/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20724660]

So Plato was a pantheist?

[Anonymous No.20724667]

Really wouldn’t surprise me but jive only read symposium bout half of republic and some of crito so far I don’t have much evidence to back me up

[Anonymous No.20724670]

>>20724660
He was a reactionary.

[Anonymous No.20724698]

>>20724660
hen kai pan

[Anonymous No.20724735]

>>20724660
From what I've read of Plato and what I've been taught concerning his metaphysics, very much no

[Anonymous No.20724770]

>>20724660
No, and you could search it up if you actually cared.

[Anonymous No.20724784]

He was a materialist

[Anonymous No.20724792]

>>20724784
This is bait right? If not please tell me how the fuck you come to that conclusion

[Anonymous No.20724839]

>>20724660
no
>>20724735
retard

[Anonymous No.20724861]

>>20724839
We agree, retard

[Anonymous No.20724868]

>>20724861
yeah I read "very much so"

[Anonymous No.20726015]

>>20724660
>pantheist
That's an insufficient word for it.

[Anonymous No.20726349]

>>20726015
>>20724770
>>20724735
but maybe platonic idealism could be considered as a kind of pantheism? pantheism doesn't just mean nature worship you guys

[Anonymous No.20726410]

>>20726349
Right, but pantheism has some of the following definitions:
>a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe (Merriam-Webster)
>At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
>the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that aremanifestedin the existing universe. (Britannica)
Plato's metaphysics is fundamentally opposed to the concept of panthesim because of the extreme differences between the two's understanding of the universe. As seen in the Timaeus, Plato believes in the transendance of the intelligible world over the material world, distinguishing the two as being in the distinctive ontological states of "being" and "becoming" with the material world being a by-product of the intelligible world. This is fundamentally different from the absolute envelopement or existential equality of god in a pantheistic view of the universe.

[Anonymous No.20726411]

>>20724660
Retarded nigger (OP)

[Anonymous No.20726418]

>>20726410
Plato's basically worship of an ideal kind of Truth could be defined as pantheism, who cares if there's the technical distinction between the material and ideal world. the ideal world and the material world are one and the same world after all, just different manifestations of the same essence/eidos. when Plato worships the ideal, he basically worships the authentic, the authentic manifestation of essence, the authentic manifestation of surrounding reality, a pure idea

[Anonymous No.20726498]

>>20726418
There is a fundamental, ontological distinction between the material world and the intelligible world in Plato's cosmology that disagrees with a pantheistic cosmology. Yes, the goal of Platonic philosophy is to reach the intelligible world through investigation and dialectic because it is Truth. However, this does not mean that the material world is one with the intelligible as seen in their ontological difference expressed in Timaeus. The distinction is very important because the material world is seen as lesser than the intelligible world in a Platonic framework, completely different by definition from a pantheistic cosmology where everything retains an ontological equility with or envelopment by god.

[Anonymous No.20726554]

hmm well it seems to me that he believes the Logos is the highest form. sounds like monotheism to me, idk

[Anonymous No.20726558]

>>20726498
>There is a fundamental, ontological distinction between the material world and the intelligible world in Plato's cosmology that disagrees with a pantheistic cosmology.
there is not, it's called eidos. there is only one universe and only one objective reality and only one objective Truth

[Anonymous No.20726580]

>>20726558
>

[Anonymous No.20726784]

>>20726580
yeah that's what i'm saying. i think it's you who doesn't understand me (or plato), not the other way round

[Anonymous No.20726811]

>>20726784
How can you be this dense? This passage is talking about the distinctions between the material and the intelligible, one is eternal while the other is created. Just because the material is a product of the intelligible DOES NOT mean that they are the same, that would be like saying a father and child are the same.

[Anonymous No.20726814]

>>20726811
>that would be like saying a father and child are the same.
or more like saying that Father and Son are the same...

[Anonymous No.20726823]

>>20726814
They aren't, one necessitates the other in Plato's system as seen in the passage. The intelligible world is indepent and in no way relies on the material for its existence, not vice versa.

[Anonymous No.20726849]

>>20726823
>the visible world is a changing image of an eternal model
that sounds pantheistic to me

[Anonymous No.20726867]

>>20726849
How? A pantheistic model of the universe doesn't differentiate from god ontologically, while Plato has clearly explained the ontological distinction between the material and intelligible worlds in the passage.

[Anonymous No.20726935]

>>20726867
I've had this argument so many times (arguing on your side), it's not worth bothering. Just accept that at this point "pantheism" literally just becomes a semantic ambiguity. Hegel spent the early parts of his career when he discovered the Upanishads and Gita asserting with disdain that they were pantheistic, and later in life came over to the "panentheistic" view, where he accumulated more respect for them. It seems people, even Hegel, have a lot of difficulty comprehending the subtle differences here, although in his case maybe it was due to lack of literature or poor philology.

[Anonymous No.20726949]

>>20726867
ultimately pantheism could be defined as deified monism
>>20726935
Platonic and Hegelian idealisms were both monistic, as I think every idealism is. when the One is asserted to be divine that is pantheism. it doesn't even have to be an explicit assertion, just an off-handed statement about the One, through its sheer existence, being divine

[Anonymous No.20726966]

>>20724660
Plato was an Advaitin

[Anonymous No.20726969]

>>20726949
>ultimately pantheism could be defined as deified monism
Yes, but that's a Parmenidean assertion and not Platonic. Plato was influenced by Parmenides, but the system seen in Timaeus does not share the monistic model as seen through the numerous ontological distinctions in the universe.

[Anonymous No.20726976]

>>20726966
Does anyone remember the Platonic dialogue where Socrates mentions offhand an Indian wanderer who appeared in Athens and refuted all of the sophists in the marketplace?

[Anonymous No.20726980]

>>20726969
it's still monistic, there are different kinds of all these things, it's complex, idk why you're being so reductive. Plato definitely wasn't atheist, he saw divinity in authentic reality (not the spectacle) and he wasn't monotheistic, all this fits in smoothly with the general Ancient Greek polis culture and its approach to its own mythology and polytheism (very fluid and lax)

[Anonymous No.20726990]

>>20726976
I don't think it's in the Platonic dialogue but rather it was a statement of Aristoxenus about events in Athens that was recorded by Eusebius and some other sources too

[Anonymous No.20726997]

>>20726949
>when the One is asserted to be divine that is pantheism
That's simply not the definition of pantheism.

[Anonymous No.20727008]

>>20726980
Something can be monistic but not monism, a system can share elements with another but not be the thing it shares relations with. Plato's system gave superiority to the intelligible world but did not assert that the intelligible world is the only thing in existence as monism would. Also, how am I the one being reductive? I'm saying Plato's system isn't able to be reduced to a term like "pantheism" because it doesn't reflect what the text says and is too broadly applied without any context.

[Anonymous No.20727010]

>>20726997
pantheism can be easily defined as a deified monism:

the One = the Universe = divine = pantheism

[Anonymous No.20727017]

>>20727010
>the One = the Universe
That's incorrect and you're still using an incorrect definition. The easy demonstration is that if God is One and the universe is Many, then somehow this would be pantheism despite God's ontological transcendence of the universe and the Many.

[Anonymous No.20727041]

>>20727008
>Plato's system gave superiority to the intelligible world but did not assert that the intelligible world is the only thing in existence as monism would.
not really, rather, the form is only one, there is only one universe, one eidos, and only one eternal model, but there are various purely human conceptualizations, some of which are closer to the truth, and some which are farther from it. that is the material world, of us, human beings, and our own illusions and limits to knowledge and limits to rationalism and everything. and yet, we strive for meaning, and thus the many manifestations of the same pure ideas. pure ideas themselves are a spook, the only thing that most authentically exists is the empirical realization of the ideal, which is... what Plato preached in the Republic when describing his ideal state. idealism isn't meant just for navel gazing in fact it's not meant for that at all, it's meant for action and that's beautiful about it

and I can't help but notice the pantheistic inclination of all of this. the concept of Truth stems from our own minds uniquely capable of abstract thought, so animals don't have a concept of Truth, and yet, humans, with their abstract thought, can basically transcend themselves and transcend their immediate material reality and conceptualize Truth as away from themselves, that is objective Truth, Truth that holds and is independent of any circumstances or individuals or collectives. and in the end Truth can be argued as manifesting itself (even if just in a particle) through every entity that exists, so now we get to the bottom line of philosophy i.e. objective vs subjective reality, the latter being a dead end

[Anonymous No.20727048]

>>20727017
>The easy demonstration is that if God is One and the universe is Many, then somehow this would be pantheism despite God's ontological transcendence of the universe and the Many.
yeah, for all practical purposes it would be pantheism, just like eastern religions are, just like the christian doctrine (quite surprisingly to a lot of christians nowadays) is. it's just a question of who do you think god is, what they are represented by, if they manifest themselves in the form of some ontological structure at all

[Anonymous No.20727056]

>>20727048
>yeah, for all practical purposes it would be pantheism
No, it wouldn't, because God is not the universe.

[Anonymous No.20727059]

>>20727056
actually it's
>God is the Universe... and more!
that's just pantheism with extra steps. actually just one extra step. actually just one extra half-step. actually just one extremely technical theological extra half-step. it's meaningless

[Anonymous No.20727068]

>>20727059
>>God is the Universe... and more!
No it's not. God is One, which is not the Universe at all. This is how all ultra-monistic doctrines like Plotinus and Shankara are formulated (in fact they are to such an extent that A) Plotinus argues that even calling it "one" is a misnomer, and B) Shankara resorts to using "not two" because it is more accurate than "one")

[Anonymous No.20727072]

>>20727068
>A) Plotinus argues that even calling it "one" is a misnomer, and B) Shankara resorts to using "not two" because it is more accurate than "one")
well yeah, it's more like The Everything, the Total, or something like that. or better yet, a concept that has already been named: the monad...
>No it's not. God is One, which is not the Universe at all.
the Universe is included in God. we are talking christian doctrine here. you're being unorthodox

[Anonymous No.20727091]

>>20727041
Motherfucker you have not brought a single argument from Plato himself. You just keep asserting "this reminds me of pantheism, therefore it is" and not listening to anything other than a feedback loop
>not really, rather, the form is only one, there is only one universe, one eidos, and only one eternal model, but there are various purely human conceptualizations, some of which are closer to the truth, and some which are farther from it. that is the material world, of us, human beings, and our own illusions and limits to knowledge and limits to rationalism and everything. and yet, we strive for meaning, and thus the many manifestations of the same pure ideas
This has nothing to do with Plato or his perception of the universe, this is simply your belief on how the universe is. That's fine, but just because you believe it doesn't mean Plato did.
>pure ideas themselves are a spook, the only thing that most authentically exists is the empirical realization of the ideal, which is... what Plato preached in the Republic when describing his ideal state. idealism isn't meant just for navel gazing in fact it's not meant for that at all, it's meant for action and that's beautiful about it
Why are you mentioning spooks like you're Stirner in a discussion on Plato? I don't deny that Plato's goal in forming an state was to make a material emanation of the idealized state, but that does not mean both the material and the idealized are the same in Plato's system as you keep asserting
>and I can't help but notice the pantheistic inclination of all of this. the concept of Truth stems from our own minds uniquely capable of abstract thought, so animals don't have a concept of Truth, and yet, humans, with their abstract thought, can basically transcend themselves and transcend their immediate material reality and conceptualize Truth as away from themselves, that is objective Truth, Truth that holds and is independent of any circumstances or individuals or collectives. and in the end Truth can be argued as manifesting itself (even if just in a particle) through every entity that exists, so now we get to the bottom line of philosophy i.e. objective vs subjective reality, the latter being a dead end
Again, this is ENTIRELY your own perception of the universe with no reference to Plato whatsoever. I'm not opposed to your pantheism, all I'm saying is that you're inserting it into Plato with no textual foundation from him other than that co-opting of the Republic

[Anonymous No.20727096]

>>20727091
you're the one not posting a single counter argument lol. i'm following very logically straight from platonism. is there objective reality or is there not?

[Anonymous No.20727106]

>>20727096
>you're the one not posting a single counter argument lol.
Can you read? Are you actually this retarded?
>i'm following very logically straight from platonism.
Yet you're not refering to instances in Platonism that actually follow your assertions.
>Is there objective reality or is there not?
That's not what we're debating. I could care less if the universe were a Heraclitean flux, a monism akin to Parmemides, a turtle's back, etc., what this argument is about is what Plato said.

[Anonymous No.20727122]

>>20727106
>Yet you're not refering to instances in Platonism that actually follow your assertions.
when i participated on skeptics stack exchange we had this rule that statements on things generally acknowledged to be true need no citations because that can get mundane and cumbersome quickly, and easily. your problem is i guess just a lack of proper understanding of platonism and no real definition of it inside your head hence the 0 substance of your posts. but it's your personal problem not mine. if anyone here is stuck in a feedback loop it's you
>what this argument is about is what Plato said.
right, and I'm turning the rhetoric on you, is there objective reality or not in platonism

[Anonymous No.20727139]

>>20727122
>when i participated on skeptics stack exchange we had this rule that statements on things generally acknowledged to be true need no citations because that can get mundane and cumbersome quickly, and easily.
I don't know you from Adam, what I know is what I read (like I posted) and what I've read is off base of most everything you've asserted.
>your problem is i guess just a lack of proper understanding of platonism and no real definition of it inside your head hence the 0 substance of your posts. but it's your personal problem not mine. if anyone here is stuck in a feedback loop it's you
You keep reiterating the same the same idea given even when given evidence pointing to the contrary, that definitely sounds like a feedback loop (also nice "no u" shit head)
>right, and I'm turning the rhetoric on you, is there objective reality or not in platonism
Yes, there is an objective reality in Platonism. It is not the only thing in existence within the Platonic system however.

[Anonymous No.20727148]

>>20727122
Most people have a distorted view of Plato's philosophy, usually derived from either pop philosophy or really mediocre secondary or tertiary sources. I think that is really something which needs to be clarified before a discussion can take place. Plato is not simple, and I've seen many people conflate his philosophy with scientific essentialism and other common bogeymen in modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20727561]

>>20726418
>who cares if there's the technical distinction between the material and ideal world
Gonna come across as a smartass, but *Plato*.

[Anonymous No.20727566]

>>20726580
Lol the most embarrassing moment for Cornford as a translator is footnote 2 on page 22.

>so guys i translated kalon as "good"
>Why? It means beautiful.
>see, because the septuagint a few centuries later uses it that way in ch. 1 of genesis

[Anonymous No.20727617]

>>20727122
>when i participated on skeptics stack exchange we had this rule that statements on things generally acknowledged to be true need no citations because that can get mundane and cumbersome quickly, and easily
Nta, but that doesn't work when you're asserting views held by an author, the test of which will be whether they say it anywhere in their writings or reasonably imply it. The argument for Plato being a pantheist has to at the very least establish that Plato thought all thing were divine as a baseline claim, and this claim is harder to defend based on passages such as the Cave in the Republic, the distinction between this world and the intelligible in the Parmenides, and the threefold distinction between the gods, the daimonic, and the mortal in the Symposium. It's easier to argue for a divine cause of that which isn't divine in Plato, but that doesn't necessitate pantheism, because it doesn't establish that Plato thought the realm of becoming as such was divine.

[Anonymous No.20727654]

>>20727566
But there is no meaningful difference between translating it as either beauitful or good, even more so when Socrates acknowledges in another dialogue the interchangability of these two forms. The only embarassing thing here is how you care more about nitpicking into a translation to the point of making up lies in other threads about this same translator than reading the philosophy of the work.

[Anonymous No.20727690]

>>20727654
>But there is no meaningful difference between translating it as either beauitful or good, even more so when Socrates acknowledges in another dialogue the interchangability of these two forms
Socrates explicitly takes pains to distinguish between the Good and the Beautiful to Agathon in the Symposium, where they're *not* the same. The subsequent Diotima passages further emphasize the differences.

In the Timaeus passage, looking to the unchanging only guarantees that the model will be Beautiful, not that it will be Good. That this isn't a small incidental matter to Plato can be seen in the treatments of Beautiful youths such as Alcibiades and Meno, whose Beauty in form conceals the vice in their souls.

Imagine reading Plato and arguing against aomeone asserting pantheism and going "ah, but there's no difference between the Good and the Beautiful."

[Anonymous No.20728032]

>>20726990
Socrates btfo lmao

[Anonymous No.20728469]

>>20726949
I’m reading along and not picking sides (although I’m bias to the Plato not being a monist) but the One is not Plato. That’s Plotinus. That discredits your side.

[Anonymous No.20728565]

>>20728469
What do you suppose is going on with the One in Parmenides?

[Anonymous No.20728618]

>>20728469
Plotinus just created a more expanded interpretative framework for platonism, the concepts are handy as descriptors which is why I'm using them

[Anonymous No.20728663]

>>20728565
>>20728618
Bullshit. If your whole argument rests in a definitive explanation of Plato's One in Parmenides, give me the synopsis of what supports your view with citations from Plato. Don't explain the dialogue or anything superfluous. Just give me a short summary of what it is your defending as taken from Plato.

[Anonymous No.20728763]

>>20728663
I'm not >>20728618, at >>20728565 all I asked was what you thought Plato was doing by devoting a dialogue to the One if you thought Plato didn't hold to it in some way, chill.

[Anonymous No.20728780]

>>20728663
>>20728763
Also, weird to ask for both an explanation of the content of a sialogue without explaining the dialogue.

[Anonymous No.20728862]

>>20727059
That's panentheism dumbass

[Anonymous No.20728979]

>>20724660
He or Socrates were very possibly Muslims, his books talk about being slaves of the Lord, and praying with the rising sun

[Anonymous No.20729071]

>>20728979
seems legit

[Anonymous No.20729618]

>>20727122
You're an absolute kike. You participated in a skeptic think tank that didn't question dogma? I can imagine your hook nose in perfect detail just reading this.


>>20728763
You're a fucking moron or a bad actor. The One is not something attributed to Plato. It is talked about in relation to him but without any definiteness. Usually in you go into details regarding the One you default to neoplatonist.
You can still redeem yourself by I will not chill.

[Anonymous No.20729670]

>>20729618
>You're a fucking moron or a bad actor. The One is not something attributed to Plato. It is talked about in relation to him but without any definiteness. Usually in you go into details regarding the One you default to neoplatonist.
>You can still redeem yourself by I will not chill.
I asked you what you thought the point of the One was in the Parmenides you double nigger. If you want to say it's not a Platonic principle, fine, but say what the point of the Parmenides is then.