Now first, I think its important for a little history before the philosophy since its important and a perspective on that history. The Greek philosophers post Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus (or his supposed writings if he truly was a real person) essentially and roughly can be categorized as a monist / monotheistic philosophy AND THEOLOGY. Even in the surviving Orphic writings we are seeing a monistic sentiments coming through. This is because within Greek mythology, and even the other "pagan" mythologies, monotheism can be found in them if seen with the correct eyes and extrapolated. Notice how there is an explosion of knowledge between 750 BCE - to 500 BCE, since this basically spans major developments in Judaism, new developments in Zoroastrianism, in Hinduism, Jainism began, Buddhism began, and yes Hellenism through the Greek philosophers and many more. All these "pagan" (whether henotheistic or polytheistic or whatever) religions all of a sudden shift to monism / monotheism when they'd look upon their scriptures with a more EXAMINED eye or new sages like the Greek philosophers come along, or in the case of Hinduism, Mahatma Buddha and the Mahavira come along, or in the case in Mithraism in Persia, Zarathustra comes along (granted that was a little earlier around 1000 BCE give or take). Confucius comes along in China. All within this time frame. Almost like there is a sudden shift in the consciousness in Man. An evolutionary shift which we collectively see across vast distances of cultures and space. In fact, if you look at Abraham's story, it documents a time when this evolutionary shift into higher consciousness occurs before, when God says to him he (God) came to many nations, meaning he came to them within their mythologies, but the humans hid him, true living God, in them and mixed him with their own fancies, distortions and creations. This is why Abraham was alienated from the Babylonian pantheon. Because he was a believer that the true living God was in there, but he ultimately came out of Babylon because he saw the people had the wrong ideas of God and forging him and worshipping fallen and ostensibly terrible Gods from that pantheon. They desecrated his image because God is supposed to be sinless like Plato thought, so them worshipping these Gods who did terrible things and thus glorify terrible things is what made Abraham realize the people of Babylon were worshipping false Gods. SO EVEN BEFORE PLATO there was already proto-Platonism. Not just in Judaism but Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and Atenism.

In fact the word Logos is connected to the Persian word Asha which comes from Zoroastrianism, one of the first monist / monotheist religions alongside Atenism and Judaism, and before even Judaism there was Yahwism among non-indo-european semitic tribes (like the Midianites) and some scholars even suspect YHWH was amongst even non-indo-european pre-Greek tribes. The word and concept of Asha coming to Greece was pre-Alexandria conquering Persia since that happened a hundred years later, and a specific Greek philosopher who first used the word Logos somewhere around 500-600 BC (forget his name off the top of my head) used it from the Zoroastrian concept. This most likely is because around that time is when king Cyrus of Persia freed the Jews from Babylon and they returned to Israel and the Levant with Zoroastrian texts which would have gotten into Greek hands and Greek speaking Jews would have shared what they have learned from the Zoroastrians. The word Asha can have different meanings. However, one of its simple meanings is that there is a natural divine order and harmony in the world, even if chaos and evil may temporally reign. This is why Logos (the word) which is said and spoken by the Highest Form of Good (God beyond space, time and matter) creates Asha (the divine order), because the word being said is like a story being told, and you are listening to it and along the journey. And evil things happen and good loses, but is that the end of the story? You are merely some place within its telling. Now good doesn't win until the end, does it not? And would a God that is nothing but good and nothing else let evil win and not let good win? How can God let evil win in his story when logically nothing but good may triumph at the end of all things? And he himself is the testimony of goodness triumphing, and SO WE CAN KNOW WITH CERTAINTY AT THE END OF THINGS AND AT THE END OF ALL THINGS GOOD SHALL ALWAYS TRIUMPH. THIS IS INEVITABLE EVEN IF EVIL WINS TEMPORALLY.

Now. If the Highest Form of Good = God since the Highest Form of Good must reign as supreme, then this is what "God" is. Plato saw him as immanent the way Christian theology (named "immanence") later developed him but this is already in the Old Testament. God is invisible, God cannot be seen, that he is in the very fabric of reality and outside the fabric. Note one of the names of the God is Immanuel meaning "God is with us". And if God becomes Man then God is truly with us. Personally. The guiding light of the spirit we think is ourselves we interact with is given a body outside of our personal intimacy with ourselves. So this is different from the anthropomorphised Gods which Plato and Xenophanes saw as silly, since we were seeing transcendent beings as humans. However, instead of us imposing OUR IMAGE onto God, like Zeus being a horn-dog is just our horniness imposed on God. It doesn't mean Zeus is accurate to God, instead its just our distortions of him. So instead God needs to take the form of a MAN to show us what he truly is like and reveal what his image actually is and who he is, washing away our super imposition of what we think he is which is just us jerking our own egos, washing away our our imposed distortions of him, he himself gives his own testimony of himself and his nature. So those criticising the Old Testament for some of his actions in the Old Testament, well he became Man and that Man was sinless and that Man said YHWH is him, and he showed how YHWH is as Man and he was sinless and perfect, meaning his Old Testament judgements were just judgements for the time and place, it was what they were needed. For example, we bombed civilians against the Nazis BUT IN THAT TIME that was what was needed to happen. So are we going to criticise ourselves the way we criticise God or are we terrible hypocrites? And the Old Testament prophets and sages (including those all over the world not just Jews (it was just God was fated in the future to manifest through a Jew)) were in the image of God meaning whenever anyone, any human, upheld goodness, then they bared Godliness and Godhood to an extent. And so humans already through being good and withstanding temptations displayed Godliness already. This was also in religions were people wanted to be like the God they liked and felt connected.

Hinduism took a huge monotheistic turn in this time as well. Its just some were more compelled by Brahman in certain incarnations of him. There are 8 incarnations of Vishnu and then theres Krishna and then theres Shiva, all Brahman, part of this divine order. So they are all worshipping the same God, but in many different forms. So this divide between Judaism and Christianity is much the same. They worship the same God in different forms. When Krishna became a thing, there were Vishnu worshippers who believed he wasn't an incarnation of Vishnu while others believed, the same thing happened to Jesus, whether he was or was not an incarnation and form of YHWH.

Now our minds can imagine, can posit, can hold the idea that a Sinless Man can be a possibility. Now if it can be imagined and grasped by the mind, then it is not only possible, but many philosophers, modern and ancient, and even modern science would argue, it is inevitable. For in infinity long enough, what can be imagined MUST BE THE CASE and become into being, must incarnate. So the Sinless Man was posited for thousands of years across philosophies and religions and.... IT HAPPENED. Jesus the first Sinless Man incarnated. So if someone is sinless, then he cannot be any different from the Highest Form of Good, meaning if a Man can be sinless, then that Man must be the Highest Form of Good in the form of Man and the Highest Form of Good is God hence GOD HAS TAKEN THE FORM OF MAN.

If you read the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, you can see a lot of Platonism there, but most likely developed outside of Greece independent of Greek philosophy, extrapolated from the written and oral Torah, so even amongst Judaism, there was Platonism / proto-Platonism going on. And most famously in John 1, the word Logos is used to describe Jesus and God, and this Logos, this image, this word (since Ludwig Wittgenstein proved words when said make pictures in the mind of consciousness) existed eternally and that is pre-existent, outside of creation, uncreated. Apostle John took Logos from the great Platonic-Judaic syncretist Philo of Alexandria who took it from the Greek philosophers.

Hello fella philosophers. I am writing a paper on plato's republic and I struggle to find any recent comments on it (by recent a maximum of 500 years). I could use some help. Thanks

Hi guys, I have a few months off at the end of this semester and no work. Gonna finally read some primary source philosophy. Any good secondary literature specific to the Hackett Plato - Five Dialogues? Also any reason I shouldn’t start with this book?

What are your takeaways upon this current reading? How has it developed your views?

I've searched this subreddit for this but can't find any threads. Who have been the philosopher kings in history, and what made them so?

I’m about halfway through this book, finishing the running commentary, before the Part 2 with their theory of the dialogue expounded in full.

I’m a big fan of it so far, especially with their method and approach, trying to create a true dialectic between each other with the path they take written out while they travel through the dialogue passage-by-passage. I don’t go down the same path as them in every part— in particular they seem to trip over themselves a bit in chapter 4, off a slight misconception of “insofar/καθ’ όσον” that leads them to make a much longer workaround explanation for what could (in my view) be understood in a much more full and simple way. However, I am pretty interested in how they identify the first friend not as the form of good, but as some combination of the good, happiness, and wisdom, yet not clarified by the point I’m at. I’m also a fan of how they show each section, even the parts dismissed by past interpreters as sophistic or foolish, are actually geniusly woven to latently build up the doctrine of the first friend piece by piece.

I feel like we could really use more analyses like this. This is part of a “Cambridge Studies” series which over the past couple decades has promised more Plato analyses than they actually fulfilled so far. Along with this one, they’ve published ones from other authors on Cratylus (which apparently takes a similar approach to this book on trying to “legitimize” the philosophical density in its respective dialogue), Meno, and Charmides. On the back of my copy (published in 2006) they also promise forthcoming works on Euthydemus, Timaeus, and Symposium. The writer for the Euthydemus one is the wonderful M.M. McCabe, who I DMed on twitter to ask if she was still working on it. She told me she’s been still working on it slowly, and is hoping to send it to editors this year :)

There is apparently a game app that has chosen to adopt the name of a certain Greek philosopher. People from that game have recently found this app, and much like the horticulturalists who wind up in r/trees looking to talk shop, they are wrongly posting in this sub.

Please simply report these posts, and we'll keep the sub free from that clutter.

Thanks for everyone who expressed interest in a close group reading of Proclus’ Elements of Theology!

i will be hosting the first session on Thursday April 12th at 8:30pm EST.

we will be going straight into the first proposition, reading in greek and english, elaborating the argument, and investigating its relationship to the world around and within us. i’m very excited to start this project and i hope as many of you can join me as possible! i will be providing a screen share of the propositions from E. R. Dodds edition/translation and we can get into the weeds together.

my main hope is to approach the text with fresh eyes, i ask everyone to leave your commitments at the door except when they directly pertain to the argument at hand. if you have a copy of the book i recommend reading the first proposition beforehand to prepare, if not no worries we will spell it out in detail.

for those unfamiliar, this is the first proposition we will be meditating on:

Prop. 1. Every manifold in some way participates unity.

each session will be one hour hosted on google meet: pls add it to your calendar!

all are welcome regardless of philosophical, theological, or any other background. hope to see y’all there!

1. Do the forms have a specific or at least undefined place?
2. Could they be in the soul or Intellect of the true philosopher? If so, does he achieve or grasp them, or have them inherently and just need to remember them?
3. How about being in the mind or soul of Demiurge when he is creating the world?
4. If all this is wrong and forms are out of place and out of time, when the philosopher or Demiurge is looking at them he is looking through an infinite space or let us say "looking at the forms" is quite metaphorical without any distinction of place?

I’m wondering what started or keeps you reading Plato? Is it intellectual enjoyment? Or have you gained some insights from engaging with Platonic Dialogues? Insights that one might have gained reading other philosophers or that may well be genuinely Platonic? Or did you simply start with Plato and never really moved on, be it due to sunken cost fallacy, comfort, or fascination?

Inspired by a recent post on here, I am curious about intriguing thoughts or ideas about Plato‘s philosophy that you may have had for quite some time yet did not publish or simply relegated to footnotes etc. Moreover, I am interested in reasons for not publishing them: lack of textual basis? Solely expository, or merely small argumentative potential? Fear of loss of reputation? Inconsistency with some passages within some dialogues? — Or do you simply not speculate / intuit while reading Plato, or do it simply for in a playful manner?

In the Phaedo, Socrates describes a way of knowing the forms by observing the world around us. Well, it's not really "knowing" - it is actually "remembering" (anamnesis) those forms, they saw while being incorporeal bodies.

But still, this process of anamnesis is tied to the physical world and its observance - we remember the form of Equality by seeing two sticks equal in size.

My question is, is there an a priori process of deducing those forms, not based on the observation, but by pure reason, reason alone? In the same dialogue, Plato develops an epistemiological system, in which the senses of the body are based in an inferior position to the capacities of the mind, since they can easily deceive us. Thus, there must be another way of remembering the forms. A mystical experience, perhaps? Or a certain argument?

I won’t use up space making an argument for why the Eleusinian Mysteries probably used LSD-like alkaloids derived from ergot in their ceremonies, but I take it as a given for this post, and The Road to Eleusis provides a strong argument for it.

Anyway, I saw references to this quote of Plato’s: “the ultimate design of the Mysteries ... was to lead us back to the principles from which we descended, ... a perfect enjoyment of intellectual [spiritual] good.”

Plato was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries and stated in his own works that he aspired to the lofty heights reached by the Mystery schools, including those of Dionysus. If Plato speaks of the Mysteries as revealing the “principles from which we descended” and an enjoyment of “intellectual good”, then it seems he’s saying that his philosophy is essentially attempting to unpack what the Mysteries were about, which are intrinsically bound up with psychoactive/altered states of consciousness.

I think this is why it’s always been felt that there was a deeper, more mystical interpretation to Plato’s philosophy, rather than the cut and dry sober-minded intellectualism that he is often portrayed to represent. Plato’s philosophy of the soul of course plays into this, but my philosophical guess about concepts like the theory of Forms and his interpretation of theology is that Plato’s universals might not have referred to overly abstract “definitions” of things (“the Form of Man is x, y, and z”) but rather a kind of all-encompassing vision of all the particulars under that Form merging into a single transcendent experience. I think that when people have deep metaphysical insights while under the influence of psychedelics, they’re not necessarily “downloading” information from a higher, external source, (more of a poetic way of putting what is going on), but rather, maybe their brains are synthesizing large amounts of disparate data together into higher-order gestalts that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred with deliberative ratiocination (dianoia as opposed to the higher nous).

Anyone find any resonance with this speculative idea?

I won’t use up space making an argument for why the Eleusinian Mysteries probably used LSD-like alkaloids derived from ergot in their ceremonies, but I take it as a given for this post, and The Road to Eleusis provides a strong argument for it.

Anyway, I saw references to this quote of Plato’s: “the ultimate design of the Mysteries ... was to lead us back to the principles from which we descended, ... a perfect enjoyment of intellectual [spiritual] good.”

Plato was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries and stated in his own works that he aspired to the lofty heights reached by the Mystery schools, including those of Dionysus. If Plato speaks of the Mysteries as revealing the “principles from which we descended” and an enjoyment of “intellectual good”, then it seems he’s saying that his philosophy is essentially attempting to unpack what the Mysteries were about, which are intrinsically bound up with psychoactive/altered states of consciousness.

I think this is why it’s always been felt that there was a deeper, more mystical interpretation to Plato’s philosophy, rather than the cut and dry sober-minded intellectualism that he is often portrayed to represent. Plato’s philosophy of the soul of course plays into this, but my philosophical guess about concepts like the theory of Forms and his interpretation of theology is that Plato’s universals might not have referred to overly abstract “definitions” of things (“the Form of Man is x, y, and z”) but rather a kind of all-encompassing vision of all the particulars under that Form merging into a single transcendent experience. I think that when people have deep metaphysical insights while under the influence of psychedelics, they’re not necessarily “downloading” information from a higher, external source, (more of a poetic way of putting what is going on), but rather, maybe their brains are synthesizing large amounts of disparate data together into higher-order gestalts that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred with deliberative ratiocination (dianoia as opposed to the higher nous).

Anyone find any resonance with this speculative idea?

Firstly, to adress something I find intresting: there is no such thing as believing, but not acting in Platonist. From righteous believes naturally flow righteous actions, if one were to say he is Platonist, yet he doesn't act according to the creed he claims, he isn't actually a Platonist and neither does he actually believe what he says he believes. Because Virtue is a form of knowledge - the knowledge of Good and Evil, and knowing what the Good is makes one want to do good, because that's what he ought to do, par définition. If someone doesn't do right actions, he doesn't understand the Good, because if he were to, he'd try to be good.

Therefore, for Plato, it is impossible to have right believes but not right actions. But is the reverse possible? For example, the Stoics behaved similarly to the Platonists, yet they disagreed on the reasons why. So were the Stoics virtous or were they merely following the shadow of Virtue, since they only had a right opinion, and not knowledge? And were the Stoics able to achieve katharsis?

One of my life goals for many years now has been falling in love with a girl, marrying her, having children and living happily thereafter.

It's something I've always dreamt about and I still have time to do it, since I'm very young (probably too young to be reading Plato anyway - lol).

Anyhow, one thing that troubled me about Platonism is its ascetism. The goal in Platonism is to achieve katharsis or purification - how does one do it? Firstly by doing philosophy, secondly by "eliberating" one's soul from its body. The flesh is like a prison, and a person may severe all ties between the material and the soul, so that when the hour of death has come, the soul may flee freely from earth, without chains to bound it to our changing world and force it to reincarnate.

Similarly, in the Symposium, in which Diotima enounces the different degrees of love, romantic love is somewhere at the bottom; it is a level which must be overcome in order to arrive at philosophy. We do have a eulogy of love in the Phaidros, but I read it a long time ago and I can't remember if Socrates didn't deviate the discussion from romantic love to the love of wisdom, or "philosophy".

We also know that Plato never married. Nor did Plotinus, another great philosopher of the Platonist tradition - Porphyry even writes he seemed ashamed to have a body. And it makes sense, actually - being in love with a woman inevitably ties to your soul to this world, weightening the chariot and stopping it from reaching its destination: the World of Forms.

I'm also influenced by Stoic ethics, which also seem to say that the wise man must be free from all passions, and to derive his own happiness from within rather than from the outside. Sure, Marcus Aurelius did marry, but he probably saw it as some kind of public duty he had to perform.

What do you think? Do all these ancient sages view marriage with bad eyes? Or am I misreading?

I saw someone posted Roberto Rossellini (1971) Socrate [Socrates], and I wanted to share this movie by Marco Ferreri, “Il Banchetto di Platone [Plato's Symposium]” (1988). It's pretty faithful and somewhat trippy. I would love to hear what people think.

Please help me! I am searching for a certain Japanese article on Plato’s „Philebus“. I can’t find it anywhere.

It’s published in a Japanese Journal. If anyone has access to it, then would you share it with me?

Yamada, Michio (2006), „??? [Pleasure as Becoming: An Interpretation of Philebus 53c–55a]”, in: 古代哲学研究 : methodos [コダイ テツガク ケンキユウ] [Kodai Tetsugaku Kenkyu] [Methodos: a journal for ancient philosophy], Vol. 38, pp. 1–16.

??? = I don’t know the Japanese title of the article.

TLDR; Take part in a short study and see a cute dog as a reward!

Hey there! I'm a Classics student, looking for participants in a short study comparing translations of Plato's iconic Republic! Did you know that the language we use to discuss the philosophy found within these texts has not changed in at least 100 years? Did you know that a large margin of translations of Republic follow the same obsolete format that makes it needlessly tricky for people with reading difficulties? Well now you do, and I set out to change that!

This survey will form part of my final university project, where I am undertaking a reconstruction of Plato's Republic for a contemporary audience; with the hope to reach a wider audience with this great piece, whilst making it more accessible for those with reading difficulties!

You'll be asked to read some short passages and compare some images. It's completely anonymous. I need a high sample size, and you don't need any previous knowledge about this heady subject to take part - so please do!

You can access the Microsoft Forms link here: https://forms.office.com/e/XsKzKhFTXn

Join me in stealing philosophy away from the boffins in university backrooms - these words build our society, and so it is important that we all have an equal access to them!

Can someone explain to me Socrates's political theory from Plato's Georgias? I have to write a paper about it. This is what I have so far but I'm struggling to explain it better: In the Gorgias, Socrates explains the theory of politics. As far as Socrates is concerned, he is among the few Athenians who truly understands politics. He believed that rhetoric is a shameful part of politics. He thought this because rhetoric only produces false beliefs and has no actual knowledge. The ultimate goal of politics, in his opinion, is to make people as good as possible. He aims to make them excellent by teaching them virtues such as self-control, bravery, and justice.

Plato talked extensively about the perfect education for Guardians and Auxiliaries that would produce just, moderate, and thoughtful men with sort-of-communal and fraternal love for their city and its citizens, with the main source of happiness lying in "being the best possible craftsmen at their own work” (421b-c). Now, I am currently on Book IV, and I am aware that Plato might go into details about the kind of education that producers would need to possess the same virtues in their own contexts in the next books. When Adeimantus asks if the market and private sector needs any regulatory religslation, Plato's answer is that "it isn't appropriate to dictate to men who are fine and good. They'll easily find out for themselves whatever needs to be legislated about such things" (425d-e). And it is clear that Plato places great emphasis on the role of education in eliminating injustice and vice in men. What education would make regular craftspeople "fine and good"?