:rofl: Obviously, "noun" or "adjective" is irrelevant here for the reason already indicated above, viz., the original Greek phrase is φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, phileitai hypo ton theon.

As you can see for yourself, phileitai in Greek is a verb, not an adjective or noun, hence it may be translated into English as either adjective or noun, whichever you prefer. The meaning in Greek remains the same irrespective of what English equivalent you choose.

But I'm glad that you now finally got it. As I said, well done. And you persuaded Wiktionary too, so what can I say?

It's about language games. — frank

Care to elaborate?

However, if (a) we take the Gods (literally, all the Gods) to refer to the Divine (to theion) in a general or abstract sense, and if (b) we admit that the human soul is divine, then (c) knowing what is good amounts to the divine knowing what is divine. — Apollodorus

The human soul is all the gods.

That follows, you know?

I personally think that we are well equipped to do much better. — creativesoul

I tend to think so too. Unfortunately, the text isn't very helpful.

That's why I suggested, as others have done, to see if the dialogue has a range of meanings from the literal to the moral to the metaphysical. I believe this would be consistent with Plato's method. And there is nothing to lose IMHO.

Some of us, perhaps. For my part, I built a worldview around things that I knew were true, and/or had warrant to believe. Disparate, at first, this worldview... but becoming more and more coherent as I go. Dependable and true as well, if lack of surprise is any indication. — creativesoul

Surely you adhere to the worldview that's prominent during your lifetime. You have to in order to interact with others.

Truth is relative to your worldview, except for the stray philosophical truth?

The human soul is all the gods. — creativesoul

The Soul is rooted in the Divine. Yea.

...see if the dialogue has a range of meanings from the literal to the moral to the metaphysical. — Apollodorus

Well, Plato used the terms sensibly, and if he did so without equivocation, then pursuing a range of different meanings would be to say stuff that Plato did not. So, I would be hesitant to do anything aside from examine Plato's use/sense given what we can know about the historical context.

The human soul is all the gods.

That follows, you know? — creativesoul

Of course I know. That's exactly what Plotinus and other Platonists are saying, not to mention followers of Advaita Vedanta and other monistic systems, as earlier pointed out by @Frank.

The human soul is all the gods.
— creativesoul

The Soul us rooted in the Divine. — frank

Two different claims.

According to Plotinus, the human soul emanates from the One and eventually returns to the One. So, yes, it is essentially divine, as Plato says.

According to Plotinus, the human soul emanates from the One and eventually returns to the One. So, yes, it is essentially divine, as Plato says. — Apollodorus

Yep.

I would be hesitant to do anything aside from examine Plato's use/sense given what we can know about the historical context. — creativesoul

Reading the dialogue in a Platonic sense or senses is exactly what I have been proposing. Unfortunately, some started bringing Abrahamic religions into it and derailed the discussion.

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

?

You seem to have some grudge related issues.

Multiplying entities... only for those entities to be different names for the same entity has it's own set of problems. Occam's razor.

As far as monism goes in light of this discussion...

One finger cannot point at itself. Distinction requires a plurality of things, as compared/contrasted to a plurality of different names for the same thing.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Surely you adhere to the worldview that's prominent during your lifetime. You have to in order to interact with others. — frank

First, there is more than one. Second, I can interact with someone with a different worldview. Third, I can understand a completely different worldview and not agree with it.

So, no I need not adhere to any worldview that's prominent in my lifetime. Bits and pieces of lots of them, sure...

Truth is a relation between what's believed about what's happened and/or is happening and what's happened and/or is happening. I would not agree that "truth is relative".

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — frank

The One
The human soul
The divine
All the gods
The Divine

Are these different entities or different names for the same entity?

Ok, I understand, thanks.

Are these different entities or different names for the same entity? — creativesoul

The One is divine. The Soul is an emanation from the One.

This is Platonism. Anybody who's familiar with it will call it to mind while reading a Platonic dialogue. It's unavoidable.

If you aren't familiar with it, you can make whatever you want of the text. It just depends on your purposes.

So, no I need not adhere to any worldview that's prominent in my lifetime. Bits and pieces of lots of them, sure... — creativesoul

I think you probably have to.

The One is divine. The Soul is an emanation from the One. — frank

So then the human soul is not the divine.

So then the human soul is not the divine. — creativesoul

It's divine. God is everything.

I need not adhere to any worldview that's prominent in my lifetime. Bits and pieces of lots of them, sure...
— creativesoul

I think you probably have to. — frank

If you mean that I probably have to adhere to bits and pieces in order to interact(currently, as an adult). Sure. If you mean that my initial worldview(mostly adopted as they all are) adhered to prominent ones amongst my family, friends, and acquaintances while developing that initial worldview, sure.

But altogether adherance is only necessary if one lives in a small pond with limited worldviews.

ok

God is everything. — frank

There ya go.

Leads to utter nonsense, meaningless language use, equivocation fallacies, and inevitable self-contradiction and/or outright incoherence.

Anyway, it's interesting to look at the dilemma in terms of language games

Leads to utter nonsense .... — creativesoul

Just because you say so?

God is Satan. God is good. God is bad. God is evil. God is...

Because that's how language works...