I don't see that at all — Wayfarer

Don't see what?

I think it's almost universally taken to be something like shape - — Wayfarer

I take them to be what we would call ideas. Your visual field is made up of lines and shades. You use ideas to make sense of it. Or you could say that the object you see is a fusion of idea and light.

Heidegger wrote about how this works in the Origin of the Work of Art.

Of course my interpretation is my interpretation! — Fooloso4

:clap:

An academic approach to Plato would not settle in any one interpretation, but would just explain what we know about the times and the various ways Plato has been interpreted since. — frank

This aspect of history makes it confusing to hear your use of "Neoplatonist" against the way the term is commonly used to refer to philosophers in the "Hellenistic" period. Your interpretation of what is religious or not requires as much from you that you ask from anybody else.

the term is commonly used to refer to philosophers in the "Hellenistic" period. — Paine

That's early neoplatonism. The younger version is associated with the Renaissance. But any novel interpretation could be labeled "a brand of neoplatonism.".

You have an idea that needs clarification if it is to be observed by others.

You didn't know there was early and late neoplatonism?

If you are not interested in explaining your idea, I am not interested in such a leading question. For all I know, you are reciting opinions rather than responding to texts you have read.
There is no way to tell.

If you want to know about late neoplatonism, look up Ficino.

How does that reference relate to my challenge regarding your use of the term Neoplatonist?

I am curious enough to check him out.

I am curious enough to check him out — Paine

:up: He's awesome. Enjoy.

I sense a lack of interest in my challenges.

frank
I sense a lack of interest in my challenges. — Paine

You sense correctly.

But any novel interpretation could be labeled "a brand of neoplatonism.". — frank

You could label it this way, but who else labels it this way? Unless you can cite this as established usage by historians it means no more than that you can label anything any way you want.

So, maybe be less ready to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty since you are not interested in supporting your own opinions.

You could label it this way, but who else labels it this way? Unless you can cite this as established usage by historians it means no more than that you can label anything any way you want. — Fooloso4

You already admitted that you were offering a personal interpretation, so whether it qualifies as neoplatonism is a moot point.

So, maybe be less ready to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty since you are not interested in supporting your own opinions. — Paine

I don't even know what you're talking about. :meh:

Exactly.

:up:

So, a modern Thrasymachus.

Equally uncapable of arguing for themself as the first one.

Yeah, whatever.

A pretty good translation of what he said.

A pretty good translation of what he said. — Paine

If you have an actual point relevant to the topic, feel free to make it.

You used the term 'neoplatonist' to describe all interpretations of Plato not included by Plato. It has another widely accepted meaning referring to an historical framework you also insist upon. You make no effort to reconcile the different uses. That suggests to me that you are taking the sophistical approach of Thrasymachus rather than an honest attempt to understand the texts available to us.

This makes no sense. You claimed that my interpretation is a brand of neoplatonism. You have not been able to make an argument in defense of that claim. Now you claim it's a moot point. It is not a moot point, unless by moot you mean nonsense.

I think we've derailed the thread long enough, but if your point is that novel interpretations of Plato shouldn't be called neoplatonic because it cause confusion, then fine.

I did say Fooloso was expressing a brand of neoplatonism. For some reason, that wasn't enough to make the distinction clear. Let's drop it, now

This makes no sense. You claimed that my interpretation is a brand of neoplatonism. You have not been able to make an argument in defense of that claim. Now you claim it's a moot point. It is not a moot point, unless by moot you mean nonsense. — Fooloso4

You did admit that what you expressed was your own personal interpretation of Plato. That's the point I was making.

You already admitted that you were offering a personal interpretation, so whether it qualifies as neoplatonism is a moot point.

That's the point I was making. — frank

You have made one point that I agree with:

Let's drop it, now — frank

And one that I partially agree with:

... we've [you've] derailed the thread long enough [much too long] — frank

You already admitted that you were offering a personal interpretation, so whether it qualifies as neoplatonism is a moot point.

Sure frank. You claim that my interpretation is a brand of neoplatonism, but when you cannot support that claim you say it is a moot point. If it is a moot point then why make the claim?

I think it odd that you think that in offering an interpretation I must "admit" that it is an interpretation. What else could it be? What does the qualification "personal" mean here?

What is at issue in interpreting Plato, for reasons I cited above, is how closely the interpretation tracks to the text. How well it makes sense of the particulars and fits them together to form the whole. Whether one comes to a better understanding of what Plato is saying. Whether it helps you see things that went unnoticed. Whether the interpretation helps you see it in a new light,

But, it should go without saying, this is not the only way to interpret a text or even a Platonic text.