Any Platonists?
Hello!
I've decided to get more into the Platonists. I started noticing that my favorite parts of Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, and Islamic Sufis was the platonic/Neoplatonic elements. So I'm starting with Plato's Republic and Plotinus' Eneads.
Any other Plato fans or scholars on here?
I've decided to get more into the Platonists. I started noticing that my favorite parts of Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, and Islamic Sufis was the platonic/Neoplatonic elements. So I'm starting with Plato's Republic and Plotinus' Eneads.
Any other Plato fans or scholars on here?
Comments (51)
From my ignorance, what does it mean to be a Plato fan? What does it take to be a Platonist?
That categories are real and true, and the universe is ultimately knowable by the mind.
I meant in just a very basic sense of a fan. Someone is also familiar with Plato or the Neoplatonist and is a good person to ask questions or bounce ideas off. Gnostics definitely fall into the category :)
Being Platonist is more tricky but someone who draws key elements of their thought from Plato's writings. But wouldn't that make most philosophers Platonists? Haha.
I've read a little Plato. I must admit it seemed pretty klunky. I guess that's true of a lot of really old things. It seems klunky now, but it set the standard for everything that has been done since. I look forward to being educated.
I'm by no means a Plato scholar, not ever having had the benefit of education in the Classics; my knowledge is patchy. But I'm definitely a fan. I believe I once had an epiphany about 'the nature of number', along these lines: whilst phenomena - existing things - have a beginning and an end in time, and are composed of parts, numbers do not. (Afterwards I realised that strictly speaking the latter is only true of prime numbers.) Numbers are the same for anyone who is capable of rational thought, and they don't begin to exist, or cease existing. In fact, they don't exist at all in the sense that tables and chairs do - but they're real nonetheless! So with that, I felt I had had an insight into the meaning of number in the Pythagorean and Platonic tradition: that it was like an insight into a domain that was in some sense beyond the 'realm of the senses'.
I delved into that a little and discovered that this kind of intuition is the basis of 'Platonic realism'. Platonic realism means something entirely different to today's scientific realism: platonist realism holds that intelligible objects, such as numbers, geometric forms, and universals, are real. That is, they're not 'made up' by society, and they're not 'all in the mind' - although they can only be grasped by a mind, which is part of the point. But they have a kind or level of reality, which is different, and superior to, the reality of mere things; things are at best the instantiations of the ideal (and incorporeal) proportions, ratios, and forms which comprise the intelligible (or formal) realm.
However, this point was the subject of an immense debate that was conducted for centuries in medieval times, between the 'realists' (in the above, Platonic sense) and their opponents, the nominalists (William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, and many others). It was a very detailed debate, often couched in the very arcane language of medieval philosophical theology, thus very hard to penetrate. But as I understand it, the eventual triumph of nominalism was a watershed in Western thought - and not necessarily a positive one.
Nowadays the school which preserves that idea of the 'intelligible object' is neo-Thomism or neo-Scholasticism, which incorporates the ideas of Aquinas and Aristotle in updated form. A good reference for that is Edward Feser's books and blog; also this post.
As for the nature of Platonism and how it is different from modern naturalism, a good reference for that is Lloyd Gerson, who is probably the leading academic on Platonism. (Have a look at this lecture, Platonism vs Naturalism. A particularly interesting passage occurs around 43:00 on Aristotle's argument for the immaterial nature of intellect).
Another useful snippet is this passage on Augustine and Intelligible Objects.
Also this wikipedia entry on The Analogy of the Divided Line.
Quoting T Clark
I do know what you mean. Despite my enthusiasm for it, I find the prospect of studying it properly very daunting, as it has been the subject of such vast literature for so many centuries; it is the prototype 'dusty tome in University library'. But there are many nuggets, or even veins, running through it. Older I get, the more I appreciate Plato is the intellectual forbear of Western culture.
A lot of philosophical writing strikes me as "clunky" or "klunky" and a lot of it segues into "murky" and finally, the kind of writing that one would get from 100 monkeys klacking away on mechanical typewriters for 1 million years. Some of it would be quite good, some of it would be readable, some of it would be opaque,
I have always rejected most of what I have read in philosophy. I figure - I'm a smart guy, I can figure this out for myself. I mean, the world is just sitting there waiting, right? I must admit that some of the discussions on this forum have sent me off to the library. There are a lot of people on this forum who know a lot and I want to be able to talk to them. I'll even consider looking at Plato again.
Also another article by her, Godel on the Nature of Mathematical Truth.
That's a pretty good little animation, and a great little discussion.
Namely, how can computers, which are by most standards logical entities that create a 'logical space' where their computations become manifest, are able to also model mathematical truths and relationships so accurately?
I also view Godel's Incompleteness Theorems as a sort of limit on the scope of what computers might be able to model or represent logically or mathematically.
But as Jeremiah in my other thread pointed out maybe I should just worry about what's relevant or useful. I'm not so sure about Forms and Realism and all that. However when Plato says Book 1 of the Republic (which I just finished) says the soul only works to guide us when it is of just character, in same way an eye only works when it's not blind. That is something I can really use in my life. I can be a "Platonist" in that sense, seeking virtue and a closer awareness (Plotinus says assimilation) with the One. This is a certain way of reading Plato that I think is just as valid as going really into his logical proofs or cosmology.
Again the gnostics would be pretty close as well, though differing in a few key areas. The gnostics are pretty popular these days, maybe I'll find some of them online. I'll take forum or Facebook recommendations if anyone has any.
If you're interested in only what's 'relevant or useful' then you've probably joined the wrong forum. ;-)
When someone is confronted by a beggar on the street, their first response will be emotional -- either empathy or loathing. No reasoning about poverty, provisions for the poor, and so forth will arise (from that part of our brain that reasons) UNTIL there is a need to justify what one has already decided to do. Whether one is moved to drop a dollar into the outstretched hand, or kick the beggar in the gut, reason will put together a suitable rationale.
There have been endless teach-ins, seminars, committee meetings, editorials, essays, etc. written about the goodness or badness of this or that war. People generally arrive at these events and documents with minds made up. How did they make them up? Mostly emotion, a little reasoning. Go to a large, effectively run demonstration for or against any cause and you will be in danger of being convinced by the smell and roar of the crowd, not by the speeches.
Are we puppets to emotion? No more than we are puppets to reason. We'll attend the kinds of demonstrations we feel good about, and we'll come away (chances are) feeling even better about it. We might pick up the literature, read it, remember it, and quote it but our quoting will move very few people to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the statements. Are they just too stupid and close minded to understand? Not at all.
Why are some people against war? Because they are afraid they will get swept up in it, first and foremost. They are afraid what war will do their lives (not lives in general, T•H•E•I•R lives).
We reason where emotion has nothing to offer. :How can I determine whether "2" or "181" are prime numbers?" Nothing very emotion-provoking about that kind of problem, but one might feel emotion if one can't figure it out, or if one finds a really good solution (like googling prime numbers).
i don't agree with everything they're saying. I agree that truth and objectivity are possible, but that doesn't mean that they, or I have attained it. Particularly the part about empathy favoring the cute, and not the ugly, and we can't have that. Are they then beyond that, and really don't trouble themselves with such human concerns, their significant others could look, and smell like a rotting corpse for all they care? They certainly have not transcended their emotions, and animalistic inclinations. Life is fundamentally different for Frankenstein than it is for a rock star. Just not killing them, perhaps telling them how beautiful they are out of pity will never change that. Their experiences of the world, and society will be fundamentally different. Monsters are made, by being treated as such. You can't understand another's position without walking in their shoes and all that. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone that imagines a class of people that are cruel and foolish, and themselves enlightened and good. That it was solely reason that was responsible for the changes over time is clearly not true. It's way more complex than that, rather than the ignorant masses running around being stupid and evil until supermen showed up to save them, most people, just as today were just living their lives, and sometimes killing people by accident because they were drunk, or out of passion. The people are utilized as pieces with deception coercion, or necessity. Either some political, religious, or hatemongering ideology, or because they were starving or in the midst of a disaster.
I do definitely believe in truth, and goodness, but I think that is damn hard to attain. I think that religions are the greatest sources of them. Thinking that they were ignorant plebs, and us brilliant moderns until the even more brilliant future people come along pays our ancestors a great disservice. It wasn't just reason itself, but the emotional maturity that is capable through the refinement, and transformations of our natures through the virtues espoused in all great religions.
Reason, truth, is universal in my view, not us, and not ours. We are those emotions, and through reason, can be transformed, but we have to listen.
That's pretty funny! If I wanted things that were useful in the sense of helping me get my car fixed or lose weight, I wouldn't turn to philosophy at all. I studied with a Zen Master who said if you are sick see a doctor, if you want money see a banker, not a Zen Master. Zen is useless.
I also don't want to espouse utilitarianism. Not everything has a "cash value."
At the same time, though, I shouldn't be loosing sleep over if the Forms exist or if I have a soul, if I'm not primarily interested in metaphysics. I'm more interested in ethics.
A perfect example of this is my studies of Kabbalah. There is a vast Kabbalist cosmology with upper worlds and 10 sefriot (divine emanations) all with names and properties etc. Maybe it's meant to be figurative, but it is also treated pretty literally by most texts. I just don't care how many sefriot there are, especially since I can't verify if they exist at all. I was more interested in using it as a virtue training and as a meditative tool. But all the cosmology and the finer points of Torah observance (no cheeseburgers) was bogging me down. It wasn't useful to me. But the useful parts of prayer and self purification won't teach me to do my oil changes.
From Introduction to Plato: Selections, ed. Rafael Demos.
In my view, Plato represents the distinctive genius of Western culture; Platonism is one of the principle reasons that the 'scientific revolution' was able to happen in the West, and not elsewhere. But the distinctive genius of Plato has been largely forgotten or is mainly misunderstood in my view.
This all rings true (a good example of intuitive emotion governing my purportedly rational response), especially as I am in the middle of "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, which is basically a guidebook to this theory. But there's something that rubs me the wrong way about the philosophical framework of this entire discussion. Specifically, I feel like the "is/ought" problem is being approached incautiously.
With regard to Plato, he clearly straddled both sides of the "is/ought" problem, but was unquestionably unafraid to make prescriptions, ultimately being more lauded (historically, at least) for his normative statements and theories. "Here is what Plato believed about Justice, about Piety, about Politics..." is a common refrain of easy study guides or professors. All of these subjects eventually made their way to normative conclusions, and even Platonic realism was partially in service of these Normative fundamental truths.
So when you and others make the claim that emotion IS the dominant and reason the submissive in their psychic relationship, I have no problem agreeing to it. It seems true both reasonably and intuitively, and the book I mentioned above does a great job at aggregating experimental results that suggest the same conclusion. But I do still fight back a bit on the OUGHT side of the divide, where I would put forth the premise (as I think Plato would) that while emotion IS the dominant force in MOST people, Reason OUGHT to be. And we can look no further than his most famous allegory to see a poetic description of this thought.
Are we puppets to emotion? I would say yes, at least at first. But like Plato (and his student Aristotle), I hold on to the idea that the reversal of that master-slave relationship is the goal of human life, and the journey from one state to the other is philosophy, and is a source of Eudaimonia. However, I have a natural aversion dogma where possible, and so I come at this from a skeptical point of view. This is not a rebuttal to what you have said, as it is a continuation based on the ideas you've caused me to confront.
It was Paul the Apostle's that introduced the concept of a reflexive will to the world. To the best of my knowledge, this is based on what Hanna Ardent wrote in her "Philosophy of the Mind". The issues of what I ought to do arose from his concept of a divided will.
Their concepts may not have been exactly congruent to ours, but I would disagree with the idea that Plato did not conceptualize the will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_Allegory
I think it is a different concept. Here is what Paul says in Romans 7
The charioteer's choices are choice worthy if they correspond to reasons demands, they do not have a trace of Paul's existential dilemma, in my opinion,
Quoting Cavacava
I think Plato got the cause and effect wrong, which seems to be what you are pointing out. From that passage in Romans it does appear like Paul is intuitively feeling out the concept of emotive intuitiveness that is our current best theory (as far as I know, anyway) on the motivation of thought and action. However, I do think Plato's conclusion, as far as it is normative, does still offer some value (and this reveals me as a Platonist, I suppose). Namely that Reason OUGHT to dominate over emotion/passion/appetite/intuition. This is the idea I've been mulling over while reading "The Righteous Mind". The idea that Plato got the diagnosis slightly wrong, but still may have prescribed the right treatment. It's an interesting concept, and it's the basis on which I am examining this issue in the context of the "is/ought" problem.
Even more interesting to me, and relevant via your summoning of Paul to the conversation, is whether religious thought and belief was implicitly developed to combat this emotive/intuitive "gut feeling" and the actions that follow in order to maintain a society with a diverse population. In other words, when our intuitive reactions to others are divisive and threaten the social order, did religion pop-up to glue us back together?
Paul, the other apostles and their followers after Christ's death, thought the that end of the world was at hand, and that the Last Judgement was immanent. This was a very strong motivator for all their thoughts. Paul teaching were meant to establish a new law, what Christ taught as a way to live and to be saved. I think Paul understood that teachings such as Christ's Sermon on the Mont gave rules that sounded outlandish at the time. Impossible goals, and he tried to show how these teaching were goals to be striven for, even if un-achievable.
Giving the example of his own problems with acting as he ought, he gave his follower hope that in spite of their failings they still might be saved.
Quoting Cavacava
Where the Greeks strove for a moral duty to reason, Jesus (and later his Christian followers) strove for a moral duty to God. Perhaps both quests are ultimately impossible to achieve, but when a man undertakes moralizing (whether through reasoning or intuition) he implicitly assumes an "ought" and therefore I think both the followers of the Greeks and the religious (those things are not mutually exclusive, obviously) are noble precisely because they give him something to aim at. This is basically the concept that gives rise to Christian saints, as well as the nuanced Greek view of tragedy as a struggle against our sorry natures... one that we are all destined to lose.
What I was referring to is the anthropological connotations of religion when thought about in this way. After all, the Jews and later the Christians were hardly the first to claim a moral duty to God. Why are we so focused on systematizing (I'm avoiding the term "rationalizing" for clarity but it would fit as well) our moral beliefs and adapting lifestyles suited to them? Which came first, the idea that there exists a God who outlaws murder, or the implicit sense that murder is immoral? I suspect the latter came first, but that begs the question: Then why involve God at all?
Socrates could never willing do what was unreasonable it would be against his concept of knowledge which is at the heart of Plato's philosophy.
Paul could, he knew he could, and he knew what he ought to do even though he did not always do it and that's the difference. Paul discovered that he could say yes or no, Socrates could never knowing say no to reason.
This is definitely true! I watched a Standford lecture where Dr, Cooper argued that many of the Greek philosophers saw philosophy as a way of life rather than just an intellectual opinion. I really love Plotinus and it's with his understanding that I read plato. (I don't use Neoplatonist because I think the neo is arbitrary). For me I'm a platonist in a pretty religious sense. I spend daily time in study and meditation and try to improve my moral character in order to become closer to the Absolute (God). I see the Oneness of God in all religions and I love prayers and scriptures across traditions. My "Platonism" informs my life as much as any involved and faithful church goer. I actually go to an episcopal church with my family but I don't consider myself Christian and I don't say the creeds. Other than that, I have no problem with Christianity.
I'm actually thinking about how to increase my contemplative practice in an authentic Platonic way. Study of philosophy and comparative religion is definitely part of it. Maybe a daily "examen" (Jesuit practice) of my moral behavior and ways to improve. I do silent meditation buts it not Zazen (Buddhist just sitting) it's with an intention of turning myself towards and receiving the Divine or observing the beauty around me. I think I'll celebrate Plato's birthday on May 7. Plotinus didn't celebrate his own birthday, so I don't think I should celebrate his.
Perhaps this might seem strange, but I am an ex-Zen Buddhist and an ex-Kabbalist so I'm very mystical oriented to begin with and Plotinus definitely offers a full enough philosophy to fill that. I'm tired of trying religions :)
I have a lot in common with you. A lot of us 'seeker types' have been exposed to all manner of philosophies in today's 'spiritual supermarket'. I spent years visiting the Adyar Bookshop (although those have long since gone.) I have decided to stick with Buddhism although I still have a real interest in understanding more about Platonic philosophy.
The way I'm approaching that is to maintain the Buddhist commitment of daily meditation. But I also want to try and come up with a coherent reading program in Platonism. That's actually a challenge - partially because there's so much material to choose from, but also because I think much of Platonism has generally been redacted in such a way as to actually filter out its spiritual dimension. But there's some fundamental understanding in Platonism that I think got lost in the transition to modernity. I think all of what's important in the key philosophers since, was anticipated in Plato - hence the famous remark by Whitehead about philosophy being 'footnotes to Plato'.
Here's a current title that I am reading, about these kinds of ideas - Defragmenting Modernity, Paul Tyson. He's an academic Christian Platonist who writes well and coherently on these ideas.
Thanks! I feel less crazy.
I left Buddhism and Judaism (though I never finished my conversion) both for personal reasons and not due to feeling those faiths were "wrong." The nice thing about Platonism is it's a philosophic approach rather than a religious approach. There's no church of it to join and no fights with my wife over it!!! It's treated as purely an intellectual or obscure hobby and it's not likely that anyone in my church will want to hear about it or understand it. Being Buddhist or Jewish is a different matter (though it shouldn't be in my opinion).
What kind of Buddhism did you study? I studied Soto Zen and Ch'an which was wonderful. The only reason I left is I felt so guilty and torn about being a theist in my "spiritual DNA" as That Nich Hahn would say. I just never was comfortable with the non-theism of Zen.
But now I think I may go back to more Mahayana and Pure Land texts in particular. I loved some of those texts in the past. That's the beauty of a philosophical approach I can draw from wherever with no issue.
I hear you about reading program. I have way more books to read then time left in my life!
I'm reading Plato's Republic and listening to Plotnius Enneads while I drive to work. I think reading all of Plato and Plotinus' works is pretty realistic. But there are so many "Neoplatonists". I think at that point (in a few months) I'll want to go back to the world scriptures again like the Torah, New Testament, Quran, the Gita, and Baha'i Wrintings with new eyes. Pure Land Buddhism and the gnostics would be cool too. Too many books, not enough decades to read them!
Well, after my initial years of reading spiritual books, Buddhism seemed to have the best overall product. (No kidding!) I was introduced through Alan Watts and D T Suzuki, who were very popular in the 1960's. I got some training in meditation from a kind of new-agey type of awareness-training group, then read about Vipassana meditation. The book that impacted me the most was To Meet the Real Dragon, which is Soto Zen; I got that in the 1980's; Nishijima-roshi only died a few years back. Much later, I formed a kind of informal dharma friendship group through a Buddhist library, we used to meet monthly, then bi-monthly - that went for about 7 or 8 years, although petered out in the end. So I don't have any current association and don't attend any particular place. But I still maintain the daily meditation practise along the lines taught in that book - 'just sitting', zazen. (Although as the Dalai Lama remarks, spiritual practise is like driving a donkey uphill with a stick ;-) )
Now I'm thinking of signing up for the self-paced courses at Nitarthta Institute. Trying to concentrate long enough on one thing to learn it properly instead of constantly grazing on all kinds of things.
Ironically, Socrates' unwillingness to part from (his concept of) rational action is one of the most unreasonable things about him. Who else would willingly die rather than express a little bit of selfish, less-than-perfect rationality? Even Jesus cried out on the cross and begged to be spared in Gethsemane. Socrates is a saint in the church of the rational. Showing total devotion to self-mastery and reason like Paul to God.
No, I think you are reaching here. Platonic irony has to do with Socratic ignorance. Socrates claimed to know one thing, that he does not know and yet in this knowledge he knows more than all his interlocutors. Platonic irony it that of a great man's dissimulation, not as a vice but as a gentile art.
The concept of a will divided against itself was not available in the ancient Hellenic culture. It is only by means of the division of the will, that Paul could explain sin and grace. The Greeks saw reason and desire as competitive forces (the horses), they did not suspect that there could be a faculty of the mind divided against itself...the will as we know it.
I don't see the basis for the claim that the will is "divided against itself". The will resists activity, and it allows for activity, but this is not a divided will. The same will, which enables you to resist a specific activity because it appears to you as irrational, will allow you to carry out that activity in a different situation, when the activity appears to be rational. This is not a case of a divided will, it is the case of the same person in different circumstances.
When the will appears to be divided it is just a matter of the individual being incapable of adequately assessing the circumstances, one's environment. This is indecisiveness, but indecisiveness is not a defect of the will, it is a deficiency in the mind's capacity to apprehend the situation. The will, by its very nature must be in the middle, between acting and not acting, in order that it can allow for both. But this is not a divided will, the forces which drive the will toward acting, and away from acting, are divided. The will acts to reconcile, unite these divided forces.
I am out and about. Please check out quote from Paul's Romans 7 above.
Later
Yes, I read the quote, that's what got me thinking. I do not think Paul's position is inconsistent with Plato though. St Augustine dealt with this subject to some depth, how we can knowingly do wrong, when Plato insisted that morality is a form of knowing.
The resolution is to recognize that Plato posits a tripartite person. As a medium between mind and body, he posits spirit, or passion. This is evident in The Republic, where he models the state after the human person, and proposes a three part state. rulers guardians, and subjects. This third aspect of the person, spirit (I don't know the Greek word used, but it is translated in different ways), is necessary to explain the interaction between body and mind. A well disposed person has the spirit allied with mind, to exercise control over the body. A not so well-disposed person will allow the spirit to be allied with the body, to overpower the mind. In St. Thomas' work this gets all tied up in the concept of habit.
In any case, the third aspect becomes very important in explaining why we need to know what is right, to do what is right, making knowledge and morality closely tied, yet we can still knowingly do what is wrong. This is because the will itself is essentially free, being tied neither to the mind nor to the body. When Augustine did his work On The Trinity, he modeled the Holy Trinity after the human trinity of memory, intellect and will. Aquinas expanded on this, and demonstrated how, in relative terms (relative to morality), the will must be subservient to, and therefore posterior to the intellect, but in the absolute sense, the will is prior to, and therefore free from, even the intellect.
Thanks for this explanation. I just finished book 2 of the Republic so this is a spoiler, haha! I was wondering where Plato was going with the guardian and spirit thing.
So Plotinus says something simmilar. We have our souls that illumine our animal nature and we choose to turn our face towards higher things or baser things. I love how he says it's not the soul's fault if we sinned. She did her job of illumination and it is us who decided to turn away.
That's the thing with the will. As Augustine argues, the will must be free from the material influences of the physical body in order to follow the immaterial principles of the intellect. However, it is quite clear that this freeness is a double edged sword, because in being free, the will is also free not to follow the intelligible principles.
Where does Augustine address this? I'm only familiar with Luther's Bondage of the Will. I've read The Trinity and The Two Cities but it's been a long time.
Check Augustine's "On Free Choice of the Will". I think it's available online. He is really the first one to actually develop the concept of free will by that name. He's greatly influenced by Neo-Platonism.
Have a listen to this passage (up till about 42:00)
Thanks. I'll look them up.
Aristotle called it proairesis, the faculty of choice. It is how we deliberate about the means, not the ends. Both means and ends are given, for Plato & Aristotle, freedom of choice is a selection process for them. If our selections are moral then our soul is in tune (Georgias). The parts of the soul are friends, when they work together.
Paul sees men obeying/disobeying laws. The law against coveting, makes coveting a sin, without the law there is no sin. (Romans 7:7,8). The law speaks in imperatives which naturally arises the passions within us. Paul becomes a stranger unto himself (7,15). Such a concept would have been impossible for Plato or Aristotle. For Paul the only way for man to mend this inner wretchedness through grace.
It was the law of voluntary submission to the law that lead to the discovery of the will. "Thou shalt" is not merely the mind speaking to the body as Augustine put it, but rather it is "Thou shalt will" which implies a yes or no answer.
Augustine tells a joke in his Confessions. What was God doing prior to his creation of the world? Answer, making a hell for those who ask such questions. I am not sure about your interpretation of Augustine. I think he followed Paul much more closely, that he felt that man never is at peace with himself without the mercy of God, that the will is always divided against itself until death, but that is well off topic.
This is more what I had assumed Augustine had thought. I was taught theology by Lutherans so they emphasized a continuity of Paul, Augustine and Luther as expressing the same theological orthodoxy. No agenda there, hahah. But that's what I'm very familiar with that the will is not free it is either riden by God or the devil. We are always slaves to someone.
My Buddhist training taught me that to believe we have a completely objective will is absurd. We are conditioned by a vast amount of influences that shape our natures. Spinoza is helpful here too. I defiantly think a lot of choices are an illusion and we are not the free thinkers we imagine ourselves to be. But we do still have a choice and occasionally we will choose to go against the grain. Back to Platonism, I love the Baha'i prayer that says "I turn my face to you, Oh God, illumine it with the light of thy countance and protect it from turning to anyone but thee." We have the ability to turn to God or to the illumination within our rational souls. To let our souls guide us or to turn away and follow our baser passions. I have trouble when I read Plotinus in particular of seeing myself as my soul. I sure don't feel rational and immovable and beyond suffering and all these things. But I do sense there is a personal light beconing me to follow. What's that light, my soul? An emanation? God himself? Who am I that follows? It's a jumble and Plotinus himself talks about philosophy "dividing" parts of a person that are united in their natural state. Maybe it's like a doctor saying here's your arm, your leg, and your brain but where is you? Certainly all of it.
I don't think it is correct to say that means and ends are given for Plato and Aristotle. This is what enables Socrates to say "I don't know", nothing is given to him. So in his dialectic method, Plato seeks the meaning of terms like "love", "just", "friendship", words which refer to the various virtues. The virtues are themselves ends, but if they were given, Plato wouldn't have to work at determining what the words mean. And as Aristotle aptly describes, the ends are usually desired for the sake of something else, a further end, so they end up being nothing more than means. That's why he seeks the ultimate end, if we keep asking what is it for the sake of, we can't have an infinite regress, so he posits happiness.
Plato has a slightly different outlook, because he comes to the realization that none of these ideas, which are signified by the words, "just", etc., are even intelligible unless they are illuminated by the good. That's what he says in The Republic, that the good illuminates intelligible objects like the sun illuminates visible objects. So instead of the ultimate end, this is for the sake of that which is ultimately for the ultimate good, which Aristotle posits, he posits the good. The good is a more powerful concept than the ultimate end, because it relates directly to intelligible objects (concepts and ideas, rather than to actions. All intelligible objects (ideas and concepts),not just actions, are seen in relation to the good.
Quoting Cavacava
Grace, is that which is given, by God, so you seem to be saying that Paul takes means as needing to be given. But this all depends on how we look at the laws. If laws are given by men, then it is necessary that the human mind works to learn and create laws so they are not really "given". But if laws are given by God, then we must simply take them as they are given to us.
Jewish laws are both! The Pharisees/Priests and now Rabbis create "fences" around the true Law that is given by God. For example the Torah says do not boil a kid in its mothers milk. The Rabbis say no meat and cheese in the same meal or on the same plate. Maybe the real law (intent behind the Torah passage) is to be kind to all beings.
P.S. my inner Jew keeps coming out on these forums. I don't think I can keep pretending to myself that I'm not grounded in the Abrahamic faiths. Shiva is definitely cool but it's not the same as the LORD. Even though philosophically I don't see why there should be a difference. Maybe it's just the way I've experienced God, I've never set foot in a Hindu temple for example.
Perhaps the best way to proceed is by taking each point in turn. First
Desire is for something, no? So ends are given.
And means vary, they must be deliberated upon but they are known, and must be subject to a selection process.
Dialects for Plato is in the give and take of the dialogue, this is what dialects entails for Plato. The Socratic ignorance is largely ironic, it is his way of putting himself on the same level as his interlocutor, but it is clear from all the dialogues that he knows more than those he questions.
Agree or disagree?
Perhaps you are using "given" in a way that I am not familiar with. Desire begins as an indefinite feeling. It is a sort of uneasiness within a person. The feeling must be interpreted then directed towards an object. The object of desire is chosen, not given, and the object of desire is the end.
Quoting Cavacava
You would think that the means must be determined after the end is determined, because how could you ever properly fulfil your desire until after you've determined the object which the desire is for. But there is something very odd which happens with means, and this odd thing is demonstrated by the reality of habituation.
When the means to the end is determined, the activity may be repeated indefinitely in many different situations, bring about the same, or a very similar end. At this point, we do not take the time to determine what is really desired, the real end, we just carry out the operation habitually, assuming that the end is given. In this type of situation, the end is simply determined by the means. So in this situation we can say that the end is given.
This is the issue which Socrates addressed when he went around asking skilled people, do you "know" what you are doing. The crafts people are carrying out a procedure, and the end is "given", meaning that the product which is produced will have a form which is determined by this habitual procedure. But Plato suggests that there is something inherently wrong with this procedure. He says that the people who are using the product ought to have some say in the production of the product, such that the product is tailored to the user's satisfaction.
If we go in this direction, then the end, the finished form of the product, is not actually a "given". The manufacturer has to go to the consumer and ask what is wanted. So there is a distinction here between what is given, and what is asked for. And when you relate this to the grace of God, it is not a given, it is something which must be asked for.
Quoting Cavacava
Socrates is doing this with all knowledge. He is denying anything as a given, and therefore he has adopted a skeptical position. So for anyone who claims to have knowledge, he ask of them, show me this knowledge which you claim to have. So the perspective is one of determining what is wanted (knowledge in this case), and asking for what is desired, the end, rather than just taking what is given.
OK, Plato was not a very psychological philosopher, I am not saying he didn't have his moments but in regards to what is choice worthy or not he was pretty clear. Just look at the subjects of his dialogues, he may not have the answers but he certainly know the topics, the ends are rarely questioned.
The end is generally the purpose of the dialogue, its topic, such as: can virtue be taught, what is justice, what is piety....and so on and Plato has a general methodology that he uses to approach these topics. The methodology is to question his interlocutors to come up with general ideas that may pertain to the topic and then investigate each idea, see what might be right or wrong with it and go on and on until they can't go any further. It is a selection process.
Poppycock, what is that MU, the Marxian interpretation :-x
I disagree. The topic is never in question, he may not know exactly what is entailed by the his topic, such as knowledge in his Theaetetus, or Piety in his Euthyphro but there is never a question about the topic itself it is given as the subject of the dialogue.
Actually I think the opposite of this is true, the ends are what are questioned by Plato. Pleasure, the different virtues, and virtue itself, are presented as the ends, and the nature of these things is questioned. So he takes words like "pleasure", "courage", "just", "pious", etc., and questions what is meant by these terms, what is referred toby them. So these ends are clearly questioned.
Quoting Cavacava
It is not a selection process. It is a process of understanding. Choice, or selection is withheld, suspended in the manner of a skepticism, such that the subject may be understood before selection is made. Each of Plato's dialogues ends without a clear and conclusive understanding of the subject presented, so no selection is actually possible.
Therefore, unlike your representation, the purpose of the dialogue, is not to produce a choice or selection, it is to further the understanding of the subject. So as much as the arguments of the various interlocutors may be rejected, as inadequate, a definite resolution does not come about, so it is a process of elimination rather than a selection process. A process of elimination is unending until all possible options are exhausted, but that is never the case here, so no selection is actually made.
Quoting Cavacava
Have you not read Plato? Clearly he stated that those using the product ought to have some say in the production of the product. It is produced for their purposes, not for the purpose of the producer. Plato was communist, he proposed communal living, so he lends himself well to a Marxist interpretation.
Quoting Cavacava
The word "knowledge", or "piety", is not what is at question. What is at question is the thing signified by the word. That is why Plato's method is called "dialectics". It is incorrect to say the there is no question as to what the subject is, just because there is no question as to what the word being investigated is. The word is not the subject. The subject is what is referred to by the word, and this is exactly what is at question.
Virtue as an end is not questioned, what virtue consists of is questioned; is pleasure choice-worthy is questioned. Meno asked Socrates 'can virtue be taught' and Socrates says I don't even know what virtue is. The topic is given from the outset and an understanding is sought.
Socrates selection process is a process of understanding, it is the basis of the dialectic. He proposes or an interlocutor proposes and idea and in the give and take of their conversation these ideas are thoroughly investigated. Socrates describes himself as a mid-wife who can determine if what they come up with is worth while or not.
It is a selection process.
Double poppycock. The Republic set up different classes in a Utopian society, Marx was after a classless society, how different can you get? Plato Republic has a complex division of labor, with separates classes, it is ruled by a philosopher king, not by the masses. Marx wanted to abolish the division of labor, abolish the class system, with a state ruled democratically by the masses. Their theories of government are almost completely opposite.
Yes, it is about what is entailed when one says they have knowledge, or piety or virtue but these topics are known as topics to be investigated and Plato uses his dialectic method to approach these topics. I never said his dialogues are about "words", I said he selects or his interlocutor select a topic to discuss. You can't have a discussion about nothing, unless you take 'nothing' itself as the topic of a discussion.
.