It is telling that you do not have enough confidence in your own arguments to let them stand, or fall, as the case may be.

We should recognize the difference between knowledge and belief, but this does not settle the matter. For some, like Kant, lack of knowledge leaves room for faith. The problem here is that some mistake faith for knowledge. For others, lack of knowledge means that belief must have some other basis, something that compels or leads to belief. If one finds nothing to compel belief then there is no reason to believe. The problem here is that some mistake lack of belief for knowledge.

The solution of this seeming contradiction could be as simple as Plato putting words in Socrates' mouth. — Olivier5

The question is why Socrates? If this is Plato's images of the truth then why not put them in the mouth of a stranger? After all, a stranger plays a role in some of the dialogues that Socrates does in others. Putting them in Socrates' mouth seems to undermine the truth of the claims, making them simply opinions.

Another solution would be that Socrates, while doubting, had a sort of hunch that the good was beyond the gods and all that. — Olivier5

Socratic philosophy is oriented around the question of the good. It is what is sought for. This orientation is, however, necessarily a human orientation. That is, the question of the good is the question of the human good. Although we find in the dialogues metaphysical speculation, it is serious play not science. The activity itself, when done in the right way, is seen as good. It is inspirational and aspirational. It is eidetic.

This raises the question of what Plato is up to when he has Socrates tell stories of transcendent knowledge. Platonists take these stories to be revealed truth, but Socrates says they are him opinion, not things he knows. So on the one hand we have Socratic skepticism and on the other a mythology posing as truth.

Right, so if it is the case that the only argument for substance dualism is that we ought to expect reality to accord with the basic ways we understand things ... — Janus

First, we should not expect reality to accord with the way we understand things. The way we understand things changes over time. Second, substance dualism is not the basic way we understand things.

It follows that Socrates was the prototypical agnostic. — Olivier5

His defense in the Apology was his "human wisdom" his knowledge of his ignorance. He also said that the oracle proclaimed that no one was wiser than Socrates. That is, no one has knowledge of such things.

He knows nothing about Strauss or "Straussians" or his students who do not call themselves Straussias, and yet he is ready to dismiss generations of scholars without ever having read them. He condemns him by association with philosophers he argued against.

As you note, Strauss was a careful reader. His best students are as well. Apollodorus in his ignorance assumes they must be like him, unable to think for themselves and mistaking opinions for revealed truth.

Why would you bother arguing against a claim that you thought had no merit? — Janus

Right. That is my point. Someone who posits substance dualism must first provide an argument with enough merit in order to expect someone else to argue against it. I will leave it up to the members here to decide for themselves whether that has been done.

In that case there would be good reason to argue against countless claims regardless of whether they have any merit or not.

Ultimately you might note that the people who initially rejected your idea start to defend it. — Olivier5

I have had this happen a number of times, although I think that sometimes they may be unaware of it. They are so busy arguing against you they do not realize they have come around to where you were.

When I post in a public forum such as this one it is not just the person you are responding to that is being addressed. Regardless of how that person may respond others are reading and considering what is said.

and what I can steal from it for my own use. — Olivier5

But if you are not convinced that there is something in what is said worth stealing you wouldn't.

As I see it, it is not so much a matter of convincing others but of making an argument that is convincing. It seems curious to me if someone were to make an argument they did not intent to make convincingly.

I could be missing the obvious, but is that what you're asking? — 3017amen

I am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true

From Salman Rushdie:

If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.
The Enchantress of Florence

No need to deny what has not been shown to be something that should be accepted. Suppose I was to say that there are three substances. Does that mean you must show that there are not?

Point taken. Nothing is proven. It is more a matter of making an argument persuasive enough to convince someone to accept that there must be two substances.

If someone posits the existence of something the burden is on them. Because they posit it does not mean that it becomes something that others must show to be false unless there is sufficient evidence to show that it is true.

If someone posits the existence of two fundamental substances in order to account for the difference between mind and body, then the burden is on them to show that the difference necessitates that there be two substances.

When you close your eyes the evidence cannot be seen. It is all right here for anyone who might read it to make up their own mind.

Round and round you go. Ignoring my answers, refusing to read an author because he was around in the 30's, and, most significantly, ignoring Plato whenever something is pointed out to you that goes against your narrow religious reading.

There is no sense going through once again what has already been covered.

I don't just say so, we have a record of it across several threads. You have shown yourself to be just as ridiculous as Euthyphro.

You read Plato as if it was revealed religion. In order to maintain the illusion and protect your beliefs you ignore everything in the text that is a threat to your beliefs. And because it has been said you believe your opinions are the truth.

You read Plato as if it was revealed religion. In order to maintain the illusion and protect your beliefs you ignore everything in the text that is a threat to your beliefs. And because it has been said you believe you possess the truth.

Yes. You have stated your opinion several times now. I have explained why I think you are mistaken. If anyone is reading this and is interested they can go back and read it. But it now seems likely that no one is. There is only so many times people will hear you repeat yourself before they lose interest.

Socrates says and I am quoting from the Republic:

"The good is not the source of everything; rather it is the cause of things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things." (379b)

First you tried to explain this away, but now you just ignore it.

The Good is an all-containing living being just like the Cosmos. — Apollodorus

In the Republic he says it is not a being but beyond being:

“... although the good isn't being but is still beyond being, exceeding it in dignity (age) and power."(509b)

No, it means he makes them.
— Fooloso4

You are clueless, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Have you forgotten what you quoted?

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods ( — Apollodorus

He makes them because he believes in them — Apollodorus

This is really convoluted. If he makes them he knows their origin.

just like any other believers make images of Gods — Apollodorus

He does not say he makes images of gods.

In the final analysis, there is no evidence that Socrates was an atheist and there is even less evidence that Plato was an atheist. — Apollodorus

I've addressed this but you don't like the answer so you post it again and again and again.

If even Strauss failed to demonstrate that Plato was an atheist, how on earth do you imagine that you are going to succeed? — Apollodorus

You have an awful lot to say about someone you refuse to read.

He believed that the charge against him was wrong. — Apollodorus

He does not deny it.

What the city of Athens believed is beside the point. — Apollodorus

Too bad you were not around to tell Socrates and the court and Plat and Xenophon and others that.

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. — Apollodorus

And, as I quoted, it does not include the bad. This is why the dialogue needs to be read as a whole not as isolated statements.

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 — Apollodorus

Do you really not understand what this means?

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

No, it means he makes them, just as the poets did. Just as Homer, the "divine poet" (Phaedo 95a) did.

Hesiod said:

The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth (Theogony 27)

See David Sedley on Plato and Hesiod.

I see you still do not understand. If the Good and God mean the same thing the whole question of atheism becomes meaningless.

What you are saying is that you are unable to prove that Socrates was an atheist — Apollodorus

No, that is what you assume I am saying. I have told you many times that it is not. But you ignore what I say and make up something you think you can argue against.

The charge against Socrates was not that he didn't believe in the Gods of Athens but that he introduced "other new deities" — Apollodorus

Read the passages I cited and what I actually said.

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. — Apollodorus

The Good as described in the Republic does not contain all other things. There are bad things in the world. They cannot be explained away as privation, and Plato never does. The fact is there are bad things and they are not caused by the Good, and so the Good cannot be the cause of all things.

The problem of the One and the many is never resolved in Plato.

In any case, an intelligent first principle is not something you know, it is something you believe. That it can be arrived at by speech and reason is not something you know either.

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

And he does not deny the accusations of atheism either. And he does not affirm the existence of gods. And they are absent from the image of transcendent truth as well as from the dialectical journey to truth.

As I said, you are wasting your time. — Apollodorus

If you mean by that trying to persuade you then that would be true. Not even Plato himself could do that. You would dismiss him as an anti-platonist. I do think that there may still be some here reading this thread who are not as closed-minded as you. Some who do not mistake their opinions for knowledge, who might find something of worth here.

Some start with God as the default position and think that the opinions are either accept or rule it out.
Others simply find no compelling reason to rule it in.

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

He does not affirm the existence of gods either. The question of Socrates atheism is made explicit in the Apology (26c )with the distinction between not believing in the gods of the city versus not believing in the gods at all. Meletus forgets that the original charge was that he taught about novel gods (26b) and now asserts that he does not believe in the gods at all. Socrates nowhere denies the charges, he point to Meletus' contradiction. He also points to the sun and moon without ever saying that he believes they are gods. In fact, he cites Anaxagoras, who denies they are gods. Rather than deny he is an atheist he leads us to the question of whether he is like Anaxagoras. In the Phaedo, when he introduces the Forms, he again, brings Anaxagoras into the discussion.

Spinoza serves as a good example of the complexity of the problem. He never explicitly denied the existence of gods either, but he too was found guilty of atheism, and to this day the issue has not been resolved. If God is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then Spinoza was an atheist, but by equating God and Nature some will say he is a pantheist or panentheist, but others will deny that Nature is God and so conclude that he was an atheist.

By the standards of the city Socrates was an atheist. By the standard of Orthodox Judaism Spinoza was an atheist. Those who hold that God is the supreme being might regard Platonism atheism. Those who hold that God is not a being but the ground of being might regard belief in a supreme being atheistic.

In other words, your concern for whether Socrates was an atheist is simple-minded and uninformed by anything but your own narrow beliefs.

I said the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover: — Apollodorus

Are you claiming that they all name the same or that we can pick the one we like?

It doesn't matter what you call it. — Apollodorus

When the meaning of terms does not matter then it is all just arbitrary. The meaning of terms becomes whatever you want them to be in order to suit your beliefs.

Socratic philosophy is about the questioning and examination of opinions, but you use it as a way of confirming your beliefs. You have not even begun to understand what he teaches those who truly aspire to philosophy.

Faith does not equal "atheism". — Apollodorus

Faith is the absence of knowledge. You are talking about something you know nothing about.

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, he does not affirm their existence. You cannot see that they are absent in his account of the Good, you fill in where they are not with things that are not said anywhere in the dialogues.

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

That is precisely why the distinction between Plato and Platonism is important. Aristotle's unmoved mover is not to be found anywhere in Plato. In addition, the question of who or what the unmoved mover or movers refers to remains an open question.

You cannot resolve one problem by introducing another, but you can muddle it all together and convince yourself that this is the solution.

The philosopher first uses reason to think about the Forms and eventually "sees" or experiences them by means of the nous. — Apollodorus

So the story goes, but Socrates, despite having told the story, denies having seen the Forms. Plato never introduces anyone else in the dialogues who has seen the Forms. You have not seen the Forms and so you cannot know if they even exist. It remains for you an article of faith. Shadows on the cave wall you mistakenly take to be reality. You cannot even tell the difference between the image and that of which it is an image.

So does that mean there is 'nothing higher', or that there is 'something higher', but that it can't be expressed by propositions? I feel the 'something higher' seems rather dualistic in spirit! — Wayfarer

In terms of the present discussion, neither form of dualism is about what is higher. Both have something to do with the facts of the world and the representation of facts in language.

Strauss of course did not demonstrate that Plato was an atheist. — Apollodorus

If you knew the anything about Strauss you would know that. He provides a careful, detailed interpretation of the dialogues and leaves it up to the reader to draw conclusions.

And neither have you. — Apollodorus

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

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

Are you claiming to have divine wisdom, to have seen the Forms themselves?

Faith doesn't mean "atheism". — Apollodorus

Faith does not mean knowledge. Socratic philosophy is driven by the recognition of ignorance.

But Strauss's ideas were very controversial from the start. — Apollodorus

Yes, I said as much. I also said that over the years his views have become far more widely accepted.

He didn't demonstrate that Plato was an atheist and neither have you. — Apollodorus

Of course he did not demonstrate that! You really haven't been able to follow any of this. But that is no surprise. You do not read with sufficient care. You mistake quotes from Plato as my own word, you refuse to follow his arguments where they lead for fear of what you may find, you harbor delusions of a nefarious conspiracy theory to destroy Platonism.

That doesn't make those things. e.g., virtue, beauty or justice, just speculation. — Apollodorus

Unless they are things known that is exactly what they are. They are not things that you know. They are things that Socrates says are his opinion, that is, not things he knows.

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

Right, and the problem is, the gap between one and the other. You have not bridged that gap. It remains for you a matter of faith. Socrates, by his own admission, did not bridge the gap, they remain for him a matter of opinion.

Remain in the cave then. It doesn't bother me in the least. — Apollodorus

You have not managed to take even the first step, the awareness that the cave you are in is not the real world. You have not even learned from Plato to see your own ignorance.

... their anti-Platonist ideas did not influence him. — Apollodorus

You have no idea who or what influenced him. You are way off on this.

In any case, he was promoting the same anti-Platonist line as they were. — Apollodorus

And this is something you know from not having read him!

...engaging in sophistry for nefarious purposes. — Apollodorus

Not only are you blinded by fear but by paranoid conspiracy theories.