I'm not particularly interested in trying to explain it.

I'm exploring the symbolic and allegorical dimensions of religious ideas in the light of philosophy. — Wayfarer

Well, I agree that the name 'Jupiter' is probably derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father'.

I was just wondering, out of curiosity, why you said that such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies but they "simply don't translate to modern post-industrial culture".

Is this a conclusion you have arrived at for a reason, or were you quoting from somewhere?

What I actually said was this:

If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. — Apollodorus

Instead of addressing my statement, you started a tirade of insults, ad hominems, threats and racist remarks. So ... what does that say about atheists?

in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. [/quote]

And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats.

Which we've been trying to concede to you over several threads. — tim wood

If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. But it seems to me that Christians and others are being accused of "fanaticism" and other things all the time.

“I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. “ — Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 97
Atheism (einsteinandreligion.com)

Obviously, Einstein isn't talking about atheists in general, only about "fanatical atheists" who apparently do exist.

I’m not scared of you. — praxis

I meant "altercations that you may come to regret" between people in general.

Well, I've been called all sorts of names for no apparent reason, including "troll" (on my own thread). People do seem to have a tendency to resort to "things like ad hominem, trolling ...".

It shouldn't really happen but it does. It doesn't normally happen in face-to-face situations because people know who you are or it may result in altercations that you may come to regret. But, as I said, on online forums people sometimes feel it's safe to vent their anger and frustration that often has nothing to do with the topic discussed.

Christians discover ideas that can be thought of but which are above reason. Those doctrines are amazing and mind expanding. — Gregory

Agree. I quite enjoy reading the Philokalia and other Christian writings. However, there can be no harm trying to put some religious ideas or concepts in more philosophical language IMO

I think there's plenty of scope to make some kind of sense of it without contradiction or metaphysical absurdity. — Bartricks

I think so too. But the facts are as follows:

1. Jesus and God are one (“I and the Father (God) are one”, John 10:30).

2. The Holy Spirit (Power of God or “Power of the Most High”, Luke 1:35) and God are one.

(The Holy Spirit is God’s Power by which he acts in the world and which is inseparable from God.)

3. Therefore, God, God’s Son, and the Holy Spirit are One.

However, Jesus was both human and divine, both man and God (“the Word of God become flesh”). He did use some of God’s power to work miracles, etc., but otherwise he acted like a man because, while on earth, he was a man and because that was the only way humans could relate to him and he could accomplish his mission on earth.

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers.

Incidentally, when Christians pray to God, they don’t pray to the Trinity, they pray either to God the Father or to God the Son.

But I don't think it applies to most people outside online forums and I don't think it lasts for most people to whom it applies temporarily. It's an exaggerated phenomenon based on a small biased sample size in my view. — Baden

I tend to agree with that. Atheists I talk to in real life do not normally get angry and, as I said, some even admit that they can't be absolutely certain about the non-existence of God. I think it tends to happen more on forums where some people vent their anger and frustration that often has nothing to do with beliefs about religion.

I also agree that @3017amen assumes a slightly "provocative" tone on occasion.

Still, as suggested by the Pew report, atheism seems to be a minority phenomenon and it would have been nice to be able to look into it in a polite and rational manner - as far as this is possible. If not, it doesn't really matter, it's not the end of the world. Life goes on, as they say.

Being an atheist is not like supporting one football team over another (like being religious is). It's more like not giving a shit about football. So, generalizing about atheists' in this way is laughably silly. — Baden

Well, I do agree that this is the case in some atheists. But according to the OP this is not so in all cases:

"Another SK irony to this thread relates to emotion itself. The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive [...] Are they angry and resentful about something?" — 3017amen

So, the question seems to be:

1. Why are they atheists? Some may have good reason, others may not.

2. Why are they "angry and resentful"? Obviously, this refers to those who are angry and resentful, not to those who aren't.

At the end of the day, it's just a question. People shouldn't take it personally IMO.

I take it that a mind is indivisible and thus the mind of God - like any mind - is not divisible. It is thus one, not three. — Bartricks

Correct. It isn't strictly in the Bible, but the early Church Fathers spoke Greek and had received a Greek education, so they used terminology from Greek philosophy when discussing the Trinity.

Those familiar with the Platonic concept of three “hypostases” or spiritual principles of (1) the One, (2) the Cosmic Intellect/Divine Mind and (3) the World Soul, that were essentially one, would have had no problem understanding the Trinity. In fact, the problem seems to come more from translating Greek “hypostasis” as “person” into Latin and other languages unfamiliar with Platonic concepts.

I understand that images of 'the sky-father' have roots in an earlier age of mankind - actually the name 'Jupiter' is derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father'. But such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies. They simpy don't translate to modern post-industrial culture. — Wayfarer

So, how are we to explain the advance of Islam in sprawling Pakistani or Indonesian cities and even in Western cities like Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and London?

I think people feel the need of a symbolic father figure as much as others feel the need of martyrs.

the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. — 3017amen

I must concur.

"First, Admit You Are Angry

This may sound silly, but how many times have you met someone who clearly was angry, but who insisted he was not? For some reason, some people resist admitting to themselves that they are angry. This is not skillful. You can’t very well deal with something that you won’t admit is there.

Buddhism teaches mindfulness. Being mindful of ourselves is part of that. When an unpleasant emotion or thought arises, do not suppress it, run away from it, or deny it. Instead, observe it and fully acknowledge it. Being deeply honest with yourself about yourself is essential to Buddhism.

What Makes You Angry?

It’s important to understand that anger is very often (the Buddha might say always) created entirely by yourself. It didn’t come swooping out of the ether to infect you. "

https://www.learnreligions.com/anger-and-buddhism-449713

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride.

I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing. I also have to remember it myself because at times those activities can be so absorbing that they become life. However, I do feel that many others go to the opposite extreme. I have a couple of friends who are interested in philosophy but I think a lot of people see it as a bit offbeat when it comes into conversation, rather like the way people see those who are into science fiction. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Most students I know are into "criminal psychology" or "media studies" and the like. Even those studying philosophy aren't quite sure why they're studying it or what they intend to do with it when they've finished the course. A few of them have degrees but to no apparent practical use or advantage.

Unfortunately, philosophy has become a purely intellectual pursuit, I suppose to some extent as a pastime in the current climate.

I think I was fortunate to first learn about philosophy from people who saw it as a spiritual endeavor with the intellectual aspect of it as nothing more than a supporting framework. I tend to believe that this has put me on the right track and has saved me a lot of time that might have otherwise been wasted.

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. — Pinprick

The terms used were “ousía” and “hypostasis”, where “ousía” meant general essence or substance and “hypostasis” meant particular or individual reality. The example given is “man” as the general genus and “Peter, Paul, John” as individual manifestations of it (John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge, etc.).

When they said “three hypostases in one ousía” they meant one general essence or substance existing as three particular realities:

1. God in Himself

2. God operating in the world as the Divine Power or Spirit (Holy Ghost).

3. God manifested as the World Teacher and Savior (Christ).

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199246122.001.0001/acprof-9780199246120-chapter-5

I am not sure that it is really possible to go beyond the empirical and metaphysical division, but have wondered about it. Really, I am not sure if one would be able to do so without becoming omniscient... — Jack Cummins

Exactly. People may not always realize it but that's why they talk about "ultimate reality". In the final analysis, true reality is something that is lived, something that we are in the deepest sense of the word, not something that we talk about. And yet, we talk about it because that's what humans do ....

Youre' not wirth the time and effort. Those thinking you are can expend that time and effort and review the posts. — tim wood

"Wirth"??? Are you sure English is your first language?

"According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated. Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"

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

Pew says that "many of the unaffiliated atheists and agnostics still have various religious beliefs and practices".

The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions?

If you cannot or will not grasp a distinction between belief in God and religious affiliation or belief, then the rest of your argument(s) are suspect. No doubt many do, but that is not the claim you're making. — tim wood

You asked me to "take a survey". When I presented the Pew survey's findings you changed tack and inexplicably denied everything.

"Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"

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

Your baseless claim stands (or rather, falls) refuted.

And you forgot this bit:

"Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"

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

Your baseless claim stands (or rather, falls) refuted.

As it is, affiliation is not evidence of belief. I will concede that in many cases it is, but I still disqualify your claim as unsupported. — tim wood

If affiliation is not evidence of belief, then affiliation is not evidence of atheism either. Your claim stands unsupported.

And "fluroush"? — tim wood

I quite like the sound of it, actually. I think it's called "freedom of expression", "using language creatively and artistically", etc. Potentially significant contribution to tired, old atheistic "philosophy" IMO.

Maybe you should take a survey on just what, exactly, that "vast majority" who believe in g/God(s) actually believes about them. — tim wood

"According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated. Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"

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

That was exactly the point I was making. 16% vs. 84% = minority. Does the truth upset you?

I'm not sure why Biden is looking into this. It's been established the virus is not engineered and I was under the impression the lab was for animal testing? Or is this information false? — Benkei

The whole Covid-19 case seems very strange. I've just read in the news that many scientists are doubting China's official view of events but prefer to remain silent for fear of being associated with "conspiracy theories".

Even if the virus was not engineered it is still possible that it escaped from the lab. The regime's reaction by arresting scientists, lawyers, doctors, and pretty much anyone that merely talked about it evidently suggests that it has something to hide.

Even the WHO (normally pro-China) said that all possibilities are still being considered. And Dr Faucci who has been denying it all along has now apparently changed his mind. I think Biden is acting on pressure from the media and the scientific community, but there may also be political motives.

There is philosophy, usually defined as organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. And revelation, which isn't. What, then, is philosophical revelation? — tim wood

Maybe revelation explained or justified philosophically? Not all philosophies are atheistic. Originally, philosophy was motivated by religious beliefs.

I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , — 3017amen

To be honest, I've nothing against atheists as such. People are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish unless it's something that society regards as criminal or evil. The problem is when atheism becomes a form of religion that seeks to impose its views on others, for example, as in communist countries like China.

The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods and atheists are a minority in the world. I think this makes it legitimate to investigate the phenomenon of atheism in general and, especially, what motivates atheists to disbelieve and to adopt negative and aggressive attitudes or behaviors in their relations with believers.

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value [...] For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be… — 3017amen

I think this sounds very much like some of the points I was making on the other thread. The atheist can't know that there is no God. He can only think or believe so. This would seem to make atheists more agnostics than strict atheists. Many an atheist may say "I don't believe in God" and count themselves "atheists" but if you press them they are likely to admit that they can't be certain that there is no God.

And, yes, accepting the existence or at least possibility of realities endowed with super-personal value, does seem to act like an antidote to selfishness. Religious teachings do tend to come with a code of moral conduct that serves to put a check on selfishness.

Are they angry and resentful about something? — 3017amen

Good question. Maybe they are. I doubt they would be angry and resentful about nothing rather than about something.

Spinoza is an interesting case. He was seen by many as an atheist and was later embraced as a "prophet" by Marxists and other socialists.

To go back to the Gnostics, the problem of evil is something philosophy has been grappling with from the start. Plotinus himself seems to believe that matter has a corrupting influence on the soul and therefore can be a source of evil, even though he rejects the Gnostic view.

The question is why does the One which is pure Goodness, create evil/allow evil to arise? Personally, I think this is a matter of perspective. When the Good creates the World, it can’t just make a perfect replica of itself. It must create some imperfections. To take Plotinus’ analogy of fire, if we compare the Good with fire, the centre comes closest to its true nature, whereas the periphery is further and further away from it. The Intelligible World or World of Spirit is at the centre of the Good, whereas matter is at its outermost limits, where light is closest to darkness.

The fact is that the Universe and the planet Earth are essentially good or at least neutral. Even in human society, evil is an exception. Therefore, the Universe is mostly good and only partly evil. Now, if we think of Ultimate Reality as an infinite expanse of Goodness and, by comparison, of evil as infinitely small and insignificant, then the perspective changes considerably.

It also may be argued, from a religious point of view, that suffering is compensated after death or, if we believe in reincarnation, that it is justified by actions committed before birth.

But I think the strongest argument may be this, that if everything is a creation of the One out of itself, then the suffering entities are nothing but the One. This is precisely what enlightened souls are supposed to ultimately realise, i.e. that suffering only takes place on the plane of phenomena and in the degree that soul identifies with the objects of that plane. Even before enlightenment, they strive to create a society that is good and just, ensuring that goodness eventually prevails.

I agree. Exploring philosophical and especially metaphysical matters within a like-minded group while also staying receptive to input from outside the group is far better than struggling on your own.

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi

Not, only that, but the mainstream or PC narrative seems to be that only white people can be racist. IMO this is a highly suspect and dangerous proposition. The Chinese can be quite racist, for example, Tibetans and other ethnic minorities are being systematically oppressed and discriminated against, and in my experience most racial or ethnic groups hold some prejudice against others. Racism and/or prejudice and discussions about it can also be exploited for political ends.

Yes, Theosophy does tend to link various traditions. Unfortunately, its founder Blavatsky was very obviously a self-educated and self-styled "guru". Her teachings may have convinced a few uncritical Americans unacquainted with philosophical and spiritual matters, but they were strongly (and I think convincingly) dismissed as forgeries by Arthur Lillie, Rene Guenon, Jung, Eliade and many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky#Reception

Similar links have been made by others, without resorting to plagiarism and patently false claims. Noticing parallels between different traditions - in so far as they are factual - is a statement of fact. It doesn't make one a divinely appointed prophet or spiritual master. When trying to find the truth, the best way is to go to the sources. At least that's what I have been trying to do.

I have just read your thread discussion and found it interesting, although you have not raised any questions. So, I am imagining that you are leaving any potential discussion open. What I found most useful was the link about Plotinus, as I have just finished reading a collection of his writings. The idea in the link on this which I thought about is that he challenged the Gnostic emphasis on the fall into matter and the belief that matter is evil. — Jack Cummins

I've been trying to find some links to a few academic publications that would have been useful to consider in the discussion but, unfortunately, they aren't easy to find. But I've added a few links anyway and I've made some minor amendments to highlight or clarify a few points.

You are correct about some Gnostic beliefs regarding matter which are, of course, unacceptable from a Platonic perspective that views the whole of reality, including matter, as an emanation of Ultimate Reality, the One, or the Good. Obviously, different traditions and teachers emphasize different points. It may be argued that some Gnostics described matter as "evil" in order to drive home the need to focus one's mind on higher realities. Unfortunately, especially without a qualified teacher or guide, this can give rise to a plethora of misunderstandings. In this respect, Plotinus makes a better teacher than other philosophers of his time.

I do agree that the Tibetan Book of the Dead makes highly interesting reading. Apart from Jung and the writings of the early Church Fathers (who were influenced by Platonism) it makes an important contribution to psychology and metaphysics and it also links to the Yoga tradition of Hinduism which is another highly relevant system IMO.

We criticized the communist for having only one political party. That looks like ignorant propaganda doesn't it, when we consider Plato or even the forefathers of the US who originally were opposed to separate parties. — Athena

I think there is a big difference between communism and what Plato or the US Founding Fathers had in mind. Plato proposed rule by good and wise governors precisely to combat tyranny. America had been a British Crown Colony, so rule by one party either under a king or president wasn’t such an unusual prospect. As long as democracy is secured, it doesn’t really matter.

By contrast, communism advocates abolition of private property, total state control, and dictatorship.
Marx and Engels believed that between capitalist and communist society lay the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other and that to this corresponded a political transition period in which the state could be nothing but the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, MECW, vol. 24., p. 95).

Engels wrote: “Do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (“Introduction”, 18 Mar. 1891, The Civil War In France, 1871, MEW, Band 22, s. 199).

In the Paris Commune of 1871, armed revolutionaries, some of whom were members of Marx and Engels’ International, had seized the French capital and imposed a reign of terror in which many citizens were summarily executed – including the Archbishop of Paris who had been taken hostage – and much of the city was burned to the ground. Marx and Engels at the time celebrated the Commune as “the most glorious deed of our party” and the “glorious harbinger of a new society” (Marx, Letter to Dr. Kugelmann, 12 Apr. 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 131; Marx, “Third Address to the General Council of the International”, 30 May 1871, MECW, vol. 22, p. 230).

The Communists murdered many millions of innocent people in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and other places.

Good point. However, until recently China was known for its internal wars and then becoming one empire and then not expanding. For philosophyical reasons, China remained in the past and protected that but restricting contact with the rest of the world. At one time it had the best technology in the world but this technological growth came a stand still. Why is China different today? — Athena

China has become different under Western influence. The biggest influence was probably Soviet Communism. After the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, China nearly went down the same road but decided to take a leaf from Lenin’s book and introduced some elements of capitalism under strict state control. This was followed by massive investments and credit from America and Europe and allowed China to become an empire again, but an atheist and national socialist one instead of traditional Chinese. This is already creating big problems for a lot of small countries and even a few big ones.

How about men becoming as women? It has been argued that would make the world a better place. For years I have arged the importance of the traditional woman and the vital part she plays in society. — Athena

Well, if that’s the path humanity wants to go, then there isn’t much we can do about it. Personally, though, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with having men and women. A bit of tradition isn’t always bad. If animals can be male and female without problems I don’t see why humans should be different.

You are I do not understand poverty the same. I once thought poverty was a meaningful experience those of us born white and middle class could never have. Then during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class. — Athena

People tend to agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I think the discussion was trying to establish whether Communism in its Fabian form is a good thing and, in connection with that, what form of government we think would be the ideal one.

I believe we agreed on keeping private property. This would rule out communism. Anything else you think we agree on?

PLATONIC EPISTEMOLOGY: THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION

A central theme in Platonic writings is knowledge. Plato drew a clear line between knowledge acquired through reason (episteme) and opinion (doxa). However, opinion was not just any opinion but right opinion. For example, if somebody knew the way to Larisa (the city where Meno was born) without himself having travelled there, his knowledge would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion (Meno 97b). A third form of knowledge is knowledge acquired through direct experience (gnosis). As we shall see, there is a higher form of knowledge, namely, wisdom or sophia.

In everyday life, knowledge is primarily obtained through sensory perception. The study of the process or phenomenon of perception enables us to understand how knowledge comes about.

The physical world consists of five primary elements or principles, earth, water, fire, air and ether (or space). Despite their names, these primary elements are not the physical substances earth, water, etc., but patterns of energy in which minute particles move, vibrate, or radiate in particular ways (Timaeus 31b ff.). Combinations of elements make up all physical substances and objects.

The physical objects and their characteristics are perceived by the soul by means of its sense faculties, smelling, tasting, feeling by touch, hearing and seeing.

For example, through the physical organ “eye” and associated faculty of “sight”, etc., the sensual aspect (epithymetikon) registers discrete sensory perceptions such as colour and combines them into a mental image (eidolon). This image is taken up and analysed by the intellectual aspect (logistikon), given a name and assessed in terms of its relevance to the self. The emotional part (thymos) then reacts emotionally to the image and a decision is reached as to the course of action (if any) to be taken. All these mental functions or operations exist within, and are illumined by, the light of spirit or nous.

What becomes clear is that in ordinary perception we have no direct apprehension of the objects “out there”, but only of the mental image that the sensual aspect of our mind forms out of a multitude of points, minute particles, or atoms of perception such as colour, etc. What we perceive is not the actual object but a mental copy of it.

One question that arises is, how does our intellect know what the object of experience is? For example, on seeing an object such as a flower, on what basis does the intellect say or think, “this is a flower”? On the face of it, the answer might be “through experience”. We experienced an object called “flower” before and on perceiving it now, we recollect having experienced the same or a similar object in the past. The name and past experience stored in our memory are revived on contact with the current image and mentally associated with the object we perceive or experience now and this enables us to identify and name it.

However, Plato asserts that the physical world and its constituent substances and objects are in constant flux, which makes sensory input inaccurate and unreliable. True knowledge can only be acquired by referring to higher realities apprehended through a higher faculty of intuitive perception. Therefore, at this point, Plato introduces the concept of “ideas” or “forms”. The object we perceive is an imperfect copy of a perfect and unchanging “idea” (eidos), or “pattern” (paradeigma). The same applies to concepts or ideas and everything else that makes up the world of multiplicity: “fire”, “earth”, “man”, “beautiful”, “just”, etc. When we perceive a physical object, we recall our innate memory or knowledge of its ideal form and the name associated with it.

Critics have questioned the soundness of the Theory of Forms and Plato himself was aware that his theory was not perfect. Yet he kept it all the same and for a good reason. Philosophy does use logic, but it is not a slave to strict or pure logic. Like a true philosopher, Plato aimed to look at the mental processes and concepts behind perception and at the activities of consciousness behind mental processes and concepts in order to arrive at the ultimate source of all knowledge – consciousness (nous) itself.

Greek culture itself had a tendency to personify abstract concepts or universals. Time was personified by Cronus, Justice by Dike, Love and Beauty by Aphrodite, Sleep by Hypnos, Death by Thanatos, etc. So, the concept of eternal, ideal Forms or Patterns was in a sense implicit in Greek thought. What Plato actually proposes to do is to illustrate the fact that in the same way as the physical world is organized according to certain set patterns, so the intelligible world, the world of spirit, too, is ordered according to pre-established patterns.

As sunrays radiate from the Sun in waves of light, the physical World emanates from the World-Soul and is simultaneously made visible to man by its light, in a constant process. This constant emanation, projection or overflow of the World is not and cannot be random, otherwise a completely different world might be created every moment. Creation follows certain pre-existing patterns: the objects which make up the World belong to certain species or classes, possess certain qualities such as colour, quantity or size, stand in a particular relation to other objects, etc. These patterns are present in the ideal world of the Cosmic Mind (Nous).

Of course, man cannot expect to grasp the precise details of creation which are known only to the Creator. These teachings merely serve to point out the fact that the Natural World in which man lives is a world of appearances (the Greek word phýsis, “nature”, also means appearance from phýo, “to appear”) and that the reality behind it can be found only in the Divine World-Mind which has created it.

The problem that Platonism seeks to solve is how the absolute unity of spirit becomes the multiplicity of thought and matter.

The concept of abstract ideas (eidea) such as “fire”, “earth”, “man”, “beautiful”, “just”, existing on a higher plane from which they are copied into the physical world serves in the first place to point to the fact that particulars can be reduced to universals.

Although specific objects are distinct from each other, they may share common properties or features such as colour. For example, the feature “blueness” is the universal shared by the chicory flower, blue paint and the sky. Thus, blueness enables us to grasp the concept of unity in multiplicity.

The Greek word “idea”, eidos, is related to the verb “to see”, eidon which is cognate with Latin video, "to see". In the physical world of matter, to see means to perceive an object that is distinct and separate from ourselves. In the intelligible world of spirit, to see means to think, ideate, or bring into being a concept or thing. For Plato, knowledge was ultimately a form of being, or mental seeing in which intelligence becomes the object of experience while retaining awareness of itself at all times.

In order to understand the concept of “ideas” (eidea), “patterns” (paradeigmata) or “forms” it may be helpful to think of universals such as “colour”, “number”, “size”, “distance”, etc. However, it is important to understand that universals are posterior to particulars. We first perceive a number of particulars from which we abstract one (or more) universals. In contrast, Plato's ideas or forms are prior to particulars. They are the "essences" and "patterns" from which particulars are formed.

The ideas themselves ultimately consist of creative intelligence. Contemplation on the ideas leads to a direct experience of how intelligence “projects” or “emanates” objects of experience and the soul realises its essential identity with the Cosmic or Divine Mind (Nous), in the same way the centres of two circles get closer and closer to each other until they become one.

From the individual soul’s point of view, contemplation of the One is the highest form of knowledge. In contrast to this, from the perspective of the One, the highest form of knowledge is self-contemplation. Therefore, the highest form of knowledge, wisdom (sophia), is self-knowledge, that is, the knowledge that consciousness has of itself as self-aware, creative intelligence.

This is very clearly stated by Plato in Phaedo (65a – 67b; 79c, d) and emphasised by Plotinus. In fact, this may be seen as the core of Plotinus’ and other Platonists' teachings.

Self-knowledge in the highest sense goes beyond normal forms of knowledge such as opinion, reason and experience. Therefore, it cannot be expressed in words or grasped mentally. It can only be experienced in an ecstatic state that our limited intellectual faculties cannot grasp or explain. For example, the most attempts to describe this state have produced are approximate depictions of "infinite light, love and joy" and of a sense of "becoming alive" for the first time and in a way that completely eclipses all experiences of ordinary life in the same way the light of a candle is eclipsed by strong sunlight. It is an experience that totally transforms you and makes you part of a much larger and more powerful reality of whose existence you were totally unaware (in any case not consciously or fully) until that point.

As such depictions are meaningless to those unfamiliar with the experience, this illustrates the difficulty or impossibility of conveying the experience to others. Moreover, the impact this experience can have on the untrained mind makes it imperative to undergo prior intellectual training. The prescribed progression from purification to illumination to oneness, is to be strictly followed and "short cuts" to be avoided.

In any case, Plotinus is said to have taught from his own experience of union with the One (enosis). In the Life of Plotinus, his disciple Porphyry relates that his master attained an exalted state four times in his life.

However, despite its mystical side, Platonism remains a practical philosophy. The purpose of attaining Oneness is not to become completely absorbed or submerged in Ultimate Reality, but, in Plotinus’ own words, “to give back the divine in us to the divine in all”.

Plotinus - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Internet Classics Archive | The Six Enneads by Plotinus (mit.edu)

I don't think the eschatology is by any means worked out or finalised. — Wayfarer

Sedley & Long make the following observation:

“And that the souls of the dead exist in Hades was a well-entrenched popular belief too, with its roots in Homer (Odyssey I I). Socrates’ aim in the Phaedo is to establish both the scientific respectability and the real meaning of these traditions [immortality and reincarnation]. The soul’s survival in Hades and its eventual reincarnation start out with the credibility that ancient tradition is assumed to confer on a belief, and Socrates’ central strategy is to establish scientific laws (as we might call them) to which these particular beliefs confirm. Arguments which fail as complete proofs of a thesis may nevertheless have considerable corroborative force when used in this way.”

I asked for comments on what was being read, not what you can find on Wiki or elsewhere. It is my opinion that Plato must be read rather than read about. — Fooloso4

As already stated, Sedley and Long aren't nobodies, they are highly regarded scholars.

David Neil Sedley is a British philosopher and historian of philosophy. He was the seventh Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at Cambridge University.

David Sedley – Wikipedia

Alex Long, of St Andrews is the editor of Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, which brings together original research on immortality from early Greek philosophy, such as the Pythagoreans and Empedocles, to Augustine. The contributors consider not only arguments concerning the soul’s immortality, but also the diverse and often subtle accounts of what immortality is, both in Plato and in less familiar philosophers, such as the early Stoics and Philo of Alexandria.

So, Sedley & Long would have been highly relevant to your “essay” IMHO.

I used the translation I have and online translations I found. If I had used Sedley and Long I would have skipped the introduction. — Fooloso4

Sedley and Long aren't nobodies, they are highly regarded scholars.

David Neil Sedley is a British philosopher and historian of philosophy. He was the seventh Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at Cambridge University.

David Sedley – Wikipedia

Alex Long, of St Andrews is the editor of Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, which brings together original research on immortality from early Greek philosophy, such as the Pythagoreans and Empedocles, to Augustine. The contributors consider not only arguments concerning the soul’s immortality, but also the diverse and often subtle accounts of what immortality is, both in Plato and in less familiar philosophers, such as the early Stoics and Philo of Alexandria.

So, Sedley & Long would have been highly relevant to your “essay” IMHO.

Actually, the essay was written over the period of a week. Several times I asked for viewpoints on the section under discussion. — Fooloso4

You ignored other people's views or had their posts deleted.

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. Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology” p. xxxiii

It looks like you have deliberately chosen another, incomplete translation because it suits your agenda. Sedley & Long’s translation and commentary would have demolished your theory.

You need to consider other scholars' views as well, not only those of atheists and materialists.

In the 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. Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology” p. xxxiii

It looks like you have deliberately chosen another, incomplete translation because it suits your agenda. Sedley & Long’s translation and commentary would have demolished your theory.