This is so predictable that it has become comical. Whenever I point to Socrates' arguments that run counter to what you would want them to say you let loose a barrage of complaints and claims that address all kinds of things except what is actually said in the dialogue.

Unfortunately, there are some here who do not find it at all funny. They think it rude and obstructive and worry that others who may want to discuss the dialogue will be turned away by your incessant bickering.

Sorry, but you invited me to join the discussion, did you not? Here is your statement:

He has no knowledge of the Forms and has never seen them. He says as much in the Republic.

If you want to discuss it further I will do so here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1 — Fooloso4

Did you post this or was it someone else? Maybe your alter ego or something?

You wanted to discuss Plato's Forms. And when I asked you a few questions about Socrates' statements on Forms, you refused to answer and called for help.

No offense, but I find this very odd to say the least.

I made a mistake. I thought you might finally be ready to discuss things honestly and openly. Wrong of me to expect you might change. Enough already!

I thought you might finally be ready to discuss things honestly and openly. — Fooloso4

In that case, all you need to do is to start discussing things honestly and openly and show us how it's done.

What you are actually doing is imposing a 20th-century neoliberal interpretation on 5th-century BC texts.

It is obvious that what Plato actually does is to reinterpret traditional beliefs and integrate them with his own religious and philosophical system. This makes him a religious reformist at most, not an atheist or nihilist.

I don't know of any serious scholar who has successfully shown that the views expressed in the Timaeus, for example, constitute atheism and nihilism. Do you?

This is so predictable that it has become comical. Whenever I point to Socrates' arguments that run counter to what you would want them to say you let loose a barrage of complaints and claims that address all kinds of things except what is actually said in the dialogue.

Unfortunately, there are some here who do not find it at all funny. They think it rude and obstructive and worry that others who may want to discuss the dialogue will be turned away by your incessant bickering. — Fooloso4

Indeed. The type of 'humour' used by @Apollodorus, some might find funny but his 'jokes' and sarcastic 'asides' are just part of that nasty pattern of behaviour it seems he can't help indulging in.
It's not just here.

@Banno called him out on his offensiveness :

That last comment concerning bats was unnecessarily offensive. Indeed, your replies here reinforce my growing view that you are incapable of seeing a situation from the perspective of another, or worse, simply unaware that things may seem different to other folk. — Banno

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/557477

with predictable and typical responses as per 'bully-boy' tactics, or as I suggested elsewhere signs of a narcissistic personality disorder.

It is, as you say, counterproductive to a constructive discussion, a fruitful learning experience.
I would hope that more people would be alert to this continuing and consistent pattern.
Either respond and call it for what it is...or report...whatever...

Yep. If somebody asks for evidence that the Timaeus teaches atheism, that is definitely "narcissism".

And what would you call other people's refusal to back up their claims with some evidence?

As already pointed out, Gerson and other respected scholars have conclusively shown that Plato does not teach atheism.

You know what you are doing. Over and over. A consistent and continuing pattern of behaviour that is not always obvious, especially to mods who can't follow all threads.
It's like the bully's response to an offensive remark - 'I was only joking...'. Making out as if the person hasn't got a sense of humour...and too sensitive...
Insidious.
Flagging individual posts is sometimes not enough.

A consistent and continuing pattern of behaviour that is not always obvious, especially to mods who can't follow all threads. — Amity

Well, if it's "not obvious", then maybe it's not there? Have you considered other people's posts calling Christians, Platonists, and other theists "liars"?

I simply asked Fooloso4 to provide some evidence, which I believe is a reasonable request to make in a normal conversation. Instead, he gets offended and interprets it as a "personal attack".

It was him that repeatedly asked me to join the discussion:

If you want to discuss it further I will do so here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1 — Fooloso4

How can I discuss something if I'm not allowed to even ask a question?

What have I said about Plato's Forms that was offensive?

Well, if it's "not obvious", then maybe it's not there? — Apollodorus

It is there. You know it. Others who are alert see it.
End of.

So, am I also allowed to flag posts that I find offensive and "bullying", or is it one rule for some and another for others???

And you haven't answered my question, how was my asking a question about Socrates' supposed statements on Forms in the Phaedo "offensive"?

BTW my joke about bat soup couldn't have been offensive to ltlee1 because as explained in my posts I didn't believe that ltlee1 is Chinese. Plus, ltlee1 did not complain. If he thinks it's offensive, then I am prepared to delete the remark. But he/she never objected. In any case, no offense was intended.

Anyway, I have now deleted the bat soup comment even though there is no evidence that it was offensive.

Would you like me to delete my other posts as well?

Edit. In the meantime ltlee1 has responded to my comment:

Your comment did not bother me at all.
Chinese do eat all kind of animals. — ltlee1

So, the alleged 'offense' was neither intended nor taken, from what I see.

An essential key to understanding the Republic is to understand the role of the dual position of opinion. It opines both what is below being and above or beyond being, both about the visible world, and the good itself.

Socrates is circumspect in his discussion of this. It is better to have an opinion of the good shaped by his opinion than one in which any and every man is the measure. To this end he conceals his opinion and in its place presents an image of the good not only as something known to the philosopher, an eternal, unchanging truth. But the concealment is not complete. Behind the salutary public teaching is the teaching suitable only for the few.

This was a common practice in both ancient and modern philosophy. In Plato we find:

But Hera's bindings by her son, and Hephaestus' being cast out by his father when he was
about to help out his mother who was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods Homer
made must not be accepted in the city, whether they are made with a hidden sense or
without a hidden sense.
Republic 378d

Now I tell you that sophistry [in the original sense of practical wisdom] is an ancient art,
and those men of ancient times who practiced it, fearing the odium it involved, disguised
it in a decent dress, sometimes of poetry, as in the case of Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides.
Protagoras 316d-e (see also Euthyphro 3c; Theaetetus 152e; and Cratylus 402a-c)

Plato also suggests that Homer, Hesiod and some other early poets were covertly presenting
Heracleitean ideas about nature when they gave their genealogies of the gods and other mythical accounts. As Socrates states in the Theaetetus:

Have we not here a tradition from the ancients who hid their meaning from the common herd in poetical figures, that Ocean and [his wife, the river-goddess] Tethys, the source of all things, are flowing streams and nothing is at rest?
– Plato, Theaetetus 180c-d

And about Plato and the practice in ancient times:

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, “On the Parts of Science,” 85

All ...who have spoken of divine things, both barbarians and Greeks, have veiled the first principles of things, and delivered the truth in enigmas, and symbols, and allegories, and 4 metaphors, and such like tropes.” And why should I linger over the barbarians, when I can adduce the Greeks as exceedingly addicted to the use of the method of concealment. – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 233-34 (5.4), 247 (5.8)

It is well known, that the ancient wise Men and Philosophers, very seldom set forth the
naked and open Truth; but exhibited it veiled or painted after various manners; by
Symbols, Hieroglyphicks, Allegories, Types, Fables, Parables, popular Discourses, and
other Images. This I pass by in general as sufficiently known.– Thomas Burnet, Archæologiæ philosophicæ, 67

The ancients distinguished the ‘exoteric’ or popular mode of exposition from the
‘esoteric’ one which is suitable for those who are seriously concerned to discover the
truth.
– G. W. Leibniz, New Essays, 260

The ancient Sages did actually say one Thing when they thought another. This appears
from that general Practice in the Greek Philosophy, of a two-fold Doctrine; the External
and the Internal; a vulgar and a secret.
– Bishop Warburton, The Divine Legislation, 2:14

These are taken from https://press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/melzer_appendix.pdf

The site contains many more testimonials both ancient and modern. A real eye opener!

There are the easy to find statements in the dialogues for all to see, and for those who look carefully enough, something quite different.

Socrates does not say he believes the sun and moon are gods, he asks whether Meletus is accusing him of not believing that they are gods as other men do. He then says that Meletus is confusing him with Anaxagoras. (26d) Anaxagoras had also been indicted on charges of impiety, but fled. His books, Socrates points out, were still for sale for a small sum.

This is an important point. If such ideas were corruptive of the youth, why could one freely buy Anaxagoras' books "in the orchestra for a drachma" at the most?

It points to political motivation thinly disguised as civil and religious piety.

And about Plato and the practice in ancient times:

"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, “On the Parts of Science,” 85
— Fooloso4

However, as already demonstrated on the other thread, that line of argument is too flawed to even qualify as an argument. It 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.

Your "argument" falls like an ill-conceived and ill-constructed house of cards.

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.

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. — Fooloso4

The "problem" is not the problem of the Platonists. It is your problem and the problem of other atheists that insist that Plato was an atheist without presenting even a shred of evidence .

Your problem is you are claiming that "secrets = atheism". So, would you mind explaining to us by what logical mechanism you arrive at that conclusion? I am curious to now.

In the meantime, you are saying that Ibn Sina, like Plato, was preaching atheism secretly for fear of being executed like al-Hallaj, just as Plato was afraid of being sentenced to death like Socrates.

The obvious problem with that claim is you have failed to show that Socrates was an atheist. Indeed, it would be hard to believe that he was, given that he was constantly talking about God and Gods.

IMHO, 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.

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

“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” (Euthyphro 3b).

We find the same in Xenophon:

“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

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.

Let's now take your other famous quote:

All ...who have spoken of divine things, both barbarians and Greeks, have veiled the first principles of things, and delivered the truth in enigmas, and symbols, and allegories, and 4 metaphors, and such like tropes.” And why should I linger over the barbarians, when I can adduce the Greeks as exceedingly addicted to the use of the method of concealment. – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 233-34 (5.4), 247 (5.8) — Fooloso4

Again, by what logical argumentation do you arrive at the conclusion that "enigmas and concealment = atheism"?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Ibn Sina was afraid of openly preaching atheism and did so covertly.

But how does this apply to Clement of Alexandria? He had been a Pagan and converted to Christianity in around 170 CE. Why would he convert to Christianity to teach atheism? He could have done that as a Pagan. According to you, he already had Platonism for that purpose.

For your theory to work, you would have to show that all the Church Fathers, philosophers and mystics were "atheists". Did the Desert Fathers withdraw from society to meditate on the non-existence of God, whilst praying seven times a day and using passages from the Bible for daily contemplation?

Aside from the total lack of evidence, and the absurdity of it, it sounds very much like conspiracy theory to me. What you are literally claiming is that, for two millennia, Christians have been secretly believing in atheism and covertly preaching it, because Socrates chose to allow himself to be sentenced to death for being disrespectful to traditional religion.

Also, please note that you are citing Leibniz and Warburton to justify your mistaken interpretation of Platonic dialogues, but you attack me for citing Platonists, which seems rather strange. Why would Leibniz and Warburton understand Plato any better than Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus?

I am not going to respond to your misrepresentations and perversions of logic

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.

Why the intolerance of views other than those you hold? Why the need to have the last word on thread that I start?

I have never read Shorey. Just another straw man.

I gave you a list of the authors I read. You ignored it. Much easier to make shit up and attack it.

Why the need to have the last word on thread that I start? — Fooloso4

No need whatsoever. As I suggested from the start, you had no chance of proving your case.

You gave me a list of authors, which is fine. But I also suggested you read Sedley, Gerson, and others, and you refused. All I'm saying is that it would have been in your own interest to familiarize yourself with a topic that has been conclusively settled.

Plato may have taught many things. Atheism wasn't one of them.

Yes.

Let me try and do some theory here. Going on a limb perhaps?

I see several levels of interpenetration between religions and politics here:

1. Traditional piety = The hypothesis according to which the gods favour our city only inasmuch as we love them. If we stop loving and praying to our traditional gods, or if we start doubting them, the city will perish or suffer as them gods will punish it. This is the background assumption, the conventional wisdom.

2. There are hidden variations in people's faith in 1 = Not every one believes in 1, but they pretend to, because of the risks entailed in contradicting it. Since as per 1 above traditional piety is seen as vital to the city's survival, impious behaviors are severely punished, by death or banishment.

3. Religion is instrumentalised by politics = A religious accusation will be very effective to get rid of a political opponent. If you can prove that your opponent is taking liberty with traditional piety, then you can get him sentenced to death, ostensibly to save the city from the wrath of the gods (even if you don't happen to believe in them, as long as you can pretend to).

4. Historically, religion provided the internally-shared value framework of these various city-states = This means that as politics evolved towards the age of empires, old-time religion became an impediment, or was seen as an impediment by some in society. It worked well for one city, but was too local, parochial, not universal enough for a league of city states or for an empire. In these sorts of situations, new religions (or philosophies / metaphysics) typically appear which can be seen as attempts to solve the hiatus, or to take into consideration the passing of time and update old-time religion.

5. In such contexts as 5th century BCE Athens, religion (or lack thereof) can become a socio-political marker = Because of 3 and 4, the 'religious innovations' evoqued in 4 originally tend (on average) to be repressed or fought by whoever is in favor of the status quo, and promoted by whoever wants political change.


I think a bit of all that happened in the case at hand. Socrates was not politically neutral. His thought, just like Anaxagoras' or others', was an irruption of a more universal world view into the little parochial cultural life of Athens, an irruption made possible by contacts with the Persian empire. In the historical context, his thought was disruptive and innovative. Almost foreign.

No need whatsoever. — Apollodorus

Are you that so self unaware? You say you have no need to have the last word and yet again and again you have more to say, or, more of the same to say.

I have read some Gerson. I tried to discuss the problem of "instrumental causality". You simply ignored it and moved on to something else, and then something else again, eventually circling back to the same thing again.

Even older than Plato is the distinction between esoteric and exoteric teachings. You point to the exoteric and remain unaware of the esoteric. You pull statements out of context and think they represent the "true teaching". You ignore the arguments and details which point toward something other than what is there for even the most casual reader to see.

Socrates admonishes his interlocutors to "follow the argument where it leads". You have avoided doing this.

Socrates admonishes his interlocutors to "follow the argument where it leads". You have avoided doing this. — Fooloso4

Not at all, I demonstrated quite clearly, I think, that Plato's dialogues logically lead to monistic idealism which is the accepted scholarly position. The Forms are metaphysical realities in the Cosmic Intellect or Universal Consciousness (Nous). That's what I meant by "immaterial" but you chose not to pay attention.

And Socrates was not accused or tried for "atheism" but for irreverence (asebia) on the grounds that he was trying to introduce "new deities" (and corrupt the young).

As Olivier suggests, he may have been set up for political reasons. However, even then we must remember that the jury would have acquitted him, had he not chosen to persist and decline to refrain from preaching his new religion.

His thought, just like Anaxagoras' or others', was an irruption of a more universal world view into the little parochial cultural life of Athens, an irruption made possible by contacts with the Persian empire. In the historical context, his thought was disruptive and innovative. Almost foreign. — Olivier5

I think you have it exactly right.

Plato, not wanting to suffer the same fate as Socrates, had to do two opposite things, appear to not be a threat to the norms of the city while in practice being just that. In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms and, as the ultimate cause, the Good. And yet many even today do not see this for what it is.

In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms and, as the ultimate cause, the Good. And yet many even today do not see this for what it is. — Fooloso4

He doesn't "banish the Gods" at all. He was discussing a hypothetical situation.

You can't say "Plato secretly taught atheism" and at the same time claim that "he openly preached atheism in his dialogues".

It just doesn't add up.

Plato taught monistic idealism which to the ignorant may sound like "atheism" but is far from that. On the contrary, monistic idealism is more like theistic absolutism, which is why Platonism appealed to the Christians.

Not at all, I demonstrated quite clearly, I think, that Plato's dialogues logically lead to monistic idealism which is the accepted scholarly position. — Apollodorus

Socrates says:

we must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us (Republic 394d).

You do not follow the argument where it leads, you ignore the argument because you assume where it leads.

Anyone who has read the literature knows that "the accepted scholarly position" does not exist. There is a reason why after all this time so many books and articles on Plato are being published every year.

The Forms are metaphysical realities in the Cosmic Intellect or Universal Consciousness (Nous). — Apollodorus

And yet Socrates says that this is not something he knows and Plato never introduces anyone who does actually know.

And Socrates was not accused or tried for "atheism" but for irreverence on the grounds that he was trying to introduce "new deities". — Apollodorus

You do not know what the term atheism meant. Socrates discusses this, but to understand it requires that you follow the argument.

Even older than Plato is the distinction between esoteric and exoteric teachings. You point to the exoteric and remain unaware of the esoteric. — Fooloso4

Not at all, the esoteric is the ineffable Ultimate Reality. It isn't esoteric because it is secret but because it is inexpressible in language. I have said so repeatedly.

To claim that "esoteric = atheism" is as absurd as to claim that "introducing new deities = atheism".

He doesn't "banish the Gods" at all. He was discussing a hypothetical situation. — Apollodorus

It is not a hypothetical situation. You do not understand how the term 'hypothetical' is being used. The city is made in speech. In the city the poets and their stories of the gods are banned.

You can't say "Plato secretly taught atheism" and at the same time claim that "he openly preached atheism in his dialogues". — Apollodorus

I have said neither of those things. Again, follow the argument.

Plato taught monistic idealism — Apollodorus

This is an example of Socrates advise to chant incantations over and over again.