My point is that the forms are not just any hypothesis, they are a fundamental, absolute presupposition, which underpins his way of seeing the world and his entire world view. — Olivier5

I don't think they are fundamental, absolute presuppositions. I think they are part of a mythology, a salutary public or exoteric teaching. I will be posting more on this later today.

Some sort of 'pattern recognition' is fundamental for perception to occur. Forms therefore underwrite perception rather than being themselves perceived. — Olivier5

But Socrates' concern was with questions of the just, beautiful, and the good. The hypothesis is that there is the just itself, the beautiful or noble itself, and the good itself, and that with knowledge of these we can know whether in every particular case something is just. beautiful, or good.

Unless we knowledge of these things, which in the Republic is presented in the myth of transcendent experience, then the Forms remain hypothetical.

If I understand him correctly, @Banno is asking if he has had such an experience.

The issue was whether there is injustice in the world. That question is not about religion.

No, you're just measuring everything by your own human standards (instead of by God's)/quote]

That is true. I am human not a god. I do not know and cannot say what God's standard might be.
— baker

But if you're going to talk about God, you need to stick to the definitions actually provided by actual monotheistic religions — baker

Christian theologians have been arguing about the definition of God for centuries. Some think that it is a mistake to attempt to define what is beyond human comprehension, that any definition is false.

Interesting selection of commentaries.

If I remember correctly Kass shows the topology of each day and what belongs on that day according to its motion.

However, there does appear to be more certainty about him having written some of the texts than about wrote authors the Gospels. — Jack Cummins

Yes, it is generally agreed that he is the author of some of the texts. It is also generally agreed that none of the texts are not authored by the people whose names are attributed to them.

I realise that Paul was just a preacher. — Jack Cummins

Paul was a master rhetorician and founder of a religion.

I said this:

Socrates’ human wisdom is grounded in his knowledge of his ignorance, that he does not know anything noble and good. (Apology 21d) — Fooloso4

But nothing about knowledge of God. I don't think belief in God fits either. As I have said, he replaces the myths of the gods with myths of the Good.

The relationship between Christianity and sex/sexuality is interesting. — Jack Cummins

Paul thought that the body was the root of sin. Later Augustine said much the same and introduced the concept of original sin. Judaism in general, on the other hand, has always followed the blessing to be fruitful and multiply.

I am not going to play this endless game with you any longer.

I believe that it is necessary to go by what Socrates says as there is nothing else to go by. — Apollodorus

Reading the dialogue in a Platonic sense or senses is exactly what I have been proposing. — Apollodorus

According to Plotinus, — Apollodorus

?

1. You are not saying what translation that is, or what passage number. — Apollodorus

These are from the same passages I quoted above with Stephanus numbers. I told you who the translator was. Did you not bother reading it or did you forget so quickly?

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? — Apollodorus

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

An accurate summary.

The tension between Paul and the disciples of Jesus began with an invention of Paul's - two Laws, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Jesus taught obedience to the Law as it is written. Paul said that the Gentiles could follow what is written in their hearts. Circumcision and keeping kosher was not necessary. Jesus' disciples struck a deal with Paul that he could preach his message but he had to go elsewhere. As tension between these groups grew the Jewish followers and all other Jews became the enemy.

We know Spinoza's stuff was excluded, — 3017amen

The nerve of them for excluding something that was written more than a thousand years later!

Okay, baby steps:

On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest; and whatever seems to me to be consonant with this, I put down as being true, both about cause and about all the rest...

I am going to try to show you the kind of cause with which I have concerned myself.

I assume the existence of a Beautiful itself by itself, of a Good and a Great and all the rest.

The Beautiful itself and the Good itself are Forms. They are the kind of causes he concerns himself with. What he puts down as hypothesis an account of this kind of cause, that is, the Forms.

Whether you pretend you can't see this or really can't see it, either way it shows that you are not capable of even an elementary discussion of these things.

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

That does not mean the terms are interchangeable. The beloved is the object of love. You can't just turn it around. Love is not the object of the beloved.

In any case, you are avoiding the issues raised. You take Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro as an endorsement. That you are unable to see that is either ineptitude or willed blindness, or maybe some combination.

Do you recognize that what you did is dishonest? — DingoJones

It is difficult to distinguish between dishonesty or ineptitude. I suspect it is some combination of the one to cover up the other.

Again, I am left wondering whether you truly are incapable of understanding or if it is just a pretense to save face or whatever tatters are left of an argument.

Either way, I'm done.

I will try one more time and then move on.

Is the Beautiful a Form? Does he use the Beautiful as an example of hypothesis?

I am left wondering whether you truly are incapable of understanding or if it is just a pretense to save face or whatever tatters are left of an argument.

Loved is not a person or thing that is loved. The meaning of 'loved' is not defined by saying something is loved. Beloved can be defined as something that is loved but love cannot be defined by loved.

Do you really not know this?

And what do you think follows from this? That they are not because it is not spelled out for you?

I do agree that the idea of being born from sin is mostly derived from Paul rather than Christ. — Jack Cummins

You said "One of the main premises of the Bible ...". It is not a premise of the Bible. This is another example of seeing the Hebrew Bible through the lens of the New Testament.

In many ways I believe that so much of the thinking within Christianity goes back to the thinking of Paul. — Jack Cummins

In my opinion, Christianity is the religion invented by Paul in the hopes that Gentiles could be saved before the end of days, which Paul believed would happen in his lifetime. When it didn't his followers believed that their generation would be the last. Eventually they moved the date to some unspecified future.

I think it is a very simple question that is very easy to answer. — Apollodorus

Reading and understanding Plato requires the ability to think and put things together. If you are not capable of doing that then I can't bridge the gap for you.

"The Beautiful" is a Form. He uses "the Beautiful" as an example of hypothesis.

One of the main premises of the Bible was the entire message of people being sinners. — Jack Cummins

The belief that we are born of sin if from Paul. It is not found in the Hebrew Bible (OT). In Genesis there is a choice, to sin or avoid sin. With Paul it cannot be avoided, hence the whole idea of the necessity of Jesus dying for man's sins.

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

No, the definition of loved is not that it is loved. The definition of 'dog' is not "it is a dog". The definition of 'obtuse' is not "it is obtuse". The definition of 'dim witted' is not "he is dim witted".

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

First of all, you need to read it in context. The paragraph from which you quote at 11a begins:

But if ...

He goes on to show why all that follows is problematic.

When he says:

all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful.

what do you think he is talking about?

This reminds me of something from Alice in Wonderland. Alice is told to either say what she means or mean what she says. She can't see the difference and is told that it like the difference between seeing what you eat and eating what you see.

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). — Apollodorus

What should be clear from the text, but is not clear to you, is that Socrates is showing him that these statements go nowhere.

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

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

I use the Brann translation and the Grube translation.

If then one wished to know the cause of each thing, why it comes to be or perishes or exists, one had to find what was the best way for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is best.” (97b-d)

So I thought I must take refuge in discussions and investigate the truth of beings by means of accounts [logoi] … On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest; and whatever seems to me to be consonant with this, I put down as being true, both about cause and about all the rest, while what isn’t, I put down as not true.” (99d-100a)

“I am going to try to show you the kind of cause with which I have concerned myself. I turn back to those oft-mentioned things and proceed from them. I assume the existence of a Beautiful, itself by itself, of a Good and a Great and all the rest. If you grant me these and agree that they
exist, I hope to show you the cause as a result, and to find the soul to be immortal.

I no longer understand or recognize those other sophisticated causes, and if someone tells me that a thing is beautiful because it has a bright color or shape or any such thing, I ignore these other reasons—for all these confuse me—but I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.” (100c-e)

Later he reintroduces physical causes:

“Tell me again from the beginning and do not answer in the words of the question, but do as do. I say that beyond that safe answer, which I spoke of first, I see another safe answer. If you should ask me what, coming into a body, makes it hot, my reply would not be that safe and ignorant one, that it is heat, but our present argument provides a more sophisticated answer, namely, fire, and if you ask me what, on coming into a body, makes it sick, I will not say sickness but fever. Nor, if asked the presence of what in a number makes it odd, I will not say oddness but oneness, and so with other things.” (105b-c)

This is what I don't get. If something is not worthy of consideration, silence is the best response. — Valentinus

Like Euthyphro he wants to demonstrate his advanced knowledge of divine things and ends up being laughed at.

I took Plato's Forms to be real. I now see them as part of Plato's philosophical poetry suitable for those who need answers. I now think he is far more interesting.

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

Of course I do. And since you agree with it, you can't deny it. — Apollodorus

You really have lost track of things. You said I was confusing Socrates and Plato. Any confusion was on your part.

And yet, here you still are
— Fooloso4

And yet, so are you. — Apollodorus

Yes. This is a thread that I started and that I and others think is of some value. You said it is a waste of time and space. So why are you still here?

I think you haven't been following the thread. — Apollodorus

It is you who has not followed the dialogue. Socrates does not believe that the pious/good/just is pious/good/just because it is loved (sanctioned/approved/commanded) by the Gods.

If you were consistent it is pious because it is Pious, good because it is Good, just because it is Just.

Plato speaks through his characters. — Apollodorus

Right. You seem to understand this. I am glad you cleared up your confusion that you attributed to me.

And he clearly spoke to his pupils like Aristotle. — Apollodorus

But we have not written record of what he might have said.

That is your opinion, that, incidentally, is unsupported by the text. — Apollodorus

Claiming that it is unsupported after I just gave several quotes in support of it shows that you really don't know how to discuss these things, you just ape phrases that wee used against you.

I have stated many times that this "discussion" is going around in circles and is a total waste of time and space. — Apollodorus

And yet, here you still are.

That is your opinion. — Apollodorus

Yes, my opinion. But my opinion backed up by what is said in the text.

Of course philosophical poetry is used to convey metaphysical concepts and experience. — Apollodorus

The metaphysical concepts are created by the poetry, just as the gods were created by the poets.

Again, if you want to pursue this further: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1

Again, you fail to see the fallacy of confusing Socrates with Plato. The theory of Forms was proposed by Plato. — Apollodorus

Whether or not the historical Socrates talked about Forms is irrelevant. I am talking about the Socrates of the dialogues. It is never "Plato said this" always "Socrates said this". You never find Plato saying anything.