Platonism thread

[Anonymous No.14622979]

All hail the Divine Plato!

Pin this thread if you support Neoplatonism and understand the esoteric interpretation of Plato and have been fully initiated into the mystery cults.

Hide this thread if you support the monstrous abortion that is modern philosophy and think philosophy consists of sophism and word games rather than preparing for death.

Reply if you wish to engage in peaceful dialogue and shary comfy feels regarding knowledge of the forms at this late/early hour.

[Anonymous No.14623016]

Could Plato be summed up as "feels > reals", while Aristotle is all about facts and logic?

[Anonymous No.14623063]

>>14623016
More like ideas>reality

[Anonymous No.14623142]

>>14622979
Solid thread.

[Anonymous No.14623398]

>>14623142
It's ideal.

[Anonymous No.14623845]

>>14623016
feels = reals

[Anonymous No.14623881]

Heh, Plato believes in a soul?
Read BASED DENNETT in order to see why this whole thing is a delusion.

Analytic philosophy needs to shed the dogma of "Muh Forms" and embrace the purity of Nominalism, Elimitavism, and beautiful SCIENCE.

Instead of Aristotle, read DAWKINS; instead of Plotinus. read HARRIS; instead of Eckhart, read PINKER; instead of Plato, read DENNETT.

[Anonymous No.14624013]

>>14623881
>t. p-zombie

[Anonymous No.14624026]

>>14623881
> Heh, Plato believes in a soul?
Read BASED DENNETT in order to see why this whole thing is a delusion.

>Analytic philosophy needs to shed the dogma of "Muh Forms" and embrace the purity of Nominalism, Elimitavism, and beautiful SCIENCE.

>Instead of Aristotle, read DAWKINS; instead of Plotinus. read HARRIS; instead of Eckhart, read PINKER; instead of Plato, read DENNETT.

Much better...

[Anonymous No.14624056]

>>14623881
I dont know why but i have a very strong impression that Dennett might be and sound as dumb and vexing as the people who shill him

[Anonymous No.14624072]

This is the perfect thread to ask.
Is this a good introduction to Plato? since I believe that it's important to know the figure of Socrates for better context. And, can I jump later to The Republic if I don't care about the rest of the Platonic dialogues?

[Anonymous No.14624077]

What do you guys think about Schopenhauer's Platonism? Seems like tenable and rigorous way to uphold the core principles of Platonism after the early moderns.

[Anonymous No.14624082]

>>14624072
>Is this a good introduction to Plato?
Yes.
>can I jump later to The Republic if I don't care about the rest of the Platonic dialogues?
You "can" but you shouldn't these are some of the most important dialogues.

[Anonymous No.14624105]

>>14623881

[Anonymous No.14624118]

How does the Platonist respond to what Nietzsche had to say about them? Is any sort of transcendental philosophy just a coping mechanism for the weak? I don't really think it is, but I have a hard time resisting what he said about it.

> but I'm not weak!
If you were strong, would you really be on here?
> but Plato wasn't weak!
Maybe not in the literal sense, but isn't there something life denying about focusing your entire thought system about something (forms) that isn't even a concrete element of life?

[Anonymous No.14624157]

>>14624118
Why does the intention matter when the argument is strong enough? Suppose I'm hungry and after so much legitimate hard work I find some food to eat. Yes, I'm hungry and by giving in to the hunger I am, as some might say, weak. But that food is the truth and I acquired it by justified reasoning. Why should I deny myself the truth when it makes me feel better? It is after all the most natural thing in the world that truth satisfies a hungry soul.

[Anonymous No.14624179]

>>14624118
>coping mechanism for the weak
Literally not an argument

[Anonymous No.14624428]

bump

[Anonymous No.14624593]

>>14622979
What are main issues contemporary platonists philosophers are writing about /working in ?

[Anonymous No.14624597]

>>14623016
lmao

[Anonymous No.14624601]

>>14624593
there aren't any modern platonists that literally anyone of note cares about.

[Anonymous No.14624674]

>>14624601
Ken Wheeler.

[Anonymous No.14624677]

>>14624601
The entire catholic church, its popes and 2000 year history. Face it, platonism won.

[Anonymous No.14624728]

>>14624677
>Implying Thomism isn't a aristotelian corruption of Platonism.
And, by the way, the real platonists are in Mount Athos or in tariqas.

[Anonymous No.14624773]

>>14624728
tru dat

[Anonymous No.14625082]

>>14624728
always easy to indentify the orthodox poster from his love of Islam

[Anonymous No.14625140]

>>14624118
It's projection. Nietzsche's philosophy was created because he was demonstrably an extremely weak hopeless excuse for a man and he wanted to embolden himself, which he failed to do.

[Anonymous No.14625171]

>>14624677
Catholicism is Aristotelian, sweetie.

[Anonymous No.14625214]

>>14623016
Catholicism doesn't subscribe to any philosophy but Thomism you could almost say is it's quasi-'official' philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14625223]

Why is Plato so comfy? I like to get all snug in bed at night, put on some ancient Greek music on in the background and read about whoever Socrates might be accosting in the agora today.

[Anonymous No.14625256]

>>14625223
Pure aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.14625297]

>>14625223
>>14625256
Until Socrates gets accosted himself. By Parmenides. Trust me bros, it's not fun.

[Anonymous No.14625864]

>>14625223
It's cause he's not mindnumbingly boring unlike some

[Anonymous No.14626065]

>>14625864
I think it's because Plato is great philosophy and great literature. Kierkegaard is the same for me.

[Anonymous No.14626615]

Anyone want to talk about Plato's theory of the soul in Timaeus. Particularly his Number Mysticism and Harmonic Theories. I particularly find his Identity (Even Number) and Difference (Odd Number) to be an interesting facet.

[Anonymous No.14626726]

>>14624118

NEETzsche's own "philosophy" is nothing but "transcendental".

[Anonymous No.14626985]

Favourite dialogue?
I like the Laches.

[Anonymous No.14627275]

>>14624118
Platonic ways of thinking, Christianity included, is born out of the fact that life is too complex to plan out and deftly manipulate. A human being barely knows what's going on in his own head, let alone the heads of everyone else in his life. So it is better to live by and dedicate yourself to values that tend to birth a state and sane life long term, and if these virtues have survived for so long, perhaps they are just a pale reflection of something that exists beyond us

[Anonymous No.14627572]

bump

[Anonymous No.14627642]

>>14622979
What are some recommendations for delving into Neoplatonism?

[Anonymous No.14627817]

>>14627642
Algis Uzdavinys books

[Anonymous No.14628450]

>>14626985
Theaetetus

[Anonymous No.14629029]

>>14626065
Plato is really a great read from a literary standpoint.

[Anonymous No.14629459]

>>14622979
this is absolutely retarded.

[Anonymous No.14629502]

>>14629459
t. aristotle

[Anonymous No.14629515]

>>14629502
kek

[Anonymous No.14629987]

>>14625223
Plato is really good for LARPing. I usually daydream about accompanying Socrates in his debates, chiming in around certain topics, astounding even the master with my perceptive quips and proverbs...

[Anonymous No.14630415]

>>14624674
based

[Anonymous No.14630855]

>read Plato's Parmenides
>Socrates is retroactively refuted by Parmenides
Is Plato a follower of Roberto Guenon (grand poobah)?

[Anonymous No.14630864]

>>14630855
Yes, prophet Guenon retroactively educated Plato and the Hindus.

[Anonymous No.14630924]

Anons, serious question about the theory of Forms.

So, it makes sense to me why we would argue that the essence of what something is must consist of some Form that it imperfectly derives from. But I'm having trouble understanding by what basis we say something is a Form. For instance, this cow derives from the Form of cows if we focus on its cow-ness; but why can't we say it also derives from the Form of mammals in its mammal-ness, or the form of four-legged in its four-legged-ness, or the form of X for any X arbitrary categorization.
Of course this is absurd, since something can only be of one essence, though it can have infinite accidents. But how do we know which property it is that determines the essence? Isn't it fundamentally arbitrary to focus on the cow's "cow-ness" rather than any other property?

[Anonymous No.14630957]

ITT Platonic brainlets scream against the void of their own arrogance, unable to accept that the idea of forms are a byproduct of our lives experience and not a building block of reality

[Anonymous No.14630968]

>>14630924
There's no meaningful way to answer that without devolving into an essentialist/existential nihilist pissing contest.

[Anonymous No.14631041]

>>14630924
Read Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.14631073]

>>14631041
Does Wittgenstein not just provide a restating of the problems?

[Anonymous No.14631088]

>>14630924
As far as I know examples of something's "chair-ness" or "cow-ness" are just verbal examples to explain the concept of Forms, not necessarily Forms themselves. As far as I take Plato the only true Form is the Good itself.

[Anonymous No.14631179]

>>14626615
I have not yet read the Timaeus but you have sold me on it, so thanks anon

[Anonymous No.14631189]

>>14631041
>>14631073
I haven't read him but from reading summaries of his ideas I was under the impression that language games only really explain that language is context-specific, but he thoroughly rejects any idea of an absolute correspondence between language and an objective reality, which seems like giving up desu, and I'd rather avoid that.

>>14631088
That solves the plurality-of-essence problem but fails to explain why anything is different. It's been a while but iirc the Form of Good is just the most elevated Form that makes it possible to "understand" anything (in a very gnostic sense)... which, being such an esoteric explanation, is really unsatisfying.

[Anonymous No.14631213]

>>14624674
lol was just watching his stream

[Anonymous No.14631286]

>>14630924
This is why it's important to read the history of philosophy and not just philosophy. This was one of the central paradoxes of Plato's school. One of the arguments is that the only "forms" he regarded as really real were all really a singular Divine form that instantiates differently (and beyond that you need esoteric knowledge), OR that he was a neo-Pythagorean (or going more in that direction as he aged) and the real forms are thus mathematical laws. Most of Plato's successors in the academy went in a mathematical, neo-Pythagorean direction, like Speusippus.

Aristotle did his own thing and it's still completely murky how exactly it's supposed to be interpreted. Is it a heuristic, empirical theory? Is it a grand metaphysical scheme of hylomorphism? Nobody fucking knows to this day.

[Anonymous No.14631309]

>>14631189
>That solves the plurality-of-essence problem but fails to explain why anything is different.

That's the perennial problem of monism. What is the ontological status of difference, let alone "becoming"? Can any real novelty emerge from an Absolute being? Is the Absolute's being "potential" a state of privation from actuality - does God "need" to become actual? Why does God do anything at all? Why would there be a distinction between maya/doxa and being to begin with? These are all problems without simple solutions.

[Anonymous No.14631516]

Did anyone else come to Platonism/neoplatonism by way of their intuition?
I've read a couple books by nietchze and other philosopher but Plato's theory of forms seems to make the most sense to me and I absolutely love the trial of Socrates. It's actually helped me beat my depression by looking at certain aspects of my life differently.
Idk it could be because I was raised a Christian as well and this is the OG Christian

[Anonymous No.14631844]

>>14631516
In what book does Plato explain his theory of the form? I want to know what that shit means.

[Anonymous No.14632068]

Okay, I just read Ion as a warm-up.

Was this just basically Socrates calling Ion a pompous douche

[Anonymous No.14632073]

>>14632068
No one knows how the fuck to interpret Ion

[Anonymous No.14632084]

>>14630864
>Yes, prophet Guenon retroactively educated Plato and the Hindus.
It all makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14632089]

>>14623881
Is that pic a stealth soijak?

[Anonymous No.14632104]

>>14632084
he was the twelve Imam Madhi, Maitreya Buddha and the avatar of Kalki after all, so it makes sense in retrospect

[Anonymous No.14632105]

>>14631844
Read Plato five dialogues(sets up the forms), then the Republic(states them), and after those Symposium(further extrapolates the particular form which is Love and is considered Plato's poetic masterpiece), a few others, Timias(arguably Plato's greatest dialogue in its refreshing read and true presentation of the forms) and Parmenides which also further explains the forms.

Of course you should read the correct dialogues between and after all of these but as far as the forms go if my memory does not deceive me these are the most important. Maybe also Theatetus for knowledge but read it after Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.14632109]

>>14631516
>Did anyone else come to Platonism/neoplatonism by way of their intuition?
Yes, after being really into Nietzsche and Stirner for a while I started to mature and began gravitating towards Plato, Plotinus and hermeticism.

[Anonymous No.14632110]

>>14632104
What about John?

[Anonymous No.14632134]

What are the five best dialogues?

I would say:
>1. Timias
>2. Republic
>3. Parmenides
>4. Pharedrus(for the reasons of the dialogue and understanding)
>5. Apology

There's a unique ethical value in his dialogues far closer to Socrates and Antisthenes which I find refreshing, and Kierkegaard himself was inspired by.

[Anonymous No.14632146]

What are the five best dialogues?

I would say:
>1. Timias
>2. Republic
>3. Parmenides
>4. Pharedrus(for the reasons of the dialogue and understanding)
>5. Apology

There's a unique ethical value in his early dialogues far closer to Socrates and Antisthenes which I find refreshing, and Kierkegaard himself was inspired by.

[Anonymous No.14632152]

>>14632105
Thank you anon, is the hackett edition good for the five dialogues?

[Anonymous No.14632289]

>>14632152
I think that's where the "Five dialogues" comes from so yes. But it's also fine just to read them separately in that order.

[Anonymous No.14632429]

>>14623016
>Aristotle is all about facts and logic?
so feels>reals again?

[Anonymous No.14632598]

>>14625171
The Church Fathers were mostly Platonist/Neoplatonist before Aquinas. He was very influential, though. But now Aristotelian Thomism has been getting lots of criticism within the Church, see nouvelle theologie.

[Anonymous No.14632609]

>>14623881
Absolutely retarded take, kys

[Anonymous No.14632611]

>>14632146
Snaedrus (formerly Chuckdrus)

[Anonymous No.14632613]

>>14632611
>nouvelle theologie
Not funny

didn't laugh

[Anonymous No.14632615]

>>14632613
You still had to google nouvelle theologie though.

[Anonymous No.14632623]

Absolutely no reason whatsoever to read Republic when it's all debunked and refuted later in the Laws.

[Anonymous No.14632628]

>>14632609
How does Eckhart class as a Neoplatonist? Like I can see it but the similarity's don't seem apparent enough to be considered a neoplatonist.

Why are any of these people considered Neoplatonists except for Ficino and Mirandola?

[Anonymous No.14632634]

>>14632615
Pls don't doxx me anon.

[Anonymous No.14632723]

>>14624118
>life denying
An absolute meme.

[Anonymous No.14632825]

>>14632146
>1. Sophisst
>2. Phaidon
>3. Timaios
>4. Republic
>5. Theaetetos

[Anonymous No.14632836]

>>14632628
>Meister Eckhart
His thought develops from Plotinus and Proclus, especially in the notion that the One is beyond thinking, therefore it can be reached through mystical union.

>Bonaventura
He represents the perfect blend of the Franciscan doctrine with Platonism. He strongly refuted Aristotle and was inspired by unusual philosophers like Avicenna and Averroes. The Journey of the Soul into God is basically a Platonic allegory of Christian enlightenment (unlike Dante's Commedia, which is still too medieval and has no platonic elements to it). You can rightly say Bonaventure was ahead of his time. Although he lived in the 13th century and probably never read Plato, he was a huge forerunner of Renaissance Neoplatonism. A great underrated thinker.

>Nicholas of Cusa
His whole conception of the universe is Platonic and opposed to Aristotle. He also studied Plato, Llull, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and he came into contact with Tuscan thinkers who were all Christian Platonists. He also thought that God is unknowable through rationality (like Meister Eckhart) and his concept of perfection is entirely Neoplatonic. His book Vision of God incorporates the Platonic theory of love as a force of reunification (similarly to what was already theorized by Marsilio Ficino and Pico).

>Giordano Bruno
He was pretty much influenced by Nicholas of Cusa in his vision of the universe. He completely fucked up when talking about the Holy Trinity because he had in mind the Platonic intellect, the One of Plotinus and other obscure concepts borrowed from Pythagoras. Overall Bruno is the most complex thinker to define, especially because his work is a big mess. Let's put it this way: if Bonaventure is a proto-Platonist, Bruno is a post-Platonist, the missing link between the Renaissance and what came after.

[Anonymous No.14633068]

>>14622979
>Element
>Universe
MY MOTHER WAS OF THE SKY
MY FATHER WAS OF THE EARTH
AND I AM OF THE UNIVERSE
AND YOU KNOW WHAT IS WORSE
I'M LONELY
YEAH I WANNA DIE
IF I AIN'T DEAD ALREADY - WOO!
GIRL, YOU KNOW THE REASON WHY.

[Anonymous No.14633165]

>>14633068
Did Lennon read Platon (pbuh)?

[Anonymous No.14633256]

>>14632836
>Giordano Bruno
Thanks a lot anon, haven't read the renaissance platonists yet so might start now.

[Anonymous No.14633974]

How does Mirandola stand in relation to Platonic philosophy? I've only read his ''On the Dignity of Man''.

[Anonymous No.14634022]

>>14633974
>How does Mirandola stand in relation to Platonic philosophy?
He shows how Platonic philosophy and in general the whole mythological culture of antiquity is perfectly compatible with Christianity. All the detractors of one or another side should read Ficino and Pico and change their mind.
>I've only read his ''On the Dignity of Man''
What did you think of it? I know Pico can have a rather obscure way of exposing concepts since he was a huge gatekeeper faggot.

[Anonymous No.14634116]

>>14631516
>it helped best my depression
Man, I wish I could read a book and have make my shitty life disappear.

[Anonymous No.14634179]

>>14625214
Thomism is just Aristotelianism with a thin Christian veil.

[Anonymous No.14634216]

>>14626615
Timaeus may well be one of the shittiest writings of the entire history of philosophy, let alone of Plato.

The only reason is famous is because Plotinus cum on it and also because it was one of the very few works of him that was widely read in the Middle Ages, and had material for the Christian God.

At any other level, seems like Plato was high on weed that day.

[Anonymous No.14634284]

>>14631309
>Why does God do anything at all?
That's a problem in every theology, to be fair. Not merely monistic ones.

[Anonymous No.14634307]

>>14625140
>he wanted to embolden himself, which he failed to do.
He immortalized himself in the minds of millions.
You could argue he didn't fail.

[Anonymous No.14634432]

Does everything have many forms of one thing, like mind and body are forms of the person, and is this monism?