I did not get a chance to read the posts that were deleted, but it is certain that they were not substantive or on topic. As you said, it was a moderator who thought they should be deleted.
Unfortunately, you have become a target too — Fooloso4

Apparently they have no problem with overdrawn personal feuds. — Olivier5

Unfortunately, the misrepresentations and lies continue. Such blatant dishonesty:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555262

I will leave it stand. As an example.

My concern is that it will not stop - not particularly from the point of view of being a 'target' - but that any further threads concerning Plato's Dialogues will suffer the same fate.

I prefer now to read and consider any Dialogue in peace.
Hope that others continue in good spirit...

I mentioned Luke, not John, and the good Samaritan parable — Olivier5

As usual, you aren't paying attention. As I pointed out to @Frank, the narrative is in the third person and this applies to John, Luke, or any other Gospel text.

"In reply Jesus said ... " (Luke 10:30).

It's exactly like Plato writing, "Socrates said". No difference whatsoever. There is no need to bring the Bible into it and it is obviously off topic.

God is justice, not formalistic piety. — Olivier5

Of course. That's why justice was divine as in Goddess Dike. I never disputed that.

It isn't about you either. You keep cluttering up the thread with irrelevant statements.

In other words same old shit. Be careful! Soon "Euthodorus" will include you in his personal vendetta.

What suggestion is that? That the moral of the dialogue is "there are forms and ideas"? — Olivier5

Plato was upper-class and he wrote for the educated upper classes. He also believed in a tripartite soul reflecting the three classes of Athenian society, etc.

What if his dialogues have several layers of meaning intended for different social, intellectual, and spiritual classes, such as (1) the unawakened, (2) the awakened, and (3) the wide-awakened or enlightened?

According to this scheme, @Fooloso4's interpretation would seem to pertain to the lowest social/intellectual/spiritual class of readers. Obviously, this is just a hypothetical suggestion. But I believe it to be true.

He's talking of what we nowadays call concepts, and their definition — Olivier5

Please re-read my earlier posts. Terms like "idea" and "paradeigma" would evoke the concept of "Forms" in the mind of those familiar with Platonic thought. @Fooloso4 has already admitted this.

That's a style of enquiry more that a metaphysical message. — Olivier5

"Style of inquiry" that in association with the concept of "Forms" that it evokes in those familiar with Platonic thought, produces a metaphysical message.

Very simple. Though, possibly, too complex for the intellectually or metaphysically challenged to grasp.

but if if he had asked Socrates "define justice", I bet Socrates would have struggled too. — Olivier5

This is part of his knowledge of his ignorance. As long as we cannot say what justice itself is we can only have opinions about whether something just or unjust and no standard by which to measure.

That just has to be the absolute best one-liner in TPF history.

Very funny indeed. However, the text says "all the Gods":

"I should say that what all the Gods love is holy" (9e).

"All the Gods" obviously means "the divine", to theion, or God.

I can see no reason why the divine/God would hate itself/himself.

Why would the good hate itself?

This is relevant to the ongoing nature of this thread, the content of which is suffering, as per:

But what I'm saying is that some of your formulations (e.g. "On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence", "In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self") sound more like narcissistic self-aggrandizement — baker

It is unfortunate but I think you have a point. Anyone following this thread closely will have noted a pattern of behaviour showing signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. Unfortunately, @Fooloso4 has been the main target. Anyone else showing support has been likewise treated with disdain. There is a tendency to belittle people so as to validate own sense of superiority. There are plenty of posts both here and on the other thread 'Plato's Phaedo' which, if they haven't been deleted by mods, provide evidence.
A consistent disregard of others' wishes and feelings combined with a need to control - not addressing the careful responses given with patience. And so on...
--------
Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555886

I showed my son this thread and he laughed at how your challengers don't actually respond to your comments as given. That is what is funny. — Valentinus

It actually isn't funny at all. But if your son can see it...then he is more astute than some. Well done.

--------

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

In other words, it leads to typical troll behavior. — Olivier5

Yes. And still it goes on. With bells and whistles attached.

--------
From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555379

Unfortunately, the misrepresentations and lies continue. Such blatant dishonesty:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555262
I will leave it stand. As an example.

My concern is that it will not stop - not particularly from the point of view of being a 'target' - but that any further threads concerning Plato's Dialogues will suffer the same fate.
I prefer now to read and consider any Dialogue in peace.
Hope that others continue in good spirit... — Amity

--------

Mods. This needs to be addressed. Please reconsider the previous complaints and issues raised.

-------

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

In other words, it leads to typical troll behavior. — Olivier5

I have no reason to believe that "God is everything" leads to typical troll behaviour. I cannot find any way of making sense of "God is everything", at least not if "God" refers to some supernatural entity.

Right. This thread is about the Greek arguments concerning the origins of piety, goodness, and justice... isn't it?

That's been my focus.

I said "essentially":

Of course Platonists see Platonism as essentially one system. "Platonism", "Middle Platonism", "Neoplatonism", etc., are modern concepts that make no sense to Platonists, as shown by Gerson. — Apollodorus

Of course there were some modifications or, rather, expansions of the Platonic teachings. But the original texts remained the same and any modifications or expansions of the system were essentially consistent with the original blueprint, as shown by Gerson and others.

IMHO there is no evidence that Plato was an atheist. Period/full stop.

My difference with "Fooloso4", although I don't think very highly of Plato or of his political ideas. — Olivier5

I do think highly of Plato. I think the Laws rather than the Republic are better representative of his political thinking, but we live in a very different world. I think that one advantage of Plato, and Aristotle as well, is that political philosophy is about more than just political order. They lead us to reflect upon more than just political expediency, on questions of how we ought to live and what are desires and goals are as a community and country.

There is also zero evidence that "the Platonic tradition" wasn't grossly distorted by the neo-platonists. — Olivier5

And because there is zero evidence that it wasn't, presumably that means that it was. Great logic.

On the other hand, the fact is that Aristotle was a member of Plato’s Academy and he became Alexander’s teacher in 343 BC. Alexander was a great promoter of Greek language and culture including philosophy and this tradition was continued by his successors. In addition to Athens, Alexandria became a major center of learning and the seat of a major philosophical school in the Platonic tradition.

With royal patronage, Platonism became an established philosophical system that became part of higher education throughout the Greek (and later Roman) empire. Being based on Plato and Aristotle’s own works which were transmitted unchanged, it couldn’t have undergone too many changes.

In fact, modifications were far from arbitrary and were introduced solely for the purpose of increasing the inner logical coherence within the system. Platonists like Plotinus took great care to be as faithful to the original as possible and of course copies of original manuscripts were always available for reference.

At any rate, IMHO the very fact that Plato’s works and teachings were sponsored by the state would seem to indicate that they did not promote atheism.

It follows that Socrates was the prototypical agnostic. — Olivier5

His defense in the Apology was his "human wisdom" his knowledge of his ignorance. He also said that the oracle proclaimed that no one was wiser than Socrates. That is, no one has knowledge of such things.

It follows that Socrates was the prototypical agnostic. — Olivier5

His defense in the Apology was his "human wisdom" his knowledge of his ignorance. — Fooloso4

It is logically possible that Socrates was an agnostic.

As to his "ignorance", it says nothing about his religious beliefs and even less about those of Plato.

This raises the question of what Plato is up to when he has Socrates tell stories of transcendent knowledge. Platonists take these stories to be revealed truth, but Socrates says they are him opinion, not things he knows. So on the one hand we have Socratic skepticism and on the other a mythology posing as truth.