be consistent with Plato's method. And there is nothing to lose IMHO.

:rofl: Obviously, "noun" or "adjective" is irrelevant here for the reason already indicated above, viz., the original Greek phrase is φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, phileitai hypo ton theon.

As you can see for yourself, phileitai in Greek is a verb, not an adjective or noun, hence it may be translated into English as either adjective or noun, whichever you prefer. The meaning in Greek remains the same irrespective of what English equivalent you choose.

But I'm glad that you now finally got it. As I said, well done. And you persuaded Wiktionary too, so what can I say?

If what counts as good, just, and pious counts as such because it is loved by the gods, then all things loved by the gods are good, just, and pious merely as a result of being loved by the gods, and nothing is good, just, and pious unless or until it's loved by the gods. — creativesoul

That would appear to be the logical implication. However, as already stated, I believe that it is necessary to go by what Socrates says as there is nothing else to go by. I suppose we could make up our own story, but in that case we would need to ignore the dialogue and start another thread.

In this particular scenario, humans either have no direct access to the gods and thus cannot know what is good, just, and pious, or they somehow have access to the gods in order to be able to know what they love, and by doing so also know what's good, just, and pious. — creativesoul

That's exactly what the dialogue does not say, hence the difficulty. However, if (a) we take the Gods (literally, all the Gods) to refer to the Divine (to theion) in a general or abstract sense, and if (b) we admit that the human soul is divine, then (c) knowing what is good amounts to the divine knowing what is divine.

In those cases where humans do not know or know only in part, it is because their innate divine knowledge is insufficiently awakened.

BTW, thanks for pointing out that "loved" and "beloved" are synonyms. It looks like the dictionary now agrees with you. I don't know how you managed to persuade them to change their definition, but well done.

loved (comparative more loved, superlative most loved) 1. Being the object of love
Synonyms See Thesaurus: beloved

loved – Wiktionary

On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest — Fooloso4

1. You are not saying what translation that is, or what passage number. You may have good reason to omit this, but it is unclear what it is or how we can expect people to follow what you are trying to say and verify that your hypothesis is correct.

2. If you are 100% sure that this is your "evidence", would you mind explaining what makes you think that "hypothesis" here is a description of Forms? It doesn't seem to me that it is.

Remember that in your own words, what you are trying to show is that, according to Socrates in the Phaedo, "Forms are a hypothesis".

Love is not the object of the beloved. — Fooloso4

I never said it was.

You take Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro as an endorsement. — Fooloso4

Of course not. I'm taking a statement by Socrates as a starting point for a constructive interpretation of the text. By contrast, you are using mere imagination and baseless speculation admixed with falsehoods and fake definitions.

Gee, was I being too opinionated Jack — 3017amen

I was beginning to think this thread was turning into some kind of platform for evangelists and other fundamentalists. Thanks to your considered intervention, however, balance has been restored. Quite, possibly, you have even succeeded in convincing the anti-Christians (or most of them). Even 180 appears to have become more ponderous with pious thought and a faint sparkle may be detected in his eye as his gaze silently turns to the divine.

The dishonesty is entirely yours. Though, quite possibly, you aren't aware of it.

In relation to the passages under discussion, there is no difference whatsoever between "loved" and "beloved".

@Fooloso4 himself agreed that "beloved is defined as something that is loved".

Beloved can be defined as something that is loved — Fooloso4

"Beloved" is the word used by translators for phileitai hypo ton theon:

"But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them and beloved by them because they love it" (10d).

Plato. Platonis Opera, ed. John Burnet. Oxford University Press.

Feel free to contact the translators and lexicographers and suggest alternative definitions or wording. I am sure they will be more than delighted to hear from you and Fooloso4 :grin:

1. OK. Since you don't disagree, I take it as an admission that nowhere in the Phaedo does Socrates say "the Forms are hypothesis".

2. And, no, I don't see where "he uses the Beautiful as an example of hypothesis" at all. And I can't believe that you see that either, except perhaps in your imagination.

How on earth is it "dishonest"???

Socrates’ question is, “Is that which is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (10a).

The Greek phrase is φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, phileitai hypo ton theon. Which means “loved by the Gods” or “beloved of the Gods” where “loved” = “beloved”.

Are you well? Or are you just a relative of @Fooloso4?

The salient word is “loved”, and you introduce “beloved” as an equal term — DingoJones

Well, @Fooloso4 didn't complain, did he? He said:

Beloved can be defined as something that is loved but love cannot be defined by loved. — Fooloso4

I'm talking about "loved" or "beloved" as in "person or thing loved by the Gods".

Edit. @Fooloso4 agrees with me that "beloved can be defined as something that is loved", see above.

His objection is that "love cannot be defined by loved", which is totally irrelevant IMHO.

I think "loved" or "beloved" is "person or thing that is loved":

Noun beloved (plural beloveds) 1. Someone who is loved; something that is loved.

beloved – Wiktionary

Are you a lexicographer?

Do you think the dictionaries are wrong?

If yes, then feel free to get in touch with Wiktionary and explain to them that you intend to introduce a new definition.

In the meantime, I reserve the right to go by what the dictionaries are saying, not by your unexamined opinion.

So, the sentence "the Forms are hypothesis" or "the Forms are hypotheses" does not occur anywhere in the Phaedo. Do you agree or not?

This is another example of seeing the Hebrew Bible through the lens of the New Testament. — Fooloso4

It is a valid Christian perspective.

In my opinion, Christianity is the religion invented by Paul — Fooloso4

Nobody doubts what your opinion is. However, for Christians, Christianity is what they believe their religion to be according to the Gospels and the Church Fathers.

Feel free to consult the OP:

I believe that the canon of The Bible arose in the early centuries of the Church Fathers — Jack Cummins

So, the sentence "the Forms are hypothesis" or "the Forms are hypotheses" does not occur anywhere in the Phaedo. Do you agree?

No, the definition of loved is not that it is loved. — Fooloso4

I think "loved" or "beloved" is "person or thing that is loved":

Noun beloved (plural beloveds) 1. Someone who is loved; something that is loved.

beloved – Wiktionary

Are the dictionaries wrong?

Allow me to try again then. My question was:

So, where in the Phaedo does Socrates call the Forms "hypothesis" ...? — Apollodorus

I think it is a very simple question that is very easy to answer. Will you not tell us where in the Phaedo Socrates calls the Forms "hypothesis"? Like in the sentence, "the Forms are hypothesis" or, for that matter, "the Forms are hypotheses"?

Let me repeat the question then:

So, where in the Phaedo does Socrates call the Forms "hypothesis", and what translation are you using? — Apollodorus

You told us about the translations you are using, which is fine (for now), but not where in the Phaedo Socrates calls the Forms "hypothesis".

You posted three quotes. Only one contains the word "hypothesis".

In none of them does it say "Forms are a hypothesis" or, for that matter, "Forms are hypotheses".

Edit. I take it that the final quote is in relation to "physical causes". And it says nothing about "hypothesis" either.

Do you not see how meaningless it is to say that what makes something loved is that it is loved? — Fooloso4

1. First of all, this is what Socrates is saying and, in the absence of additional information, it is all we have.

2. Why is it "meaningless"? Is the definition of "beloved" or "loved" not "loved person or thing"?

Otherwise put, in what sense may it be said that "the loved" is not "what is loved"???

Why would the good hate itself?

He has no knowledge of the Forms and has never seen them. He says as much in the Republic.

If you want to discuss it further I will do so here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1 — Fooloso4

Behind the inspiring image of transcendent Forms is, as he says in the Phaedo, hypothesis. But hypotheses do not not satisfy the desire for answers. — Fooloso4

So, where in the Phaedo does Socrates call the Forms "hypothesis", and what translation are you using?

Very funny indeed. However, the text says "all the Gods":

"I should say that what all the Gods love is holy" (9e).

"All the Gods" obviously means "the divine", to theion, or God.

I can see no reason why the divine/God would hate itself/himself.

Socrates does not believe that the pious/good/just is pious/good/just because it is loved (sanctioned/approved/commanded) by the Gods. — Fooloso4

It is clear from the text that what makes the loved by Gods the loved by the Gods is the fact that the Gods love it:

Whatever they (the Gods) all love is holy (9d).

The pious becomes lovable from the fact that it is loved (by the Gods) (11a).

In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power. — Jack Cummins

The Church was what held the faith and society together.

Organized religion may have disadvantages. But what is the alternative? Cultural fragmentation and disintegration followed by takeover by another faith (religious or political).

The more the human population grows, the more there seems to be a need for a belief system to hold society together.

Christianity emerged at a time when there were huge population movements across continents, primarily into Europe, such as Germanic, Slavic, and many other tribes, and the formation of large urban populations.

What will it take to solve these problems? What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? — Xtrix

Good question.

I think what can be said for sure is that communism can't be the answer. Environmental pollution was appalling in the Soviet Union and continues to be a huge problem in China which is ruled by the Communist Party.

Capitalism also seems to create some problems.

So, I tend to think that either (a) we create a new culture, religion, and political-economic system, or (b) we return to an old one from the time before all these problems started.

Is that really what you think is going on? No, don't answer. I have no more questions. — Fooloso4

As a matter of fact, I wasn't going to answer.

However, since you're asking, politeness obliges me to answer.