Of course every word has more than one meaning. But I think when Aristotle, for example, speaks of theoria of divine realities he means "contemplation" in the sense of observing something that is seen.

Also, Plato when he speaks of Beauty, for example, he say that the philosopher "sees" it.

So, the Forms and other metaphysical or divine realities are seen, i.e., directly experienced.

We first think about them in discursive thought (dianoia) and then actually experience or "see" them in a higher form of perception (noesis) that cannot be described in words.

The Platonic Forms are "that which is seen" (eidos), they are not ideas or assumptions. — Apollodorus

I think Plato separates the intelligible objects (ideas and Forms) from the visible objecys.

The argument, laid out in the other thread, leads to the conclusion that there can only be opinion about the good itself. — Fooloso4

For Plato, opinion is still a type of knowledge.

The good is not something that is. — Fooloso4

What the good itself is in the intelligible realm, in relation to understanding and intelligible things, the sun is in the visible real, in relation to sight and visible things.
...
So what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower is the form of the good. And though it is the cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge. Both knowledge and truth are beautiful things, but the good is other and more beautiful than they. In the visible realm, light and sight are rightly considered sunlike, but it is wrong to think that they are the sun, so here it is right to think of knowledge and truth as goodlike but wrong to think that either of them is the good - for the good is yet more prized. — 508, translation Grube

I think Plato separates the intelligible objects (ideas and Forms) from the visible objecys. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think so too. However, I think that it is essential to understand the terminology used.

The fact of the matter is that the following association of concepts is found throughout the Platonic texts:

“idea/form” + “pattern” + “contemplate” + “seeing” + "eye"

“Invisible” does not mean “absolutely incapable of being seeing or perceived”. It only means invisible to the physical eye. The Forms are seen with the eye of the soul.

There are three kinds of eye/sight, (1) physical, (2) mental (3) spiritual.

“if we are ever to know anything absolutely, we must be free from the body and must behold the actual realities with the eye of the soul alone” (Phaedo 66d – e).

www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D66e

Socrates asks “what is this idea that I may keep my eye fixed upon it and employ it as a paradeigma” (Euthyphro).

“And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and understands and is radiant with intelligence” (Republic).

“... the true analogy for this indwelling power in the soul and the instrument whereby each of us apprehends is that of an eye ...” (Republic).

“... 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” (Symposium).

It follows that, on a higher level, “contemplation” of the Form is a form of “seeing”.

At that level, we do not see with the physical eye as in everyday life, nor with the eye of the mind as in dreams or imagination, but with the paranormal or metaphysical faculty of sight of the nous which is the "eye of the soul".

There are many things that can be objects of contemplation for Aristotle, that is, many things that can be seen with the intellect.

His treatment of mathematical objects is particularly instructive: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/

Regarding Forms as patterns Aristotle says:

To say that the Forms are patterns, and that other things participate in them, is to use empty phrases and poetical metaphors ...

Metaphysics 1.991a

Looking at the divided line in the Republic, mathematical objects are seen with the mind. They are objects of thought, but what is seen are not Forms, they are images, likenesses.

The relationship between the top two parts of the divided line are the same as that of the bottom two, that is, a relationship of images to things.

Some readers forget that their perspective is a human perspective, not that of a god. Plato gives us images of beauty itself and the just itself and the good itself. Some mistake these images for the things they are images of and imagine they have become knowledgeable about such things having read about them. The objects of our contemplation are not the Forms but images of the Forms, what we imagine them to be.

Socrates provides an image of the Good, its likeness, the sun. That the good gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower, is, as he says, his opinion, not something he knows by having seen the good itself. It is an opinion he thinks it best that we hold too.

Note he says: "say" that the Good provides the truth to the things known (508e). This is the opinion he wants others to hold.

i totally agree with that. i guess i just misunderstood your use of "see".

This is a passage from Plato (among many others) that I find worthwhile thinking about:

“It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for by it only is reality beheld. Those who share this faith will think your words superlatively true. But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine ...” (Republic 527d - e).

The “eye of the soul” or “eye of the heart” (ophthalmos/homma tes psyches, ophthalmos kardias, etc.) has been absolutely central to the Platonic tradition that has come down from Plato through Plotinus, the Church Fathers, medieval philosophers, and Islamic philosophers and mystics to the present.

The objective analysis of the facts suggests that practicing Platonists are neither delusional nor uneducated ignoramuses. As for those who insist on taking an exclusively intellectual approach to spiritual matters, by definition, they prevent themselves from experiencing anything other than their own unexamined assumptions.

practicing Platonists — Apollodorus

It's a religion now?

I think it is a philosophy that believes in metaphysical realities.

So, it can be (1) religion on one level, (2) philosophy on another, and (3) mysticism at the top.

As Plato says, philosophy is midway between (1) and (3).

In any case, it doesn't seem very scientific to impose an exclusively intellectual or materialist interpretation on a system that involves metaphysical experience as its ultimate objective.

The passage cited is about astronomy. It is the "fourth study" after solid geometry. It is the study "which treats motion of what has depth" (528e)

Glaucon says "astronomy compels the soul to see what's above and leads it there away from the things here". Socrates corrects him. When studied in this way it causes the soul to look downward. (529a)

He calls the stars "decorations in the heavens embroidered on a vaulted ceiling". The image of the starry night, is the opposite of the image of Good in the sun. Astronomy when studied as Socrates proposes is not the study of visible things in the heavens, it is about "what must be grasped by argument and thought, not sight" (529d) The "organ or instrument" in the passage is not some spiritual faculty, it is the instrument of thought, of reasoned argument.

Plato uses the term 'thymos" for the middle part of the tripartite soul, the spirited part. It is ruled by the highest part, reason. He does not identify a "spiritual" part.

Plato's exoteric teaching mimics the religious and mystical teachings of the poets, his esoteric teaching to something quite different. He cleverly disguises the exoteric as the esoteric, so that what is in plain sight can be quoted and revered as if were about some "metaphysical experience" and mystical reality. It is only when one follows the argument that what is really being said becomes clear. If one imposes assumptions about the "ultimate objective" of the dialogues, then it is no surprise if that is what will be see. But when one attends carefully to the details of the text and follows the arguments where they lead then things begin to look very different.

Have we not here a tradition from the ancients who hid their meaning from the common herd in poetical figures ... ?
– Plato, Theaetetus 180c-d

It is a well-known fact that in ancient philosophy, astronomy was used as an analogy for psychological and metaphysical phenomena.

Given that Plato believed in an immortal soul, it follows that the spiritual part of the soul is the part that carries on living after the death of the physical body.

Plato can be properly understood only by studying Platonism which has followed Plato's teachings from the 4th century BC to the present.

It is a well-known fact that in ancient philosophy, astronomy was used as an analogy for psychological and metaphysical phenomena. — Apollodorus

Right, and Plato rejects that. Follow his argument as outlined above.

Given that Plato believed in an immortal soul — Apollodorus

But it is not a given. As you know, I posted a long thread on the Phaedo that shows that the arguments for the immortality of the soul all fail. The mythological stories may persuade some, but that Plato is persuaded by the stories he makes up is far from given.

the spiritual part of the soul — Apollodorus

Where does Plato say that there is a spiritual part of the soul? Certainly not in the Republic or the Phaedo.

Plato can be properly understood only by studying Platonism ... — Apollodorus

That is a statement of your belief. In my opinion to understand Plato one must begin with a careful, open minded reading of the dialogues, not by imposing religious and metaphysical assumptions on them. In doing so one must ignore the dialogic arguments that threaten those assumptions.

There is a long and varied history of interpretation of the dialogues. In the ancient world, prior to and contrary to Neoplatonism, we find:

In their writings the most famous philosophers of the Greeks and their prophets made use of parables and images in which they concealed their secrets, like Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato.
– Avicenna (Ibn Sina), “On the Parts of Science,” 85

Where does Plato say that there is a spiritual part of the soul? Certainly not in the Republic or the Phaedo. — Fooloso4

Plato clearly says, through Socrates and others, that the soul is immortal - the bit that you left out from the Phaedo in your translation. As immortal means non-physical, the soul has a part that is non-physical, i.e., metaphysical or, in modern terminology, "spiritual".

No one studies Marxism by applying chemistry or astronomy to it. Likewise, no serious scholar attempts to study Platonism from a materialist or anti-theist perspective, i.e., by denying the fundamental principles upon which Platonism is based.

There are some excellent studies of Platonism that have been published since the 1950's and 60's like From Plato to Platonism (2013) by Lloyd P Gerson who is a respected professor of philosophy and author of many academic works on the subject. As I said, it is imperative to keep up with the times, and not stay stuck in the outdated ideas of post-war neo-liberalism and intellectual nihilism.

But you may do as you please. I don't care.

by denying the fundamental principles upon which Platonism is based. — Apollodorus

Once again, Neoplatonism and the works of Plato are two different things. One choose to interpret the latter through the former. Using your analogy you study Plato from a Neoplatonist perspective. There are many serious scholars who think that is wrong. The bit about a materialist and anti-theist perspective is a non-sequitur. I follow the arguments where they lead. You ignore the arguments whenever they do not conform to what you want them to say.

As I said, it is imperative to keep up with the times, and not stay stuck in the outdated ideas of post-war neo-liberalism and intellectual nihilism. — Apollodorus

I previously provided a list of contemporary scholars doing work on Plato. They are, more and more, becoming representative of the direction current scholarship is going in. It is clear that you have not even looked up who they are. Instead you create a caricature that is not even close to the truth.

But you may do as you please. I don't care. — Apollodorus

And yet, you repeatedly come here, day after day, and post the same illinformed Neoplatonist rant.

Socrates says very clearly that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d) and that “therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise” (Thaetetus 176a – b).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D114d

He also says:

“God is in no wise and in no manner unrighteous, but utterly and perfectly righteous, and there is nothing so like him as that one of us who in turn becomes most nearly perfect in righteousness” (176c), etc., etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Apage%3D176

If you are really convinced that all the translations and/or original Greek texts are wrong, you are free to contact the translators and editors and inform them that they are "illinformed neoplatonist rants". Good luck with that. :grin:

Socrates says very clearly that “it turns out that the soul is immortal” (Phaedo 114d) — Apollodorus

Once again, context is important. When taking things out of content they may seem to mean something different than they do.

Socrates is wrapping up a myth he created about the immortality of the soul. Immediately following the myth and before the quote you take out of context he says:

No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places …

and following it:

he should sing, as it were, incantations to himself over and over again.(114d)

"It turns out" refer to the myth, It is a belief he says that one should risk, not to anything that has been established as true. One need not risk believing something established as true.

and that “therefore — Apollodorus

A fine example of your disregard for the arguments in the dialogues. You join two different arguments from two different dialogues as if one follows from the other. And then follow that with another statement taken out of context.

And on the subject of taking things out of context, your ill informed Neoplatonist rants refer to your claim Plato should be interpreting through Neoplatonism and what follows from that. And, more importantly, what does not follow, any attention to the arguments themselves.

There is a long and varied history of interpretation of the dialogues. In the ancient world, prior to and contrary to Neoplatonism, we find:

"In their writings the most famous philosophers of the Greeks and their prophets made use of parables and images in which they concealed their secrets, like Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato".
– Avicenna (Ibn Sina), “On the Parts of Science,” 85 — Fooloso4

I'm afraid that proves absolutely nothing. "Secrets" can mean anything. It certainly doesn't have to mean atheism and is in no way, form or shape "contrary to Platonism". If anything, as history shows, it means exactly what scholars like Gerson are saying.

Another Islamic mystic, Mansur al-Hallaj wrote “I saw my Lord with the eye of my heart”, i.e., exactly what Platonists and Christians had taught for centuries before him.

We have already seen that Plato taught that a philosopher had to become as godlike as possible. That meant seeing God within himself and experiencing a state of oneness with him. That was what
al-Hallaj did. He proclaimed (the Platonic doctrine) "I am the Truth/God".

In 922 CE al-Hallaj was executed by the Islamic authorities.

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

So of course Ibn Sina would say that Plato’s teachings were secret. He didn’t want to meet the same fate as al-Hallaj. It's just common sense when you live under strict Islamic rule.

So, your own "evidence" demolishes your case rather nicely and conclusively IMHO.

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. One must learn how to read between the lines, to make connections, to put the pieces together, to resolve seeming contradictions, to follow the argument even when it is laid out over three books. It is about being able to see the whole and how the pieces function to make the whole. In other words, the exact opposite of what you are doing when you take things out of context.

You are getting closer to the problem with your comment on Ibn Sina's concern for his fate. Plato had the same personal concern and for the same reason as Ibn Sina. What you forget is that Plato's teacher was sentenced to death for his teachings, for talking to everyone, for being open and candid.

Again, you need to be able to put things to get the full picture of the conditions under which Plato wrote.

As already demonstrated on the other thread (on Socrates), the objective examination of the Platonic texts allows no other conclusion than that Socrates and Plato were not atheists, but religious reformers. All they did was to introduce a new category of metaphysical or divine realities or beings that would be more suitable for philosophical minds than traditional deities.

“So once more, as if these were another set of accusers, let us take up in turn their sworn statement. It is about as follows: it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings. Such is the accusation" (Apology 24b – c).

The exact phrase is ἕτερα δαιμόνια καινά hetera daimonia kaina, “other new daimons (spiritual beings)”. The charge was ἀσέβεια asebia, “impiety or irreverence”, not atheism.

Xenophon says the same:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the gods worshipped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

The exact phrase is ἕτερα καινὰ δαιμόνια hetera kaina daimonia, “other new spiritual beings/deities”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0211%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D10

In Euthyphro, a dialogue on which it seems you are an expert, Socrates says that the charge is that he "makes new Gods":

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthuphro 3b).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D24b

Plato's metaphysics is a multi-layered system starting from traditional religion and gradually ascending to higher forms of thought and experience.

Another important thing to remember is that Socrates was going to be acquitted on condition that he refrain from preaching his new religion, which he declined. All he needed to do was to moderate his language and not promote it in public. It follows that Plato had nothing to fear.

You need to be able to put things together and see that Plato was not teaching atheism but a form of monistic idealism:

Definition of monistic idealism: a system of philosophical idealism emphasizing the primacy of the One (as the Absolute or Nature) rather than of the many

I hope you agree that, as a matter of general principle, one should in the first instance read the texts one is proposing to discuss before discussing them.

You have already said many times that you read the dialogues through the eyes of the Neoplatonists. Repeating it every time I post something is at best ill mannered. Your's is not the final word on Plato, and yet you have a compulsive need to have it be so in this forum. Why? I strongly suspect it is really not about Plato.

Hey! You finally noticed it's Plato, not Socrates. Good for you!

Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. Of course you can believe that Plato was an atheist if that makes you happy. All I'm saying is that if you expect people to accept that theory, you need to provide some evidence. You have failed to do so, and both the original texts and logic contradict that theory.

The fact is that Plato’s philosophy is a form of monistic idealism that holds that consciousness (nous) is the only absolute reality, and entails a hierarchy of realities ascending from the physical to the mental and from the mental to the supramental or spiritual, culminating in the ineffable One Ultimate Reality.

Because reality is an emanation of Ultimate Reality which is Consciousness, and is therefore, real, Plato’s philosophy may be described as realistic idealism: though the world is a product of consciousness, it is not the product of the individual mind but of the Universal Consciousness, Cosmic Intellect or Mind of God. Plato’s Forms are the product of the Cosmic Intellect.

This is 100% consistent with the Platonic texts and equally inconsistent with "atheism".

Even Wikipedia which is run by liberals and atheists classifies Plato and Platonism under Idealism.

Idealism – Wikipedia

The notion that Plato taught atheism is not only contradicted by the evidence and logic but it is a fringe theory introduced in the early 1900’s. I suspect you are drawing your inspiration from Shorey who also preached that Jesus was a Pagan and other similar ideas that were popular at the time under the influence of Marxist and Fabian Socialist deconstructionism.

Unfortunately, Shorey has long been thoroughly refuted by Gerson and other respected scholars. This is why I suggested you read Gerson's From Plato to Platonism. It would have clarified your doubts and would have saved all of us a lot of wasted time.

I'm beginning to think that it's all Greek to him :grin:

Hey frank. You have not been paying attention!

Hey frank. You have not been paying attention! — Fooloso4

At the point that you suggested that we're looking at Socrates rather than Plato because Plato doesn't speak much in the dialogues, I stopped paying attention to anything you said.

No offense intended. It's just a fact

I'm beginning to think that it's all Greek to him :grin: — Apollodorus

Have you read Shakespeare?

You have already said many times that you read the dialogues through the eyes of the Neoplatonists. — Fooloso4

I think that's another self-inflicted misunderstanding and confusion of yours. I have explained to you that "Neoplatonism" is a modern anti-Platonist concept. Platonists regard themselves as Platonists, i.e., "followers of Plato".

Even in antiquity, Plato's teachings were known as τᾰ̀ δόγμᾰτᾰ τοῦ Πλᾰ́τωνος “the (true) doctrine of Plato”, δόγμᾰ dogma being that which one believes to be true, true doctrine or teaching.

You keep repeating the same things over and over makes you right?

You would make a great juror for the defense in a murder trial: "He said he was not guilty. His friends say he's not guilty. That's all the evidence I need."

It is you who are attacking the long-established, evidence-based position that Plato is an idealist, and you claim that he was an atheist.

I have no problem with your belief, I just think that the onus is on you to provide the evidence for your claim.

If you believe you are right, why don't you join Wikipedia as an editor and tell them about your new discovery and get them to classify Plato and Platonism under Atheism?

You could even write a thesis on it and publish it. Just make sure you don't exclude the inconvenient bits from your translations.

At the point that you suggested that we're looking at Socrates rather than Plato because Plato doesn't speak much in the dialogues, I stopped paying attention to anything you said. — frank

What I said is that Plato never speaks in the dialogues. There is not one place where it would be true to say: "Plato said" when discussing the arguments in the dialogues.

I stopped paying attention to anything you said. — frank

And so what is the point of your comment? If you have not read what I said why make uninformed comments on what I said?

What I said is that Plato never speaks in the dialogues — Fooloso4

And that "proves" he was an atheist? By what logical reasoning???