In Eros unveiled: Plato and the god of love (1994), Catherine Rowett discusses the theme of love in Plato and in the bible. There are important connections, because today it is believed that the NT authors are influenced by Platonism. She shows that eros and agape, etc., have not such a determinate meaning as accorded by Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros). The Greek knew about unselfish love, too. After all, this seems to be the theme of Lysis. It is not so simple that for Plato love is primarily a desire for something that you lack and need and hope to gain, which is how we tend to understand Symposium.

It is apparent from the Lysis that Plato could convincingly represent the common assumptions of Athenians about love as being incompatible with an acquisitive analysis of love. (p. 60)

[…]

Thus both eros and agape can be used to designate love characterized by either generous or self-interested concerns; neither the direction of affection from superior to inferior or vice versa, nor the direction of benefits from lover to beloved or the reverse, can be sufficient to define the difference between eros and agape. Hence we are in no position as yet to decide that only one of these terms could be applicable to the relationship between man and God. (p. 70)

Rowett suggests that it is a confusion to seek to explain love by seeking motives for love, or by identifying possible aims and rewards that are sought or desired (p. 71). Thus, she argues that love is blind. It hits you like an arrow released from the bow of Amor.

Anyway, this talk about unacquisitive love remains a puzzlement to me. If I desire God's love, or love from another human being, am I being egoistic, then? Isn't love always desire, either heavenly or worldly, in keeping with Augustine's analysis? On the other hand, isn't a parent's "unacquisitive" love for a child really instinctual? In that case it serves the purpose of protecting genetic interests. After all, crocodiles have maternal love, too. It's a good book; but important questions are left unanswered. I give it 4 stars out of 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLa26F0CyU&t=192s

Pain & suffering, pain of unobtainable desires, hurdles - from a platonist or even a Neoplatonist perspective.

Social media influencers, Fad diets, Get-rich-quick schemes, cosmetic surgery for vanity, tabloids, reality tv, clickbait, fast fashion, demagoguery.

I got another 30, but reddit formatting sucks, so I'm not going to waste time. Thought that was interesting and worth sharing.

How does your Platonism view shape how you engage with current times?

“if Aesop had thought of them, he would have made a fable telling how they were at war and god wished to reconcile them, and when he could not do that, he fastened their heads together, and for that reason, when one of them comes to anyone, the other follows after. Just so it seems that in my case, after pain was in my leg on account of the fetter, pleasure appears to have come following after.”

​

What is the pleasure Socrates is feeling?

Is it a metaphor for being surrounded by friends or is it something else?

Is that how he’s being ironic?

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I just don't get why Plato gets all the credit despite only writing this stuff down.The whole dialogue is by Socrates and he shares his personal views.

Are there any books recommend to get a understanding on how Plato view the Greek gods in a metaphysical theological viewpoint?

Anyone read it? I felt it was lackluster in a way, It didn't cover enough of the original source

Abstract: Self-predication defines the Form. Unity is constituted (not invalidated) by the Third Man regress. Participation is envisaged as a cognitive process. The harmful consequences of anti-Platonic philosophy in the modern era is discussed.

Keywords: Platonism, Participation, religious faith, Bradley’s regress, Plato, Aristotle, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Arbogast Schmitt, Richard Gaskin.

The Platonic Form as Self-Generating Triunity : The Resolution of the Third Man Argument

The world is plagued by hatred and bigotry. The Luminous Sect stands for wisdom and peace. Join us to end all problems and make the world wise.

Hey all!

So I've recently been wondering about the standard view Platonist and Neoplatonists have on demons. What are demons and possessions? What is evil?

Any answers are appreciated :)

I would like to invite you to a philosophy discord server. For teachers, students, and autodidacts.

The purpose of this discord chat is dedicated to the engagement of philosophical discourse and the exploration of ideas in the history of philosophy. Our main goal is to become more knowledgeable about historical thinkers and ideas from every philosophical domain through interpersonal dialogues. We are not a debate server. Argument is a method used by philosophy, but this isn’t to be confused with debate. The latter is competitive in nature, whereas the former is a cooperative endeavor. Philosophy is a group project that aims to determine what is true, and this server is a place for this activity.  Here is the invite https://discord.gg/NyesZ6e5cp

Invite link is hopefully permanent, so you won't have to worry whether the link is working if you're reading this sometime in the future.

See you all there!

I've heard some people say that they treat Plotinus's Enneads as if they are sacred and sometimes treat the passages as prayers. Thoughts?

I need advice.

I was raised Catholic. Plato's Forms brought me to believe in Christ, since Christ seems to be the ultimate Form of Goodness itself.

But lately, I've been struggling to keep the faith because ancient Abrahamic theology seems completely incompatable with Platonism. If this is the case, how can Christianity be true?

I'm considering Platonic Monotheism, but that route abandones the idea of Christ, which is super appealing. What should I consider in all this?

So, I'm a devout Platonist. How many people here believe that the concept of a "philosopher king" actually mandates tyranny? I always thought of it as a form of decentralized leadership in which political leaders educated the masses. I don't want Plato to steer people toward Fascism and Communism. Thought?

So, a god has to be conscious or aware at least some of the time. Something that is never conscious or aware cannot be called a god.

Socrates and Plato talked about the Form of the Good as being even more exalted than the Form of the Beautiful and the Form of the True. Apparently John Uebersax has written that the Form of the Good is equivalent to God. But I think Uebersax is highly prestigious, so maybe he understands a lot of things I am not aware of.

Uebersax wrote:

For Plato, God is the ‘Form of the Good’. A Form here means an Ideal — an eternal fundamental principle, of which material objects and attributes are imperfect copies. So God is the Ideal of perfect Goodness and source of all that is Good.

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Platos-view-on-God

However, I don't think Socrates ever said that the Forms are conscious or aware. In fact, that is why Socrates was not proposing to replace the Olympian gods. So I think Socrates would disagree with Uebersax.

To complicate the issue, I think Plotinus made the innovation of saying the the ONE was the Form of the Good.

Thought I'd jump into this subreddit and ask if people are still reading and divining meaning in their lives from the works of Plato? I read him during undergrad and wrote my thesis on the figure of Alcibiades in his work and in Thucydides and Plutarch. Several times in the years since graduating I set myself to reading the Hackett edition of Plato's complete works all the way through, though I never get past the first few dialogues that I read for different classes while completing my Classics major. What do people think about going through each dialogue one by one? There's a lot of relevant insights in each of them to our modern day social/political struggles and the perennial quest for wisdom/the good life. I notice that a lot of fashionable commentary on Stoicism these days doesn't mention the actual history of the authors' lives or the wider Hellenistic and later Roman context in which the philosophy flourished. Maybe we could fill this in for the works of Plato? Classical Athens was a remarkable place. Let me know your thoughts!

Hello all,

Dr. Justin Sledge mentioned on his amazing video on Platonic Mania that, outside Ficino, not much was done with it ritually/intellectually. To me at least, this seems to be because Iamblicus and Proclus went down the theurgy route, which seems to fulfill a similar role in the Late Platonic system (i.e. non-rational experience of the divine) as the mania would.

Are there any scholars out there doing work on Plato's mania beyond Yulia Ustinova? And are there any Platonist practitioners out there who have incorporated the concept of mania in your own practice? Thanks!

So, I recently found myself in a bit of difficulty with Seneca and tought maybe someone here could help.

I'm reading "Letters to Lucilio" / "Moral epistoles to Lucilius" (title slightly changes depending on the translation), in Italian.

In the letter nº58 Seneca enters in a platonic classification of the beings.
I have read the letter many times, and even tought i've read some Plato over the years, there are points that seem not that clear to me.

In the letter Seneca treats it as a classification of the beings in 6 different groups.
It starts with "It that is" ("ciò che è", in the italian translation), going down to
-"the supreme being"
-"Ideas"
-"Idos"
-"Things that exist in the usual sens of the term"
-Things that almos exist

Does someone knows in which dialogue Plato writes on this theme?
Maybe reading the original source would help me understanding it.