Brief Notes on Variosu Topics - 97

8 June 2026

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 97

1.  The Dream of a Common Language

A friend of mine offered the idea that no one should be able to graduate from University without having studied Plato; that is to say Universities would have required courses in Plato in order to graduate.  His view is that we have lost the ability to speak to each other and that this has given rise to growing anger and estrangement from each other.  He suggested that Platonism has the potential of being a common language for communication and discussion of issues where there is disagreement.  Partly, he offered, that this is because the founding documents of Platonism are themselves dialogues.

It’s an intriguing idea.  An idea, that I have to admit, I find attractive.  I don’t know how to go about realizing such an idea and I suspect its chances of realization are rather remote.  On the other hand, it’s good to think of Platonism in such a context and to think about what kind of effect that would have.  (As an aside, my friend is not himself a Platonist but he thinks that Platonism can serve as a Common Language that can be used by divergent traditions and views.)

2.  Some Comments on Hyphenated Platonism

I have in the past contrasted what Gerson refers to as ‘Orthodox Platonism’ with ‘Hyphenated Platonism.’  Hyphenated Platonisms are represented by Christian Platonism, Theurgic Platonism, Jewish Platonism, and so forth. 

What I have noticed is that in Orthodox Platonism the tendency, a tendency not explicitly stated or demanded, is to consider the classics of the Platonic tradition as the sources one turns to in the study of Platonism.  For example, if there is a view that one or more people find obscure in an Orthodox Platonist context, to gain clarity about that view the tendency is to go to Platonic sources such as the Dialogues and the Enneads and to use what one finds in these sources as the starting point for clarification.

In contrast, Hyphenated Platonism will often, or even primarily, go to non-Platonic sources to deal with difficulties found in Platonism.  I noticed this while reading Periphyseon: The Division of Nature by Johannes Scotus Eriugena, translated by J. P. Sheldon-Williams.  In Book I, a number of times, when an issue in theology remains obscure even after giving a Platonist account, the two participants in the dialogue will turn to either Christian Scripture or to the Church Fathers and Saints; and it is this Christian literature which finally affirms, acts as a proof text for, a particular interpretation.  This makes sense in a Christian context; it is the method used to bring Platonism into a Christian context without at the same time granting the high status to Platonist documents that Scripture and the Church Fathers have in the Christian tradition.

I also observe this kind of maneuver in Theurgic Platonism which often treats oracular literature, such as the Chaldean Oracles, in the same way that Christians treat their Scriptures in relation to the status of Platonic writings.  Again, this makes sense if you start from Theurgic principles.

I have sometimes said that I think Platonism is sufficient in the sense that as a spiritual path Platonism contains all the information and tools necessary for spiritual realization.  At the same time, I have been willing to compare Platonism to Dharma Traditions, but it’s not because I want to place Dharma traditions in a position to ‘finish’ Platonism or be the arbiter of what is correct and what is incorrect in Platonism.  Comparing Platonism to Dharma Traditions is used in my analyses to point to spiritual aspects of Platonism that are also present in Dharma traditions, but which are overlooked in our current culture because of its secular orientation. 

3.  A Few More Remarks about the Analogy of Forms as Empty Sets

Last week I posted about noetic realities, or abstract objects, and I used as one analogy that Platonic forms, or abstract objects, are like empty sets that retain rules of inclusion but have no members.  I mean that in the Noetic realm, Platonic forms have no content but because of their rules of inclusion instantiations of the set can manifest in the material realm.

In set theory, though, an empty set can mean something different.  For example, whole numbers between 1 and 2 is an empty set that cannot be instantiated either in the noetic realm or in the material realm.  That’s because by definition there are no whole numbers between 1 and 2.  Similarly, the set of odd numbers that are evenly divisible by 2 is an empty set in that there cannot, by definition, be such items, or things; either noetically or materially. 

In the way I used ‘empty set’ last week I was referring to the absence of members in the noetic realm.  But that absence is not due to a logical contradiction, or due to definitions of arithmetic realities.  Rather the absence of members of sets in the noetic realm is due to the nature of the Noetic; that is to say that noetic realities are immaterial.  However, due to rules for inclusion as a part of the set, inclusion does happen in the material realm as the result of the emanation of the formal numbers into material reality.

4.  Another Observation on Soul

In traditional Platonism, in, for example, Plotinus, soul emerges as a presence in the third level of reality; the material world.  The sequence of levels is:

The One → Abstract Objects/Platonic Forms → Soul

In my reconfiguration, instead of soul at the third level, I place time:

The One → Abstract Objects/Platonic Forms → Time

My view is that soul is the presence of the One in the material individual.  Because of this I think of soul as always present and also present everywhere due to its immaterial nature. 

The sense that we have individual souls emerges from Time and Time emerges from Nous because Time is a further unfolding of emanation which is the basis of Nous.  But Noetic Realities are timeless.  As Noetic realities overflow time, and becoming and begoning, emerge as a reality.  The differentiation that is Time is what gives the appearance of individual souls.  The analogies to describe this (which I use frequently on this blog) is that the individual soul resembles moonlight in many different bodies of water.  It seems like the moon in the water is an individualized moonlight; but it only seems that way.  Or you could use the analogy of a flower in a vase reflected in multiple mirrors.  Each mirror appears to be an individual flower in a vase; but they are not.  Or you can look at it this way: the feeling that we have an individual, separate, soul is like someone saying that the sunlight in a room is ‘my sunlight.’ 

I see soul as a ‘First Thing’.  But the sense that we have an individual soul is a Third Thing because as material realities we can only observe the One as an individualized soul under the Reign of Time.  While Time does not proceed from the One, it is Time that conditions how we perceive and understand soul which is how the One is present in the material domain.

Because the soul never descends but remains in reality in its full unity as a First Thing, the individual soul can lead us back to the Good and the One.

5.  Aphorisms

Soul unifies.

Mind differentiates.

Time disperses.

This is the microcosmos of the human being.

Without soul nothing would cohere.

Without mind nothing would be distinct.

Without time there would be no becoming and begoning.

Soul unifies because it is the presence of the One in the individual.

Mind differentiates because it is the presence of the noetic in the individual.

Time disperses because it is the presence of cyclic becoming and begoning in the individual.

In this way the metaphysical cosmos is instantiated, or present, in the individual.

6.  Introducing Platonism According to ChatGPT

Sometimes I think about how to introduce Platonism to ordinary people.  When I say ‘ordinary people’ I mean people with some college education so that they are literate, but do not have any experience with philosophy.  They probably know the word philosophy but that is often the limit of their experience with it.  Sometimes they have taken an Introduction to Philosophy Class in college, but not necessarily.

I return to this topic now and then.  This blog is a partial answer to that question because I try to use a vocabulary and literary register that fits the parameters mentioned.  I’m not always successful with that focus because at times I touch on more technical issues; but overall, I think I have been able to write in an accessible way.

I decided to ask ChatGPT what it thought about this.  I framed the question this way:  “How would you [ChatGPT] suggest to someone in the West that Platonism is beneficial, that Platonism is something worthwhile for their lives?”

ChatGPT responded as follows: “If I [ChatGPT] were trying to persuade a contemporary Western person that Platonism is worthwhile, I would probably avoid starting with metaphysics (‘Forms exist’) and instead start with problems many people already experience.  A Platonist diagnosis might be:

We are surrounded by distractions, advertising, social media and constant opinion.

We often feel pulled between immediate desires and long-term goods.

We struggle to distinguish what is merely popular from what is actually true.

We want meaning, beauty, justice, and goodness, but often lack a framework for treating them as real rather than subjective preferences.

“Platonism offers a response to these problems.

“1.  It teaches that truth is worth pursuing for its own sake.  One of Plato’s most enduring ideas is that a good life requires a commitment to truth, even when truth is uncomfortable.  For many people, daily life becomes dominated by convenience, entertainment, or tribal loyalties.  Platonism asks a different question: what is actually true?  That orientation can make someone more intellectually honest, less easily manipulated, and more capable of independent thought.

“2.  It [Platonism] encourages self-mastery.  In dialogues such as The Republic, Plato portrays the soul as having different impulses that can conflict with one another.  A flourishing life comes when reason governs rather than being ruled by appetites or anger.  Even someone who rejects Plato’s metaphysics can recognize the practical value of: resisting destructive impulses, developing disciplines, cultivating wisdom, pursuing long-term goods over short-term gratification.  Many modern psychological approaches end up recommending similar habits, though from different philosophical foundations.

“3.  It treats virtue as something objective.  A common modern assumption is that morality is largely a matter of personal preference.  Platonism offers a more demanding view: justice, courage, wisdom, and temperance are not merely things we happen to like.  They are genuine excellences of character.  Many people find this attractive because it gives moral life a seriousness that pure relativism struggles to provide.  It suggests that becoming a better person is not simply expressing yourself; it is moving closer to what is genuinely good.

“4.  It gives beauty a deeper significance.  For Plato beauty is not merely entertainment or personal taste.  Beauty can elevate the soul.  Whether through music, art, mathematics, nature, or love, experiences of beauty can awaken a desire for something higher than immediate consumption.  Many people have had moments where a great piece of music, [an interaction with nature], or an act of moral nobility seemed to point beyond ordinary life.  Platonism provides a language for taking those experiences seriously.

“5.  It offers a vision of human flourishing.  Modern Western culture often defines success in terms of wealth, status, career, achievement, or pleasure.  Platonism asks: What kind of person are you becoming?  This shifts attention from external success to inner excellence.  A Platonism could argue that someone who is wise, just, and self-controlled but not wealth is ultimately more successful than someone who is rich and admired but corrupt.

“6.  It provides a sense of transcendence without requiring immediate dogmatic commitment.  Many Westerners are dissatisfied with both strict materialism and organized religion.  Platonism can serve as a middle path.  It invites people to consider that: truth ma be more than convention, goodness may be more than preference, beauty may be more than chemistry, reality may have a deeper intelligible order.  One can begin exploring these possibilities with immediately accepting every aspect of Plato’s metaphysics.

“A concise way to present Platonism today might be: Platonism is valuable because it teaches that truth, goodness, beauty, and virtue are real and worth pursuing.  It encourages people to rise above impulse, opinion, and social pressure, and to orient their lives toward what is genuinely excellent rather than merely pleasurable or fashionable.  Even for someone who never becomes a full metaphysical Platonist, that orientation can provide a powerful framework for living thoughtfully and purposefully. . . Human beings flourish when they orient themselves toward what is highest rather than what is nearest.”

6.1  It’s interesting to me that ChatGPT (hereinafter ‘Chat’) wanted to avoid using metaphysics to introduce Platonism.  That makes sense to me.  But I think it might depend on the person.  There are some people for whom metaphysics itself is attractive, even if they have not studied it.  In such an instance I might begin with metaphysics.

6.2  Several times Chat mentions how Platonism benefits the soul, which is true.  But I have found that bringing up the soul can be difficult if the person is saturated with secular views, which is a great many people.  I have sometimes observed people briefly frowning or subtly rolling their eyes when the topic of soul is brought up.  I might speak of only one or two aspects of the soul from classical Platonism in such a context rather than referring to soul explicitly.

6.3  But overall I like Chat’s response and thought it was a good start.

7.  Book-Based Traditions

In my ongoing comparisons of Platonism as a spiritual tradition with other spiritual traditions, there is one difference that stands out.  And that is that Platonism does not have a history of building institutions or monumental architecture. 

In thinking about this I think there are two traditions that also refrain from that kind of activity: Confucianism, and Poetry.  What I see in common is that in all three traditions, Platonism, Confucianism, and Poetry, I observe a shared centrality of books which defines what these traditions are.

In Platonism it is the Dialogues of Plato which are the fountainhead of the tradition and remain so to this day.  You could say that a Platonist is someone who reads Plato and applies the teachings of Plato to their lives. 

Platonism has built institutions such as, famously, the Academy in Athens.  But I think it is instructive that when the Academy was destroyed by Sulla in 86 BCE Platonism continued without a sense of a derailment in its presence or activities.  The same is the case when the reconstituted Academy was closed by Emperor Justinian in 529 CE. 

I think this is because for Platonism it is the Dialogues themselves that are the ‘temple’ of the tradition; everything else is secondary; not in the sense of being unimportant but in the sense of being dependent upon the Dialogues of Plato.

There are periods in the history of Confucianism that generated the creation of temples and clan organizations as sites for ritual.  But when these temples faded, Confucianism didn’t disappear and I think that is because, in a manner similar to Platonism, the real temple of Confucianism is the Classics of the Confucian tradition; works like the Analects.  To be a Confucian Sage means to be someone who reads, studies and abides by the teachings of those Classics.

Poetry resembles Platonism and Confucianism in that to be a poet is to read poetry, comment on poetry, and to write poetry.  It is only very recently that people learn poetry at Universities.  For almost all of written history poetry was a calling and someone who felt the calling of poetry learned about poetry by reading it, performing poetry (recitation), and associating with living poets and others interested in it.  Like Platonism and Confucianism, poetry is a textual tradition with reading poetry being a primary activity associated with living as a poet.

There are text-based traditions that do build institutions and monumental architecture.  Judaism is a good example, as is Buddhism.  But I think the relationship to texts in Platonism, Confucianism, and Poetry is somewhat different.  In most spiritual traditions membership in the tradition is not contingent on regular reading of texts; the majority of Buddhists, Jews, and Christians, for example, are not engaged in that kind of activity.  In contrast, I see the intimate relationship between texts and membership in the traditions of Platonism, Confucianism, and Poetry to be more intense and defining of the tradition.

8.  Mornings with Plato

Each morning when I wake up one of my routine tasks is to read Plato or Plotinus.  I’ve done this for many years now.  I like doing this around sunrise; the symbolism of the sun kind of feeds the reading.

I often underline or write brief marginalia in what I am reading.  Sometimes I take notes in a separate notebook, though that is a new practice that I’m not yet used to.  But I find when I take notes they might be in the form of a brief quote which I then comment on.  The comment might be that I don’t understand this passage and I need to look into it (by, for example, checking other translations), or it might be why I find it inspirational, or I might connect it to another passage, and so forth.  This kind of notetaking is recommended by a lot of scholars and ordinary people; I think the idea is that the writing in the notebook assists in memory.

There are a lot of different systems for organizing one’s notes.  I haven’t spent much time following these systems.  But I think they are worth taking a look at and if you feel so inclined to follow one of these. 

For me, reading Plato and other Platonists in the morning is a lot like listening to music.  There are surface attractions like a melody or a rhythm or a chord progression.  And there are also hidden meanings that emerge only with careful listening/reading; which is one reason why repeated reading is so necessary.

Reading Plato and other Platonists in the morning sets the tone for my day.  It stabilizes my mood and in a sense it allows me to feel a modest sense of accomplishment; at least the day begins with one good thing.

 

Numbers as Noetic Realities

1 June 2026

Numbers as Noetic Realities

Numbers and their relationships have always had a place of importance in the Platonic tradition.  Here are a few thoughts I’d like to share about numbers and the place numbers hold in the Platonist tradition.

1.  Numbers are Noetic realities according to the Platonic metaphysical cosmology.  This means, among other things, that numbers and their relationships are immaterial and eternal.  This is why, in the Platonic tradition, numbers and their relationships are thought to be discovered rather than generated by, or dependent upon, the human mind.

2.  Nous is the second level of reality, or hypostasis, in Platonic Metaphysics.  The first level is the Good and the One, which is ineffable.  Noetic realities are not ineffable; they are coherent and understandable; Noetic realities are why the cosmos has regularities and natural laws.

3.  As I have mentioned before on this blog, the first differentiation of the Good and the One is found in Nous as Being, Mind, and Life.  Numbers follow Being, that is to say Numbers are a differentiation of Being.  Because the presence of Numbers overflows into material reality, the third level, or hypostasis, Numbers are instantiated in material appearances, such as seven apples, through participation in their Noetic reality, Noetic 7.  Here is a diagram of this sequence:

The Good and the One → Nous → Being → Numbers as such → Noetic Number 7 → Seven apples

We start with the Ineffable Good and the Ineffable One that is pure Unity and completely undifferentiated.  This overflows to Nous where differentiation begins; and here the current of unfolding is through Being which is a Noetic reality.  Being overflows and differentiates into various Noetic realities including the Form of Number as such.  Number as such overflows into further differentiation which in this current of unfolding generates the forms, noetic realities, eternal objects, of specific numbers such as 2, 4, 7, and so forth ad infinitum.  The specific noetic numbers’ energies flow into the material domain where these numbers are perceived as 7 apples, 7 stars, 7 hours, and so forth.

4.  Noetic numbers, the forms of specific numbers, have no content.  But the possibility of their instantiating in material reality is dependent upon structural features of the noetic form.  I like to look at it this way: you can think of Noetic Numbers as empty sets that nevertheless have specific rules for inclusion, or membership, in the set. 

4.1  It is generally the case that noetic realities, eternal objects, have no content; that is not peculiar to numbers.  For example, Noetic Being has no content; Noetic Being is not the being of a mountain, or the being of a person, or the being of a relationship or quality.  When Being overflows into material reality Being becomes being, meaning specified material being.  In the material realm being has content.  That is why we can speak of the being of a human being even though Being as such has no content.

4.2  The sequence in item 3 is an outline of sequential hierarchical metaphysical dependence.  Sometimes I think of this as causation, but that probably is not the best way to express this relationship because causation is most often thought of as temporal.  Noetic realities are prior to the emergence of time (you could say that it is the differentiation known as time that generates material reality).  But Being generating Number as such is not a temporal process; it is only temporal by analogy.  Noetic Number as such is dependent upon Being, but Being is not dependent upon Noetic Number; that is the hierarchy part.

4.3  There is another way of looking at the lack of content, or the emptiness, of Noetic Realities.  I mean the way emptiness is presented in Daoism.  For example, the emptiness of a cup is the lack of any content in the cup; it means that the cup has no water, tea, fruit juice, and so forth, in it.  It is this lack of content that allows that cup to have many uses, or instantiations of functions.  Similarly, it is the lack of content in Noetic Realities that allows for the Noetic Reality to have unlimited material instantiations.

4.3.1  The Daoist view is an image of the potentiality of Noetic Realities.  The empty set that has rules for membership, or inclusion, is about the structure of Noetic Realities.

5.  Noetic realities are differentiated but are, nevertheless, transparent to each other; that is to say that Noetic Realities are not barriers to other Noetic Realities.  This is why Noetic Numbers can be added, subtracted, and othewise manipulated without damaging the presence of any specific numbers. 

5.1  Plotinus writes about the transparency of noetic realities in Ennead 6.6, On Numbers:

“One has to think that, generally, all things [in the intelligible (noetic) world] lie within one nature, and that one nature contains them and, in a way, encompasses them, and not that they are each separate, as in the sensible realm, with the sun in one place, another thing somewhere else; rather, everything (in the Noetic realm) is together in one . . . Although all Beings (in the Noetic realm) are together, each of them is also separate.”

(Plotinus, The Enneads, Ennead 6.6, On Numbers, translated by Lloyd P. Gerson et al, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2025, page 785, ISBN: 9781009604987)

I recommend for those interested in the Platonic view of numbers reading Ennead 6.6.  I think you will find it very rewarding.

5.2  Material realities are different; material realities are opaque to each other.  This is partly due to their becoming and begoning nature, and partly to differentiation manifesting as strife under the reign of time and as an inherent feature of the third hypostasis.

There is one partial exception to this; music.  I’ve mentioned this before on this blog, but it’s worth repeating, a piece of music can have many parts and these parts do not interfere with each other, they intermingle and encourage each other’s presence.  This is true even for a simple song.  I suspect that one of the reasons listening to music is pleasing is that this experience of intermingling is a way of experiencing the way Noetic Realities are present to each other and Noetic Realities are inherently attractive.

There is a significant difference, though, between the way musical realities intermingle and the transparency of Noetic Realities and that is that musical intermingling is under the reign of time and therefore musical realities are differentiated from each other in a more definite way (Song A is not Song B).  In addition, music is ephemeral, whereas Noetic Realities are eternal.

6.  Noetic realities are not an idealized example of a class of material realities.  This is clear with numbers because there is no material number 7; there is only the instantiation of Noetic 7.  Noetic realities are the necessary condition, or presence, for a class of material realities.

7.  Numbers permeate material existence in the sense that we use numbers constantly.  We count them in numerous situations.  This helps us to understand that the noetic is not spatially distant from the material; instead the second level, or hypostasis, the Noetic level, and the third level, or hypostasis, the material level are intertwined; it might be even closer than ‘intertwined.’ 

7.1  Because noetic realities, abstract objects, have no content they can manifest anywhere in the material realm in accordance with the rules, or structures, of inclusion. 

8.  The third level of existence, or hypostasis, is time.  Time is cyclic due to its relationship with number; number structures the cycles of time.  Numbers are eternal (like all Noetic realities).  Because of this ‘time is the moving image of eternity’ as it says in the ‘Timaeus.’ 

8.1  Even though time is a moving image, time is shaped by the eternity of the Noetic reality of number.  This becomes the everlastingness of time in the material dimension, or level, or hypostasis, of the Platonic Metaphysical Cosmology.

Eternal unchanging numbers are the condition that, when the Noetic reality of numbers overflows, gives rise to time, just as the overflow of being gives rise to number.

9.  The impact of Platonism on mathematics is considerable.  Just recently I learned that Kurt Godel was a dedicated Platonist and wrote that Platonism was foundational for Godel’s development of his famous theorems.  There are many examples like this.

10.  What does all this have to do with walking the Platonist path?  I think that numbers, and the way numbers manifest, are the clearest example of how immaterial realities impact our material realm.  Numbers teach us, each time we interact with them that there are non-material dimensions of existence of great range, power (or applicability), and beauty. 

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Platonism requires facility in mathematics, though it seems that some Platonists have thought so.  It is also possible to transcend material existence by following Diotima’s teachings on beauty and following beauty back to its source.

On the other hand, numbers are the presence of the noetic in our everyday life; to see numbers this way requires that we pay attention to numbers and how they work; that is what mathematicians do.  And this refinement of attention is part of how Platonism works.  As I just mentioned, Diotima refines our attention so that we comprehend beauty as the presence, or trace, of a higher reality (‘higher’ not in a spatial sense, rather ‘higher’ in the sense of more primal, closer to the source of all things; again ‘closer’ does not mean spatially closer in this context, but closer in the sense of having a clearer comprehension.)  This refined attention is undistracted attention and is part of what contemplation means.  When this is applied to numbers, which are everywhere around us and within us, we open ourselves up to the metaphysical dimensions of the cosmos that lead us to the source of all things; the Ineffable One and the Good beyond all affirmation and negation.

 

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 96

25 May 2026

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 96

1.  More on the Unity of the Platonic Tradition

I was thinking about my previous post that focused on the disagreements among scholars regarding the continuity of the Platonic tradition.  To refresh readers, some scholars take a developmental approach both to the tradition of Platonism as a whole, and also to Plato as an individual thinker and philosopher.  Others regard the Platonic tradition, and the thought of Plato, as fundamentally unified both in the individual thought of Plato and in the Platonic tradition as a whole.

What I have been thinking is that the unity of the Platonic tradition, and of Plato’s writings, flows from the unity of the tradition’s primary focus which is the Good and the One, the ineffable transcendental.  Ultimate reality, that reality from which all else emerges, is primal, changeless, unending, unlimited, beyond affirmation and negation.  Platonism is rooted in the experience of this reality of an eternal transcendent unity and I think it is this that gives Platonism its own sense of being a unified tradition.

2.  The Political Perspective

One aspect of contemporary Platonism that I have noticed is a tendency to view Platonism through a political lens and/or through ideological categories.  One of the most influential streams of contemporary Platonism is the one that is rooted in the analyses of Leo Strauss who has had a significant impact on many people’s interpretation of Plato at this time.  There is a lot of controversy around Strauss and how his views have impacted specific events over the last few decades.  But that’s not what I want to focus on (as an aside, both Strauss’s detractors and defenders regarding these events make what I call a ‘good case’ for their points of view).  I want to offer that Strauss’s emphasis on politics in Platonism is in itself problematic.  What I have observed is that his critics, with some exceptions, tend to accept that Plato is primarily, or at least significantly, a political philosopher and both Strauss himself, Strauss’s followers, and Strauss’s critics, for the most part, share this perspective.  This sidelines what I consider to be the actual focus of Plato’s teachings which is to transcend the material world, including politics, but not exceptionally politics.  

The emphasis on politics turns Plato into a worldly philosopher who can be compared to other political philosophers; this in turn transforms Plato into a modernist by shaping Platonism into an ideological theory like other ideological theories.  I think this is unfortunate.

I don’t mean to say that Plato does not speak about politics.  But Plato writes about many things and I don’t see politics as having a special emphasis in his writings.  For example, Plato writes a lot about poetry and its effect on the soul and on the human community; but I don’t think that means that Plato has a primary focus on aesthetics (on the other hand, Plato does have a primary focus on beauty because beauty can lead to the Good and the One).  Another example is Plato’s writings on music; but I don’t think these passages about music turn Plato into a music theorist.  In a similar way, when Plato does talk about politics, which I think is rarer than is often suggested, I don’t infer from this that Plato is a political philosopher.

I think it is difficult to see this comparison (between Plato’s writings on politics and Plato’s writings on poetry or music) because at this time our culture overemphasizes the significance of politics.  I’m not saying that politics has no significance, but I wouldn’t say music has no significance either.  My suggestion is that politics is just one aspect of our lives in this material world and not the most important aspect.

What I think is necessary for Platonists today is to view Platonism as primarily a spiritual tradition and to view Plato as a spiritually realized human being whose writings are a roadmap to the transcendental. 

3.  Some Remarks about Soul

It has occurred to me that the disputes about soul, the soul’s nature, its placement in the metaphysical layers (hypostases) of Platonism, and other issues, has come about because Platonism has presented us with a view of soul that is complex and that this complexity invites variations in understanding and emphases.  I started thinking this way after reading two brief essays about soul in Platonic Pathways which is a collection of essays from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies.  The first essay is by Gregory Shaw, ‘Alienation and Divinization: Iamblichus’ Theurgic Vision’, and the second is by Sam Webster, ‘Iamblichus’ Method for Creating Theurgic Sacrifice’.  When I was working at a Spiritual Bookstore, I met Sam Webster and had some discussions with him at dinner after the event.  I’ve never met Gregory Shaw, but Shaw is well known for interpreting Platonic theurgy as a kind of Western Tantra.  In both of these essays the complex soul found in Platonist works is accepted as a kind of starting point.  This seems to be normal for the Platonic tradition; for example, you find Plotinus discussing the parts of the soul, how these parts function, how these parts relate to each other, how these parts interact with the metaphysical levels of existence, and so forth.  It seems to be the case that Platonists don’t disagree about the complexity of the soul, but they do disagree about how that complexity is distributed.

I suspect that one of the reasons that I shifted my understanding of soul from this complex cluster of parts view to the idea that the soul is partless was in part (no joke intended) due to a desire to simplify the presentation of soul in Platonism, though I wasn’t aware of this consciously.  And there are passages in Ennead VI where Plotinus refers to the inherent simplicity of the soul and that the soul, or at least the higher part of the soul, is undivided; as I recall Plotinus is contrasting the divdedness of the material body with the simplicity, and implied unity, of the soul.  I’m not saying that Plotinus views the soul as partless in the way I am suggesting; on the other hand, the simplicity of the soul leans in that direction.

As I have said before, I view the soul as the presence of transcendent unity, the Good and the One, in the material individual.  Without the presence of this transcendent unity there would be no particular things, no things at all.  It is soul, as the instantiation of the One, the instantiation of transcendent unity, that provides a sense of unity to our lives.  This happens because the soul is everywhere (a point Plotinus makes) and therefore permeates bodily existence.

The ‘presence’ I am referring to is like the presence of moonlight in a pond.  It seems that the moonlight in the pond is a separately existing entity but that is a mistake in perception.  Moonlight is actually ‘everywhere,’ but only appears to be isolated in the pond.  Similarly, the individual soul is the everywhere of the One when manifesting in the realm of time and matter; time and matter produce the misunderstanding of the soul’s limitation and separation and perhaps time is the ultimate origin of the complexity of theories about the soul.

In Platonist literature the soul has many functions; that is why the soul is complex in the writings of Platonism.  Conceptually, I transfer these functions of the complex soul to mind and thereby preserve the functions of traditional Platonism even as I alter the placement of these functions.  My view is that whenever I notice that a function of soul is an act of differentiation, or depends on differentiation, I use that as a signal to transfer that function to mind.  By ‘mind’ I am referring specifically to the act, or function, of differentiation in the individual.  The noetic is the source of differentiation because it is at nous that differentiation first appears.  Mind, then, is the presence of the noetic function of differentiation in the material individual.

This view of soul differs from the standard view of Platonism in that Platonic literature views the soul as an emanation of nous.  I take a different view.  I think of soul as a ‘first thing’ which means soul is a seemingly separate manifestation of the everywhere and everywhen nature of the Good and the One.  Mind is a ‘second thing’, that is to say a noetic thing and it is in mind that differentiation is found.  The soul does not make differentiations because the Good and the One are unity as such.  Due to the third level’s nature as temporal and material, the soul seems to be individuated and differentiated from other souls. 

From the theurgic perspective, the soul is separated from the One and ‘trapped’, or ‘isolated’, from the Good and the One.  From the perspective of traditional Platonism the soul is an emanation from nous and has knowledge of, and/or experience of, the Good and the One when the soul turns to that which is higher than the noetic; or part of the soul has this background. 

From the perspective of what I have outlined as the partless nature of the soul, the soul does not descend, the soul does not completely descend as in the theurgic perspective, nor does it partially descend as in the traditional perspective found in Plotinus.  Instead, I am suggesting that the soul is the actual presence of the Good and the One, the actual presence of eternity, in the material individual, but that this does not happen through emanation; instead it happens through differentiation.  This presence happens because of the everywhere, everywhen, and everything nature of the Good and the One, which is also true of the soul because the soul is the presence of the Good and the One.  Here is a schematic for comparing these views:

Traditional Platonism -- The soul is partially descended into  the body

Theurgic Platonism -- The soul is fully descended into the body

My reconfiguration -- The soul has never descended into the body but the soul is present to the body; the soul is the presence of eternity

3.1  I suspect that the complexity of the Platonic view of the soul may be an indication of, or due to, accretions over time.  This is a view that some Platonic scholars have held and it makes sense to me.  I think these accretions have their source in traditions before Platonism emerged.  Platonism inherited a range of views from earlier traditions such as Pythagoreanism, Orphism, Egyptian spirituality, and perhaps some Mystery traditions as well.  The complexity of the soul in Platonism might be due to these multiple sources and an attempt to reconcile different ways of viewing the nature of the soul and how the soul works.

This is similar to the way Platonism reconciled divergent Presocratic views such as that of Parmenides and Heraclitus; by placing the views of Heraclitus as applicable to the material realm, while the view of Parmenides is applicable to the Noetic, and particularly Being as such.

This complexity continued within the Platonist tradition, particularly in the tradition’s post-Plotinian period.  I’m referring to the disputes about whether the soul is fully descended or partially descended, a dispute that continues to this day.  The complexity of the soul presented in the dialogues may have created fertile ground for generating further differences of view within the Platonist tradition itself.

3.2  There seems to be a natural tendency to make systems of thought complex over time.  Plotinus criticizes the Gnostics for unnecessarily making Plato’s intuition about hypostases and how they work into a complex, and at times difficult to access, multiplication of levels and regions.  Some people enjoy the mental gymnastics such complex systems of thought are dependent upon, but Plotinus regards Gnostic complexities as distractions and I also think that Plotinus thinks these complexities are mental creations that are not based on actual experience of these multiplied levels and regions.

But here is my intuition about the soul: I don’t think the complexity of the soul in Platonism is necessary.  Perhaps I am wrong about that; nevertheless, I am following the path of understanding that this intuition has opened.

3.3  I have posted about this in the past.  I bring it up again because I like to share my thoughts about this topic (the nature of the soul) and because as my investigations into this topic proceed I uncover new insights that I want to share with readers.  Putting these thoughts down and posting them is in itself a way of ‘thinking out loud’ about the soul; through the process of writing them down and sharing them with others I am able to see more clearly what my thoughts are and where they are leading.

4.  Alienation

I’ve been thinking that as someone becomes more and more steeped in Platonism, and becomes more and more of a Platonist, that a sense of alienation from the society at large is an almost inevitable result.  I see this particularly with the impact of Platonist ethics on someone who practices the path of Platonism and cultivates both the Virtues and the Restraints.  Take, for example, Plato’s teachings on non-harming and non-retaliation found in Crito and The Republic.  This is not how people normally live their lives; these teachings are a great challenge and internalizing them, living by them, emphasizes how the life of a Platonist differs from the life that is offered by the society in which the Platonist dwells.

5.  War as Anti-Ethics

An important feature of war is that during war participants are allowed, and even honored, to engage in actions that when done in peacetime are considered immoral, even heinous.  Killing another person during peacetime will bring to the person who did this a great deal of condemnation.  During war, in contrast, killing others, many of whom are total strangers, may bring praise and lifelong admiration.  This is true even when the usage of modern weaponry results in mass casualties.

It is in this context that I read the opening section of Laws where the three participants in the dialogue discuss if the laws of a State should be for the purpose of always being ready for war, or whether they should be for the purpose of creating and upholding peace.  I think it is the longest discussion of peace and war in the Platonic Dialogues and I think its reasoning is deep and subtle.

Ethics in Platonism, including the Virtues and the Restraints, are principles which in turn are instantiations of the principle of the necessity for purification.   Causing harm disorders the soul and makes it more difficult to access higher realms of existence.  And because this is a principle, it is generally applicable, without carveouts for exceptions such as war. 

I write this on Memorial Day here in the U.S.  May peace blossom in the hearts of all.

6.  Is Western Philosophy Exhausted?

Now and then I run into a contemporary philosopher who thinks of Western Philosophy as done; that basically Western Philosophy has run its course and is unable to generate any further insights or make progress.  I have a different view.  Looking at metaphysics, I don’t see the goal of metaphysics as one of reaching a final and complete statement about ultimate reality.  I see the work of metaphysics as presenting understanding of ultimate reality, but because ultimate reality is beyond affirmation and negation, because ultimate reality is eternal, all metaphysical statements regarding ultimate reality hover around what they are talking about but are not what they are talking about as such.

There’s nothing wrong with this; I don’t even think it is particularly exceptional.  Cookbooks present variations on how to make bread; there is no final recipe for making bread.  It is an activity that continually renews itself.

My feeling is that when I run across this kind of sentiment it is always, if memory serves, from someone who is affiliated with a University.  I can understand how such feelings would arise in this context because the liberal arts are being steadily trimmed, and even ejected, from Colleges and Universities and there doesn’t seem to be anything to be done about it at this time.  But the field of philosophy is not confined to any specific institution; you find it wherever someone seeks a resolution to the question of eternity.