Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 99

22 June 2026

Brief Notes on Various Topics - 99

1.  Contemplative vs. Theurgic Platonism

I’ve noticed for a number of years that Theurgic Platonism, what might be called Ceremonial Platonism, seems to have a more forward facing, or public facing, contemporary presence than Contemplative Platonism.  I say this because there seems to be more books on Theurgic perspectives than on the Contemplative perspectives.  It’s not that there are no books published on Contemplative Platonism: there is Eric Fallick’s Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle and there is Mark Anderson’s Pure and I suspect there are others I’m forgetting or are not aware of.

In contrast there seems to be numerous books devoted to Theurgic Platonism from Academic sources as well as from non-academics interested in the subject.  Some authors, like Gregory Shaw and Edward P. Butler regularly publish from the Theurgic perspective.  And there are also highly scholarly books regularly published from the Theurgic perspective, sometimes sponsored by academic organizations or associations (as an aside, I have not observed an academic association or organization publishing on Contemplative Platonism, but I might have missed it.) 

In short, it seems to me that there is a greater emphasis on Theurgic Platonism than there is on Contemplative Platonism.  I think there are several reasons for this:

1.1--The first is that for some reason Theurgic Platonists have been successful at characterizing what I call Contemplative Platonism as a type of philosophical rationalism.  I have mentioned this before in posts dealing with other topics, but here I want to highlight the way this type of classification casts Contemplative Platonism into a shadow region which is difficult for people to access.  This is because Theurgic Platonists tend to present a dichotomy between the Ceremonial and the Rational.  This turns Contemplative Platonism into something people think they are familiar with because it fits in with classifications widely used in modernity.  I find it frequently stated, for example, that Plotinus is a ‘rationalist’ which, to my mind, completely misrepresents what Plotinus was doing.

1.2—Another reason for the sidelining of Contemplative Platonism is that the contemplative dimensions, or the contemplative presence, in traditional Platonist sources (such as the Dialogues, The Orations of Maximus of Tyre, The Enneads of Plotinus, and so forth) have been, for the most part absorbed into Christianity through the heritage of writers like Dionysius the Areopagite, and, to a lesser extent, Boethius, and others.  I think it is still difficult for Platonists to absorb the teachings on contemplation found in many Platonist sources without viewing them through a Christian lens and kind of accepting that contemplation is what Christian Platonists might do.

1.2.1  An example of the point I am making is that there are many volumes published about Christian, Catholic and Orthodox, Mysticism.  Some authors have devoted much of their lives to publishing series on this topic; a good example is the series of books published by Bernard McGinn on Christian Mysticism that covers this topic from very early examples to fairly recent manifestations.  In contrast, locating works on Platonic Mysticism, which do exist, requires dedication and persistence since such works tend to be marginal to how the Platonist tradition is understood.   

1.3  One of the intriguing things about Theurgic Platonism is that it seems to have recently found a place in the University.  I mean that some prominent contemporary Platonists who have a positive view of Theurgy are academics themselves and some are involved in various Platonist academic organizations.

1.4  I’m not complaining about this situation.  It is what it is.  But I think it is helpful for those of us who comprehend Platonism as a contemplative ascetic spiritual tradition to know where we stand in relation to other views of what Platonism is.

2.  Farewell, Angelina

The machine guns are roaring and the puppets heave rocks

And fiends nail timebombs to the hands of the clocks

Call me any name you like I will never deny it

Farewell, Angelina, the sky is erupting

I must go where it’s quiet.

Bob Dylan, Farewell Angelina

My favorite Bob Dylan song is Farewell Angelina.  It has a very simple melody and chord progression in 3-4 time.  In contrast, the images of Farewell Angelina can, at first, feel obscure and at times difficult to access.  After some time with the song, though, the listener can sense how the images gradually build up.  The images start with fairly benign examples like triangles ringing and an empty table by the sea; things like that.  As the verses progress the images become more stark including undertakers, shotgun blasts, and so forth.  I quoted the closing verse above which opens with images of violence in the first two lines.  In line 3 there is a shift and I see in this shift a kind of turning away and an arising of indifference as the verse says ‘Call me any name you like . . . ‘  This is a shift in mood in the song and introduces what I think of as the resolution of the last three lines.  The phrase ‘Farewell, Angelina’ is used at least once in each verse; in the opening verse it is used twice.  So the turning away found in line 3 emerges from this turning away from some kind of relationship.  (As an aside, the ending of relationships is a common theme in early Dylan; think of ‘It Ain’t Me Babe’ and ‘Don’t Think Twice’.  To be fair, such songs are found frequently in popular music, particularly in Country Western so Dylan writing songs where this theme appears fits in with the popular music of his time.)  In line 4 the violence that has appeared in various verses, culminating in lines 1 & 2 of the closing verse, returns with the phrase ‘the sky is erupting’. 

The concluding line, ‘I must go where it’s quiet’ is an explanation of what the singer is doing in the face of all the previous moments that are captured by the various images in the verses of the song.  The ‘quiet’ that the singer must go to is, to my way of thinking, an interior quiet.  This implies, I think, that one can only overcome the violence and cacophony of the previous images by finding the quiet, the peace, that is within.  This may be a stretch, but I think of this line as pointing to the antidote that is contemplation.  The sky is erupting, machine guns are firing, timebombs are ready to explode; even so there is a place of quiet and peace that we can always turn to because it is always present within.  From a Platonist perspective the ultimate source of the peace within is the presence of eternity which is the Good, the One, and the Beautiful.

You can listen to Farewell Angelina on YouTube.  It’s interesting to me that Bob Dylan himself did very few recordings of this song.  But there are excellent covers of this song by various artists, and there is a French version that I find really excellent as well called ‘Adieu Angelina’ which is also available on YouTube, sung by Nana Mouskouri who seemed to make the song a staple of her career, often singing it as a duet with others.  Probably the most famous cover of the song in the English-speaking world is the one by Joan Baez.  I think it’s helpful to listen to more than one version of the song as different singers highlight different aspects.

3.  Addendum to Last Week’s Post on Plato’s Laws

Last week I quoted an early section of Plato’s Laws, making the point that this section can be interpreted as Plato speaking to the reader about the multiple layers of meaning in that dialogue.  I think there is a similar passage in The Republic as follows:

“So Glaucon and the others begged me to help in every way; not abandon the discussion, but on the contrary track down the nature of each of our subjects (justice and injustice) and how the truth of each stood regarding the benefit they each provided.  So I said how it seemed to me, that: ‘The search we are undertaking is no mean task, but as I see it, it’s one that needs a sharp eye, not a weak one.  Since therefore,’ I said, ‘we are not good at making an inquiry of such a kind, I think we should employ the kind of investigation suitable for people who are not very keen-sighted, if someone had ordered them to read small letters from a distance, but then someone noticed that the same letters existed somewhere else written larger and on a larger background.  I think it would seem a godsend to read these first and then examine the smaller ones to see if they were the same.’

‘I’m all for that,’ said Adeimantus, ‘but what relevance here do you perceive in our search for ‘the just’?’

‘I’ll tell you,’ I said, ‘Do we talk sometimes of a justice of an individual person, and sometimes perhaps of a whole city-state too?’

‘Certainly,’ he said.

‘And of course a state is something larger than one person?’

‘Yes it is,’ he said.

‘In which case justice may be of a greater scale in the larger context and be easier to understand.  If you wish then, let’s firstly try to find out what kind of a ting it is in states, then let’s examine it in this way in each individual too by looking closely at the resemblance of the greater in the form of the lesser.’”

(Plato, The Republic, translated by Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2013, pages 159-161, 368c-369a, ISBN: 9780674996502)

3.1  I understand this quote, and the quote from the Laws that I posted last week, as Plato explaining to readers how to read his Dialogue, that the Republic has a layered structure with both individual and societal implications and meanings.  This is also what the passage from the Laws is telling us to do.

3.2  It would be helpful to look at the Dialogues and see where Plato offers this kind of instruction on how to read the Dialogues.  I think it shows Plato as being concerned that readers may not understand the layered approach Plato takes and for that reason Plato makes it clear in passages like the one from the Laws and from the Republic.  This shows Plato being transparent about his writing technique and his purposes.

3.3  One of the consequences that these quotes leads us to is that Plato is writing in such a way so as to point to a sense of unity in disparate aspects of our lives that we tend to overlook.  In a sense, Plato is pointing to unity so that we can get a ‘taste’ of unity as a prelude to our ascending to the Unity of the One.

3.4  In both quoted passages Plato points to different levels of the human experience, individual experience and larger social contexts, and then links them by pointing to a fundamental unity that we have failed to perceive or understand.  This approach is helpful to keep in mind when we read the Dialogues and other Platonic works, and also as a technique that can be applied to our own lives and interactions.

4.  The Solstice Sun

I and a few friends went out into the desert, not very far, to watch the June Solstice Sun rise over the eastern mountain range yesterday morning (21 June 2026).  This is something I have been doing for a few years and I find it an enriching meditation. 

On this June Solstice Morning the conditions could not have been more perfect.  There were no clouds and there was a modest breeze that kept the summer insects away.  The desert fauna spread out before us.  In the distance was a row of Palm Trees that line a road going to a desert trailer park.  Further in the distance is the eastern mountain range.  Behind us is the western mountain range which is much higher and steeper than the range to the east.  Because the western range is so high, it catches the morning light before the sun rises over the eastern mountains; that’s the first sign that sunrise is near.  The light on the western range slowly descends, sliding down the mountains, until the whole western range is in morning light before the sun ascends over the top of the eastern range for those of us standing on the valley floor.

When the sun appeared over the eastern mountains it felt like a symphony of recognition.  We bowed and offered silent thanks.

I was inspired to engage in this kind of practice by Plotinus, particularly the passage found at Ennead V.5.8.  You might want to spend some time with this passage; I always find it inspiring. 

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 98

15 June 2026

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 98 

1.  Creeping Secularism

I was listening to some Orthodox Christian Apologetics the other day on Youtube.  At one point in my life, I was interested in Christian Apologetics, both Orthodox and Non-Orthodox, but that interest has faded since my involvement with Platonism.  But I thought I would listen to this presentation and see if something was offered that I had not known about before.

What interested me as a Platonist was that this presentation listed secular views that Christian Apologetics needs to deal with and on the list was Platonism.  I don’t think of Platonism as a secular philosophy; in fact, I think of Platonism as the antidote to secular modernity.  I didn’t come up with that on my own; I learned about this from a number of contemporary Platonists who put forth the view that in fundamental ways Platonism and Secularism are opposed to each other.

In listening to the presentation, I came away with an understanding of why they think Platonism is a secular view.  Surprisingly it has to do with the way mathematicians who openly align with Platonism when it comes to the existence of abstract objects (Platonic Forms), but are not inclined to adopt any other Platonic views such as the transcendental and ineffable One. 

In addition, there is no discussion in the context of modern math about the ethical commitments that are foundational for Platonism; I am referring to the Virtues and the Restraints.  I think this is because it is rare for people to think of math as involving ethical commitments and it would be regarded as very eccentric if some math professor made that connection by the professor’s colleagues.

What I am beginning to see is that the contemporary University defines Platonism as a belief in the independent existence of abstract objects and leaves it at that.  And that is why the Orthodox presentation on Apologetics placed Platonism in the secular category of views.

I have only become aware of this recently, but my suspicion is that this likely goes back to two sources; first is the early history of analytic philosophy which dismisses anything in Plato that is mythic or allegorical as not really philosophy, and second I think this goes back to German Historiography of the 1700’s, in particular Brucker’s Historia Critica Philosophiae which had a big influence in both German philosophy and also in English philosophy through a condensed translation by William Enfield.  A good example of this influence is Jowett’s translation of the Dialogues of Plato.  In the copious introductory material, Jowett expresses this kind of secular view of Plato as a proto-rationalist; for example, Jowett frequently refers to Platonism as ‘scientific’ and to Plato as having a scientific sense. 

This view of Plato and Platonism is not universal in the University; there exists significant opposition to such views by scholars such as John Dillon, Lloyd Gerson, Mark Anderson, and others.  The view of Plato as a proto-rationalist does seem to have weakened since its high point in the early 20^th century.  But it is still there and as a Platonist who views Platonism as a spiritual tradition that has the purpose of guiding people to the immaterial and ineffable transcendent, it is helpful to understand this kind of ‘secular Platonism’ and learn how to steer around it.

2.  The Layers of Plato’s Discourse

Early in The Laws there is a discussion about how conflict appears in various human situations:

“Athenian Stranger:  You appear to me, stranger [Kleinias], to have had a fine gymnastic training in understanding the legal customs of the Cretans.  But explain this to me more clearly: the definition you seem to me to have given for a well-governed city is that it must be ordered in such a way as to defeat the other cities in war.  Isn’t that so?

“Kleinias:  By all means.  And I think that’s how it seems to this man here.

“Megillus: How else would any Lacedaimonian [Spartan} answer, you divine man?

“Athenian Stranger: Well, is it the case that this definition is correct for cities, in relation to cities, but that another would be correct for a neighborhood, in relation to another neighborhood?

“Kleinias: In no way.

“Athenian Stranger:  The same applies?

“Kleinias: Yes.

“Athenian Stranger: What then?  For a household in relation to another household in the neighborhood, and for one man in relation to another man, the same still?

“Kleinias:  The same.

“Athenian Stranger:  For a person in relation to himself, should the relationship be understood to be one of enemy to enemy?  Or how then should we speak of this?

“Kleinias:  O Athenian stranger – I would rather not address you as merely ‘Attic,’ for you seem to me worthy of being called rather by the name of the goddess – you have correctly followed the argument up to its source and have thus made it clearer, so that you will the more easily discover that we were correct just now in saying that all are enemies of all in public and in private each is an enemy of himself.

“Athenian Stranger:  What are you saying, you amazing man?

“Kleinias:  Why, right here, stranger, is the first and best of all victories, the victory of oneself over oneself; and being defeated by oneself is the most shameful and the same time the worst of all defeats.  These things indicate that there is a war going on in us, ourselves against ourselves.”

(Plato, The Laws of Plato, translated by Thomas L. Pangle, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980, pages 4 and 5, 626b-626e, ISBN: 0226671100)

2.1  I think this is an example of Plato telling the reader that The Laws is written at multiple levels.  The movement of the passage is from the level of a city-state and then a gradual narrowing of focus until we reach the level of the individual.  What is being communicated is that the reader should view the Dialogue as written in such a way that it is applicable to all the levels indicated in this passage.

2.1.1  What this means is that the teachings found in The Laws are broadly applicable to many situations that we face in our lives from social and familial circumstances to internal conflicts we find within ourselves.

2.1.2  What this means for us as individuals is that the teachings found in The Laws are instructions to us for how to live a less divided life which is a life that moves towards peace and reconciliation of conflicting aspects within us.

This is not immediately apparent because we tend to read a dialogue like The Laws as consistent with the way political philosophy has been written in the modern period; I’m thinking of political philosophers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Locke.  In modern political philosophy we don’t find the idea that their teachings are applicable at multiple levels of social interaction and also at the level of interiority.  Interior conflicts are the domain of psychology, not political science.  Family conflicts are the domain of a branch of psychology, not political science or political philosophy.  This kind of separation of domains, a kind of fragmentation or differentiation, reduces our ability to comprehend the incredible range of a dialogue like The Laws.  But it is possible to overcome this habit of separating these functions of human life into separate categories and see how all of them are related by common tendencies that are metaphysical in nature.  Being able to see how that works is one of the great gifts that Plato brings to us.

 

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.