We should take seriously the fact that Plato is only mentioned in a few places in the dialogues and never speaks. — Fooloso4

If you like, do something with that. I'd be more prone to seeing the early works as attempts to let Socrates speak, although that view is questionable. Later, his own views come into bloom.

There are two reasons to see the dialogues, as a whole, as Plato's views: one is that using Socrates as a mouthpiece was common at the time, and the second is that Plato was a genius.

A reason for being suspect about the written account is that we know there was apparently an unwritten teaching. Only the most arrogant, half-witted, butthead of a fool would propose to tell us what that teaching was, though, as much as the fool might suspect she knows.

now almost universally accepted, that Plato was properly to be understood from his own dialogues, not from or through anyone else. — Christopher Rowe

Interesting thing about that is that the authenticity of each of the dialogues has been called into question at some time or another. We only have best guesses as to which ones are really written by Plato and which ones are not.

Secondly, in the case of many of the dialogues, our oldest manuscripts are from the 9th Century AD. We have no way to verify which words were actually used by Plato and which were supplied by an overly imaginative monk.

For both of these reasons, it's a good idea to be timid about assigning views to Plato, especially if our interpretation hangs in a single word, like "hypothesis.". A much better approach is to signal that "this is what I get out of it "

Actually the "idea" got reduced to the way that the word may be used. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. What are the advantages of doing that? It seems absurd at face value.

If the word may be used in any way one wants, then how is it that the idea of equality is not arbitrary? Put it this way, there's a word I can use, "equal", to assign a relation between two things, the relationship of "equality". I can assign that relationship to any two things I want. How is it that the meaning of this idea "equality" is not completely arbitrary? What it means to be equal could be anything I want. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you're saying the idea reduces to the word, which can be used as one wishes. If we generalize this, we'll have a form of behaviorism on our hands. Is that what you were driving toward?

I agree. At first glance, it appears to me like "equal" is a completely arbitrary designation. But such a designation must be justifiable, so it requires a reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

The word "equal" is not a form. The idea, equality, is. The idea isn't arbitrary, though the word may be used in any manner one wants.

Any basis for your response to fooloso4's posts. If you say they're neo-platonic, or Protestant. then produce an argument for that. As for 'having one religion based on Platonism', aside from being a pretty big claim, it doesn't amount to any kind of argument, either. — Wayfarer

I was just asking him to specify that what he's expressing is his own interpretation. He's done that, so we can move on as far as I'm concerned. I don't know why we're beating this dead horse.

I never claimed that what he's saying is early or late Neoplatonism, and I don't know why that confusion persists.

But, it should go without saying, this is not the only way to interpret a text or even a Platonic text. — Fooloso4

I don't think it goes without saying, and I don't know why you appear to be upset about mentioning it.

You already admitted that you were offering a personal interpretation, so whether it qualifies as neoplatonism is a moot point.

You already admitted that you were offering a personal interpretation, so whether it qualifies as neoplatonism is a moot point.

This makes no sense. You claimed that my interpretation is a brand of neoplatonism. You have not been able to make an argument in defense of that claim. Now you claim it's a moot point. It is not a moot point, unless by moot you mean nonsense. — Fooloso4

You did admit that what you expressed was your own personal interpretation of Plato. That's the point I was making.

I think we've derailed the thread long enough, but if your point is that novel interpretations of Plato shouldn't be called neoplatonic because it cause confusion, then fine.

I did say Fooloso was expressing a brand of neoplatonism. For some reason, that wasn't enough to make the distinction clear. Let's drop it, now

A pretty good translation of what he said. — Paine

If you have an actual point relevant to the topic, feel free to make it.

Yeah, whatever.

:up:

So, maybe be less ready to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty since you are not interested in supporting your own opinions. — Paine

I don't even know what you're talking about. :meh:

You could label it this way, but who else labels it this way? Unless you can cite this as established usage by historians it means no more than that you can label anything any way you want. — Fooloso4

You already admitted that you were offering a personal interpretation, so whether it qualifies as neoplatonism is a moot point.

frank
I sense a lack of interest in my challenges. — Paine

You sense correctly.

I am curious enough to check him out — Paine

:up: He's awesome. Enjoy.

If you want to know about late neoplatonism, look up Ficino.

You didn't know there was early and late neoplatonism?

the term is commonly used to refer to philosophers in the "Hellenistic" period. — Paine

That's early neoplatonism. The younger version is associated with the Renaissance. But any novel interpretation could be labeled "a brand of neoplatonism.".

Of course my interpretation is my interpretation! — Fooloso4

:clap:

I don't see that at all — Wayfarer

Don't see what?

I think it's almost universally taken to be something like shape - — Wayfarer

I take them to be what we would call ideas. Your visual field is made up of lines and shades. You use ideas to make sense of it. Or you could say that the object you see is a fusion of idea and light.

Heidegger wrote about how this works in the Origin of the Work of Art.

We've already got one religion based on Plato. We don't need another one.

In the Phaedrus Socrates compares the well written work to a living animal with each part having a function working together to form a whole. This tells us how a well written work should be read - as a whole, with each part having its function working together in a particular way to form that whole. On the assumption that the Platonic dialogues are well written works, Plato himself tells us how they are to be read. — Fooloso4

It's the difference between theology and religion studies. Theology presents interpretations. Religion studies just sticks to what we've got and tries to fit the work into the era in which it was written.

Your approach to Plato is like the theological approach where you're using your own intuitions to guide you in arriving at a meaning. In particular, this is a Protestant approach.

An academic approach to Plato would not settle in any one interpretation, but would just explain what we know about the times and the various ways Plato has been interpreted since.

For obvious reasons, it's extremely important to mark out this kind of distinction. If you're going to interpret, that's great. I truly welcome that and think we should all be doing that. Philosophy comes alive in this way.

But I'm sure you agree that each of us needs to be honest and say, "This is my interpretation."

So any interpretation of Plato that presents a cohesive narrative is neoplatonist? — Fooloso4

Any interpretation of Plato that presents a cohesive narrative could be described as "a brand of neoplatonism."

What is that "certain way" of filling in the blanks? — Fooloso4

One that creates a cohesive narrative?

Neoplatonism isn't one line of thought. It's any interpretation of Plato that fills in the blanks in a certain way. Christianity, Plotinus, and Ficino are all neoplatonist. They aren't identical, though. As I said, what you're expressing is a brand of neoplatonism. That's not an insult. It's just a simple clarification.

What do the hand gestures on each figure mean?

I am surprised to hear that. What elements of neo-platonism do you find? — Fooloso4

Neoplatonism isn't one line of thought. It's any interpretation of Plato that fills in the blanks in a certain way. Christianity, Plotinus, and Ficino are all neoplatonist. They aren't identical, though. As I said, what you're expressing is a brand of neoplatonism. That's not an insult. It's just a simple clarification.

What you've expressed is a brand of neo-platonism. That's fine, but do identify it as such. Intellectual honesty would demand that.

:up:

And, of course, poverty is nothing new. — Pantagruel

In a country like the US, it could be a lot more rare. Wouldn't you agree?

Since economic hardship is not a rare thing, there is undoubtedly a wide set of correlations with economic hardship. I believe the saying is, correlation is not causation — Pantagruel

That's true. It's not a slam dunk. It's definitely food for thought, though. Per the same FBI analysis, shooters were usually expressing desperation on social media prior to the events. They often have mental health issues. Economic hardship has been identified as a major stressor, so it stands to reason that in a society with a better social safety net, desperation of the type that leads to mass shootings would be less common.

Mike, neoliberalism is a global phenomenon. The EU is a neoliberal project. Gun control is an issue unique to the US due to its history and culture. Neoliberal Brits have no problem heavily regulating guns, just as American neoliberals don't care about whether drugs are regulated. Neoliberal deregulation is about the markets, not about social issues.

The FBI publishes analyses of mass shootings, providing statistics about the events and perpetrator profiles. If you look at the latest one, you'll see the correlation between mass shootings and recent economic hardship in the lives of perpetrators. It would be easy to argue that the flimsy social safety net associated with American neoliberal policies exacerbates desperation that leads to events like mass shootings. Though school shootings make the headlines most prominently, most mass shootings happen in retail or restaurant environments.

There is a perfectly good thread here. Our interlocutors have every right to share their own opinion, as well. — NOS4A2

You heard what I said.

That’s the bizarre thing. All the officers had cameras mounted on them. They knew this. And still acted as they did. Were they high on steroids? Caffeine? Adrenaline? Was it some Lord of the Flies groupthink fuckup? Goodness knows... — 0 thru 9

My coworkers have analyzed the cops' post beating discussion and discerned that this was a case of mistaken identity. They were looking for someone else and after they've beaten Tyree, they discover that the real suspect had been detained elsewhere, so they all start telling lies about what just happened (for the benefit of their body cams which were turned off during the beating.) They don't know that the traffic cam shows exactly what happened and it's just plain murder.

Let’s hear it. — NOS4A2

Sure. Start a different thread on it and we can have an intelligent discussion.

Note, the connection cannot be made. He fails his own test. — NOS4A2

The connection could be made. He's just not interested in exploring that.

The cops didn't realize that a traffic camera filmed as they held him and punched, kicked, pepper sprayed, and tazed him. They all need to go to jail.