Yes, there were other reasons than just the political risk of spilling too many beans. — Olivier5

I came across an interesting interpretation of Descartes that led to my own investigation. I would start a thread on it but I do not want to have to deal with resident anti-atheist fanatic shitting all over it like a caged monkey flinging his own feces.

Hey, monkeys have feelings too!

Yes, it was unkind to monkeys to make this comparison.

You could blame it on Descartes. We all do it...

I think your own exertions have been more than sufficiently productive and you've done a great job spreading it around, so there isn't much left for anyone else to do. The credit goes entirely to you.

BTW, have you finally found your evidence for Plato's alleged "atheism" or are you still looking? I'm always there to help, you know. :rofl:

I thought it was the atheists who were to blame, or the Marxists, or the liberals, or the socialists, or the communists, or progressives, or the "loony left". Hell, why worry about differences when blaming everyone who does not hold your religious/political views. Blame the atheist/Marxist/liberal/socialist/communist/progressive/loony left.

Anyway, I have ZERO interest in Descartes, so if you want to start a thread on him, by all means do so.

We philosophers leave such behaviors to MAGA capped trolls. You see, the quality of one's thought can be measured by the reputation of one's scapegoat. Blaming it on Descartes is what sophisticated thinkers do.

Or Aristotle of course. In fact if memory serves, Descartes blamed it on Aristotle.

It isn't hard to do because both men wrote quite a lot. In your case one could easily put together the argument that it was a sad relic of Cartesianism in you that made you treat monkeys as mere machines, not given a soul like humans have. You should have known better than believe Descartes...

We philosophers leave such behaviors to MAGA capped trolls. — Olivier5

Right. I was referring the one of our resident MAGA trolls.
call

Blaming it on Descartes is what sophisticated thinkers do. — Olivier5

Oh, I misunderstood. That certainly does not apply in the case I was thinking of.

a sad relic of Cartesianism — Olivier5

In all seriousness, there are still some around in philosophy departments who do not credit animals with the ability to think. I recall one argument where the professor claimed that since animals cannot do what we do, think about what they are going to do next Tuesday or something like that, they cannot be said to think.

There is an interesting and touching new novel by Kazuo Ishiguro called "Klara and the Sun" about an artificial friend. Klara can reason and displays empathy, but is still regarded as an appliance. The book is elegant in its simplicity. A friend who visits this forum also read it and gain it high praise.

I like Descartes as a theorician of the scientific method, but find his view of biology too mechanistic. On the issue of "animal souls" I prefer Gassendi, who said it was a matter of degree, that animals had a 'small soul'.

Remember also the Church's influence here. If man is made at God's image, monkeys aren't. This is still a powerfully pregnant idea, more than a century after Darwin.

Will try and find "Klara and the Sun".

The Good is a meta-principle that explains the function of other, subordinate principles as part of a harmonious whole, i.e., how they all fit together to form a functioning, ordered system. — Apollodorus

That the Good is a meta-principle that explains the function of other, subordinate principles as part of a harmonious whole, is evident from Socrates’ analogy of the Sun:

“The Sun, I presume you will say, not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation … In like manner, then, you are to say that the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the Good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the Good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power … Conceive then, as we were saying, that there are these two entities, and that one of them is sovereign over the intelligible order and region and the other over the world of the eye-ball, not to say the sky-ball, but let that pass. You surely apprehend the two types, the visible and the intelligible” (Republic 509b ff.).

In the same way as the Sun, by means of its light, produces the ability to see and be seen, the Good by means of the light of truth, produces the ability to know and be known. The Good is that which enables us to know the truth, making it possible for us to have knowledge.

What the Sun does in the world of the visible, the Good does in the world of the intelligible:

1. Sensible (visible) world: Sun > light > sight > visible objects.

2. Intelligible (invisible) world: Good > truth > knowledge > known objects.

3. The Sun itself is the "offspring of the Good" (507a).

Thus, the Good is the metaphysical first principle of everything from which truth, i.e., reality emanates.

This makes Plato’s system a form of idealism:

“Plato’s idealism, which asserts the reality of non-physical Ideas to explain the status of norms and then reduces all other reality to mere simulacra of the former might be considered a forerunner of ontological idealism … In contrasting Epicurus with Plato, Leibniz called the latter an idealist and the former a materialist, because according to him idealists like Plato hold that “everything occurs in the soul as if there were no body” …”

Idealism – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

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 (Phaedo 100a)

I assume the existence of a Beautiful, itself by itself, of a Good and a Great and all the rest. (Phaedo 100c)

It this is a principle it is one an assumption, an hypothesis, not something established as true.

He goes on to say, using the Beautiful as his example of his hypothetical causes:

... 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.” (100e)

He does not explain the causal relationship between the Beautiful and what is beautiful. He skips over that important question. One cannot have a principle or principles that explain the whole if the relationship between Forms and things in the world is not explained. This is why Socrates then goes on to reintroduce physical causes as givens, that is, without explanation for what causes them.

The analogy of the sun to the good, is just that, an analogy. It does not explain anything.

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

If the whole includes bad things then the Good cannot be the cause or the explanation of the whole.
As an explanation it is, as he says, naive and perhaps foolish. It says that nothing else makes something good other than the presence of the Good.

Funny how you rejected mention of Leibniz, but now that you think he supports your argument you appeal to him. But let's not chase that round and round.

A principle is an assumption, an hypothesis. — Fooloso4

I think you are confused.

Socrates says quite clearly, “there is another section in which it advances from its assumption to a beginning or principle that transcends assumption” (510b).

A principle that transcends assumption is an unhypothetical principle, i.e., a self-explicable or auto-explicable first principle.

As already stated, all knowledge and all objects of knowledge are emanations of the Good.

Then the good is not the cause of everything, rather it is the cause of the things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things. (Republic 379b) — Fooloso4

And your point is what exactly?

Of course there is no need for the Good "to be responsible for the bad things".

As explained by Plotinus, evil does not exist as a substance or property but instead as a privation of substance, form, and goodness - Plotinus, Enneads, I, 8; O’Brien, D., 1996, “Plotinus on matter and evil,” The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, L.P. Gerson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–195.

What you fail to understand is that the dialogues are just brief sketches, not encyclopedic works. As Socrates says in the analogy, just as you don't look at the Sun to avoid being blinded, you don't look at the Good but at reason in order to see things. Otherwise said, use your reasoning faculty, don't expect to be spoonfed.

First, the assumptions that Socrates describes in the Phaedo are the method by which he proceeds. He assumes the existence of the Good and the Beautiful and the rest. He does not say he knows or sees them. This much is consistent with the description of dialectic in the Republic.

Second, it should be noted that the account of dialectic in the Republic differs from the story of transcendence from the cave. The latter was in terms of what is seen by the soul in some transcendent state. The dialectical is via speech, via the assumptions or hypotheses.

Third, the beginning free of hypothesis or assumption that, in some unexplained way, frees itself from hypothesis or assumption is the beginning or principle. It is what is arrived at only when one has completed the dialectical journey. It is for you not a principle you have arrived at, it is something you assume based on trust or faith.

As already stated, all knowledge and all objects of knowledge are emanations of the Good. — Apollodorus

As already stated, this is not something you know. It is something you accept or believe, an opinion. It is for all of us who do not possess this knowledge nothing more than a shadow on the cave wall.

Of course there is no need for the Good "to be responsible for the bad things". — Apollodorus

Then the Good cannot be the cause of the whole.

As explained by Plotinus — Apollodorus

Plotinus is not Plato. In whatever way evil exists it still exists, it is part of the whole, part of the world we live in. No adequate account of the whole can ignore or explain away the existence of bad things. The Good as the cause of existence and being (509b) must be the cause of bad things, for there are bad things, bad things exist.

What you fail to understand is that the dialogues are just brief sketches, not encyclopedic works. — Apollodorus

A non-sequitur. It is not a matter of the dialogues being encyclopedic but of them being self-consistent, both on their own and all together.

use your reasoning faculty — Apollodorus

Noesis is not a reasoning faculty. It is not dianoia. That is the point. We cannot transcend reason by the use of reason. Unless you can free yourself from hypothesis and know the Forms themselves they remain for you hypotheses, assumptions, something you accept on faith, something you believe because someone told you it is true.

don't expect to be spoonfed. — Apollodorus

Apparently, you do not see that this is exactly what is happening. You take statements at face value and go no further, as if the truth has been revealed. It is said and thus it is. Fine for revealed religion but not for philosophy.

Apparently, you do not see that this is exactly what is happening. You take statements at face value and go no further, as if the truth has been revealed. It is said and thus it is. Fine for revealed religion but not for philosophy. — Fooloso4

Not at all. As usual, you seem to be alternating between diversion and evasion, on one hand and puerile ad hominems on the other, in the false hope that this is somehow miraculously going to save you even though you have already lost the argument. It looks like atheism is a form of religion after all :grin:

The fact of the matter is that Socrates advises the readers to use reason. And reason leads to noesis. Philosophy is a process of ascent from lower to higher forms of knowledge, remember?

Of course the dialogues are sufficiently self consistent. But the consistency only becomes apparent when viewed in the light of idealism, not materialist atheism and nihilism.

Funny how you rejected mention of Leibniz, but now that you think he supports your argument you appeal to him. — Fooloso4

Totally untrue. I never "rejected mention of Leibniz" at all. I rejected your preposterous claim that according to Leibniz Plato was a covert atheist as were Ibn Sina, Clement of Alexandria, and Plato himself.

I can quote your own statements anytime should you wish me to do so.

How do you know that dialectics leads to knowledge of the Good? You accept it as an article of faith.

Socrates also says this about dialectic:

Don't you notice how great is the harm coming from the practice of dialectic these days?

If dialectic leads to knowledge of the good how is it that it can be a dangerous practice? How can it lead to both the good and its opposite?

Is Socrates lying when he says that he is ignorant? After all, he has no aversion to noble lies. But in what way might that be a noble lie? Perhaps it is something else he is lying about. What would he lie about that would be of benefit to both the individual and the city? It would have to be something noble or beautiful and good. Something that would inspire them to seek the beautiful and good itself. Something that would help to make their souls beautiful and good.

I can quote your own statements anytime should you wish me to do so. — Apollodorus

Yes, please do and don't leave anything out, including your own statements.

I can quote your own statements anytime should you wish me to do so.
— Apollodorus

Yes, please do and don't leave anything out, including your own statements. — Fooloso4

Do you need more time? I'm not surprised. It takes a very long time to find something that is not there.

Not at all, I just hadn't realized you were still there. But I see you're still looking for evidence of Plato's non-existent "atheism" .... :grin:

Anyway, as I said, I think you deliberately misunderstood Socrates' analogy.

Socrates compares knowledge with perception, right?

In physical perception such as sight, the Sun radiates light which enables the faculty of sight through which objects become visible and are seen.

Similarly, the Good emanates truth which enables the faculty of knowledge through which objects become knowable and are known.

In the case of visual perception, the sequence is:

Sun > light > sight > object seen.

In the case of knowledge, the sequence is:

Good > truth > knowledge > object known.

The inner organ of knowledge is reason through which we engage in discursive thought (dianoia) to arrive at valid knowledge. But reason is inseparably connected with the nous through which we know by means of non-discursive or “intuitive” apprehension (noesis). In turn, the nous is connected with truth and its source, the Good.

What Socrates is saying is that in the same way we avoid looking directly at the Sun and look at its reflection in water, etc., we must avoid looking directly at the Good and start by looking at the objects of knowledge and the reasoning faculty whereby we know them.

The purpose of philosophical thought is to train the reasoning faculty to operate in harmony with the intuitive faculty and thus in harmony with truth and the Good.

Dialectic is only dangerous when reason is used incorrectly and out of sync with the nous/truth/Good.
There is nothing contradictory there.

I think you have agreed that according to Plato, philosophy is a way of life. But a way of life necessitates some form of intellectual framework that guides us in everyday life.

This is what Plato presents in the dialogues. It may not be perfect in the absolute sense of the word, but it doesn’t have to be, as long as it is sufficiently clear to provide a form of guidance on the basis of which we can live our lives both outwardly and inwardly.

I can quote your own statements anytime should you wish me to do so.
— Apollodorus

Yes, please do and don't leave anything out, including your own statements.
— Fooloso4

Do you need more time? I'm not surprised. It takes a very long time to find something that is not there. — Fooloso4

A feeble attempt to dodge. If this had been the only time I would have just moved on as I did elsewhere, but it is dishonest. You misrepresent what I say, claim you can quote where I said it, and when you are called out just pretend you never said it.

Anyway, as I said, I think you deliberately misunderstood Socrates' analogy. — Apollodorus

Please point to where I misunderstood him. The analogy stuff is obvious. Unless you possess knowledge of the good it all remains at the level of talk. Something you accept as a matter of faith.

Dialectic is only dangerous when reason is used incorrectly and out of sync with the nous/truth/Good.
There is nothing contradictory there. — Apollodorus

How do we know that it is being used incorrectly and out of sync with the nous/truth/Good. If it is what leads to nous/truth/Good then when cannot say while on the journey that it is out of sync with what we do not yet know.

But a way of life necessitates some form of intellectual framework that guides us in everyday life. — Apollodorus

That is your assumption. One that I think is wrong and contrary to Socratic philosophy. It is zetetic, guided by inquiry. Any form of intellectual framework must be subject to critical examination.

This is what Plato presents in the dialogues. — Apollodorus

It has been pointed out to you several times and by more than one person, the dialogues often end in aporia.

as long as it is sufficiently clear to provide a form of guidance on the basis of which we can live our lives both outwardly and inwardly. — Apollodorus

You clearly bring your Christian biases to bear on your reading of Plato.

You misrepresent what I say, claim you can quote where I said it, and when you are called out just pretend you never said it. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but I think what you are saying is totally and utterly untrue. It is you who is pretending that you never said it. You said Plato and/or Socrates secretly teaches "atheism" and now you say that you didn't.

Anyway, you are free to retract your statements, so it doesn't matter. What's the big deal?

Here it is again:

Totally untrue. I never "rejected mention of Leibniz" at all. I rejected your preposterous claim that according to Leibniz Plato was a covert atheist as were Ibn Sina, Clement of Alexandria, and Plato himself.

I can quote your own statements anytime should you wish me to do so. — Apollodorus

And again:

Yes, please do and don't leave anything out, including your own statements. — Fooloso4

And now, since you are unable to do that you further misrepresent it.

And, of course, all this bluster and noise provides a good cover by which you can avoid the substantive issues such as those raised in my last post regarding dialectic and Socratic philosophy.

all this bluster and noise provides a good cover by which you can avoid the substantive issues such as those raised in my last post regarding dialectic and Socratic philosophy. — Fooloso4

What "bluster and noise"? I have conclusively shown that Socrates' dialectic is sound and is quite capable of producing valid knowledge when correctly understood and applied:

What Socrates is saying is that in the same way we avoid looking directly at the Sun and look at its reflection in water, etc., we must avoid looking directly at the Good and start by looking at the objects of knowledge and the reasoning faculty whereby we know them.

The purpose of philosophical thought is to train the reasoning faculty to operate in harmony with the intuitive faculty and thus in harmony with truth and the Good. — Apollodorus

You even claimed to have correctly understood Socrates' analogy of the Sun. And yet you are saying that dialectic is "dangerous" and that Plato's concept of the Good is "foolish", in addition to claiming that he was a secret teacher of "atheism".

So, essentially, what you seem to be doing is to describe Plato in negative terms every time someone tries to extract something positive from the dialogues, and in positive term when you yourself believe to have discovered something negative in him, such as "atheism".

Surely, you must see the logical inconsistency and contradiction in your position?

I have conclusively shown that Socrates' dialectic is sound and is quite capable of producing valid knowledge when correctly understood and applied — Apollodorus

You have not shown anything. You have quoted spoonfed passages. An analogy does not show that dialectic is "sound". If dialectic is capable of producing knowledge of the Good then why don't you know the good itself? Why does Socrates say he is ignorant and is only giving his opinion on this. I have already cited the passages and followed the arguments.

You even claimed to have correctly understood Socrates' analogy of the Sun. — Apollodorus

Yes, and as an analogy I understand it as such.

And yet you are saying that dialectic is "dangerous" — Apollodorus

I am not saying it, I quoted the text.

Plato's concept of the Good is "foolish" — Apollodorus

Please quote where I said that.

I won't ask again for you to point out where I said what you accused me of saying above, because as you know, your accusation is a fabrication. Each time you do this you become less and less credible. It really shows the weakness of your arguments when you have to resort to such misrepresentations.

Please quote where I said that. — Fooloso4

As usual, you make a claim, then deny having made it, keep asking when you made it, and then you accuse others of repeating themselves when they show you that you actually made it!

Anyway, this is your statement:

If the whole includes bad things then the Good cannot be the cause or the explanation of the whole.
As an explanation it is, as he says, naive and perhaps foolish — Fooloso4

And I also explained to you that evil does not exist as a substance or property but as an absence of substance, form, and goodness. That's why it is experienced as evil or bad. This is what evil is, the absence of good.

And, of course, evil can also be excess, not only privation, as pointed out by Aristotle and others.

So, I don't think it is as "naive and foolish" as you claim. In fact, there are many theories of evil none of which are 100% satisfactory. All of them have their limitations. Plato's isn't any worse than others.

If you don't like Plato, you are free to invent your own system. But from what I see you can't even find evidence for your claim that Plato was an atheist. Yours is an unfounded fringe position.

The mainstream position is that Platonism is a form of metaphysical idealism.

You have chosen to take the fringe position according to which Socrates and Plato were secret teachers of “atheism”. Nothing wrong with this, but you have failed to establish your position as I said you would from the start.

You have used Socrates’ trial in an attempt to show he was an atheist.

But the fact of the matter is that Socrates was not tried for atheism but for “impiety” or “irreverence” on the grounds that he “introduced new deities”. Hence, not atheism but at the most religious reform.

As Plato was not tried for anything, the strategy you adopted in his case was that he was teaching atheism secretly for fear of being take to court like Socrates.

In support of your theory, you cited Clement of Alexandria and Ibn Sina who, apparently, believed that Plato and/or the Greeks in general, concealed secrets in their writings.

You also cited Leibniz. But Leibniz actually classified Plato as an idealist which contradicts your argument.

Ibn Sina may have said that Plato and Aristotle were teaching secrets. But these secrets need not have been atheism.

“Secrets” could mean a number of things, e.g., knowledge unknown to the general public, allegorical passages referring to metaphysical realities, etc.

If the Church Fathers thought that Plato taught atheism, it is unlikely they would have chosen Platonic philosophy in support of their own teachings. In fact, Plato was regarded as a type of Ur-Christian.

Certainly, every moderately well-educated person in antiquity would have said that Plato’s teachings are about “becoming as godlike as possible”. Plato taught that man can become godlike by living a virtuous or righteous life:

“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” (Theaethetus 176a – b).

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Asection%3D176b

This became a central teaching of the Christian Gospels:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God” (John 1:12).
“He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came” (John 10:35).
“The people who are right with God will shine like the sun in their Father's kingdom” (Matthew 13: 43).
“So try to be like God, because you are his own dear children” (Ephesians 5:1).

In fact, we find that Plato’s disciple Aristotle was appointed head of the philosophical Academy of Macedon under King Philip II and tutor to his son Alexander.

Taking Plato’s teachings somewhat too literally, Phillip had already announced his wish to be treated as godlike or isotheos. Alexander himself followed in his father’s steps and declared himself a God: following his conquest of Egypt, he adopted the pharaonic title of “Son of God Re” and became “Son of Zeus” to the Greeks.

But Alexander was also a great promoter of Greek culture, including philosophy, which he propagated from Egypt to Persia and India, and so were his successors like Ptolemy Soter, the founder of the great library of Alexandria (Egypt) where the works of Plato and Aristotle held a place of honor. Under official state patronage, Platonism became the dominant philosophical school. And this would hardly have happened had Plato been a teacher of atheism.

In short, this is how Platonism was seen by Platonists and scholars from antiquity into the 19th century.

In the 1800’s under the influence of “enlightenment” ideas, liberalism, and "humanism", new schools of thought emerged, in particular, Christian Socialism and Fabian Socialism that began to “reinterpret” Plato in line with their political agendas.

The Fabians were particularly influential in leading universities like the London School of Economics and Political Science, Cambridge, and Oxford, where they sought to deconstruct Platonism as far as they could.

Judging by your posts, I had long suspected that you have been influenced by the Fabian Socialist authors of the 1930’s and, by your admission, Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein who started they career in the 1930’s.

I have shown that Strauss was an advocate of esotericism with close links to Fabian Socialism which explains your otherwise inexplicable fringe position.

"After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Higher Institute for Jewish Studies in Berlin for Paris,” after which he made his way to the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which had been founded by the Fabians and was funded by Rockefeller foundations.

“Some time during 1934, R. H. Tawney, at that time professor of economic history at the London School of Economics and at the very height of his academic fame and intellectual powers, took pity on an unknown, unemployed German-Jewish scholar, one recently exiled from his land of birth, and much in need of professional patronage and institutional preferment. His name was Leo Strauss.” - S. J. D. Green, “The Tawney-Strauss Connection: On Historicism and Values in the History of Political Ideas”, The Journal of Modern History Vol. 67, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 255-277 (23 pages) The University of Chicago Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2125059

Tawney was a member of the Fabian Society executive committee and Strauss became a close friend of his.

"Strauss moved in 1937 to the United States, under the patronage of Harold Laski"

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

Laski was a notorious Marxist and leading member of the Fabian Society executive committee, who frequently moved between the LSE and Rockefeller-funded US universities like Harvard and Columbia which had become centers of Fabian Socialism (which prompted David Rockefeller himself to write a thesis on Fabianism).

"Laski was one of Britain's most influential intellectual spokesmen for Communism in the interwar years".

"Laski returned to England in 1920 and began teaching government at the London School of Economics (LSE)"

And, "Strauss's closest friend was Jacob Klein" - Wikipedia

And now to Strauss’s teachings:

"Turning to the context of Strauss’s claims about esotericism helps to unravel a number of other important themes in his work, including what he calls the “theologico-political predicament of modernity,” the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns, and the relation between revelation and philosophy (what Strauss also calls “Jerusalem and Athens”)"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/#Cont

"In the late 1930s his [Strauss'] research focused on the rediscovery of esoteric writing, thereby a new illumination of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory."

Together with Fabian Socialists like Walter Lippmann, Strauss became a major influence on the intellectual classes of the time. However, his views were highly controversial from the start:

"Strauss's works were highly controversial during his own lifetime ... Strauss offered a deliberately provocative account of what might be called the "modernity problem" that had been widely debated in prewar European circles, but which was still relatively unknown to Americans of that era ...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/chapters/0625-1st-smith.html

If we add other writers like Bertrand Russell, G E Moore, G L Dickinson, R Crossman, etc., we can clearly see an anti-Platonist movement led by liberals, Christian Socialists and Fabian Socialists with a political agenda.

So, “Christian Socialism”, "Fabian Socialism", strange “reinterpretations” of Platonism, appeal to “puzzles” concerning analysis, "esotericism", “secret atheism”, etc., etc. All 1930’s politically-motivated, pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

You do not read with anything close to sufficient attention when you read at all. I quoted Plato and you call it "your statement". I correct you and you do the same thing again.

It is a willful blindness born of fear. Not only do you ignore my arguments, you ignore Plato's own. You dismiss the work of generations of scholars without having read a single page of their work because their teacher was born in the 30's and was helped to emigrate from Nazi Germany by scholars who were socialist.

This would be comically shallow except for the fact that this is the same kind of thing that led to McCarthyism in the US and ruined the lives of many people.

Except in your case it is Nazism. When you first came here you touted the work of Kerry Bolton. The connection is clear. By your own logic anyone who opposes Nazism would dismiss what you say because of this connection.

He is involved in several nationalist and fascist political groups in New Zealand.

In 1980, Bolton co-founded the New Zealand branch of the Church of Odin, a pro-Nazi organisation for "whites of non-Jewish descent".

He founded the national-socialist Order of the Left Hand Path (OLHP).It was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis"

Bolton created and edited the Black Order newsletter, The Flaming Sword, and its successor, The Nexus, a satanic-Nazi journal

And to defend Bolton you cited Kevin B. MacDonald.

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[4]

:rofl: Good try. Unfortunately for you, I never "touted" anything. It was a book I had just picked up and it discussed the rising use of psychological analysis in politics which myself and others here found an interesting topic.

So, I'm afraid you are clutching at straws there. According to you, first I was a "Christian evangelist", then a "Neoplatonist", and now I am supposed to be an "anti-semite" just because I disagree with Strauss and with you.

By your logic, anyone who disagrees with Marx is a "Nazi" and "war criminal". But I think by now you have amply demonstrated that logic (or even common sense) isn't your strength. To be quite honest, I think you may have some psychological issues that you need to address.

In any case, I don't think you are doing yourself a service by carrying on like this, but as I said, you can do as you please.

It was a book I had just picked up ... — Apollodorus

The mods edited out a lot of what you said.

So, I'm afraid you are clutching at straws there. — Apollodorus

No, I am doing exactly what you did with Strauss, except in this case the evidence is stronger. You use the "psychological analysis" of a self-professed Nazi to support your own bias against socialism.

You object to being associated with the author of the book you touted, but can't seem to see that it is by a similar association you dismiss not only Strauss but generations of scholars who learned from him.

You object to being associated with the author of the book you touted, but can't seem to see that it is by a similar association you dismiss not only Strauss but generations of scholars who learned from him. — Fooloso4

Only in your imagination. You volunteered to tell us that Strauss is one of your most important scholars whose ideas you are using in defense of your spurious theory.

But Strauss's ideas were very controversial from the start. He didn't demonstrate that Plato was an atheist and neither have you.

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.

Of course he did not demonstrate that! — Fooloso4

So, you actually agree with me.

Strauss of course did not demonstrate that Plato was an atheist. And neither have you.

I don't know what you hope to achieve by denying what you have already admitted.