Popular Platonism?

16 January 2024

Popular Platonism?

A friend of mine asked me the other day if Platonism has the potential to have a widespread appeal in the way that other spiritual traditions have.  He wondered if Platonism would always be confined to a small group of people, a kind of elite; people who had the time for philosophical study, the time to learn a philosophical vocabulary, and so forth.

It's an interesting question, one that I have thought about now and then.  Here are a few observations:

1.  Classical philosophy, as I understand it, often clashed with popular religion.  There was an ongoing tension between civic religion and philosophical investigation.  Now and then this would lead to a philosopher being charged with impiety, and other charges.  Two examples are Anaxagoras and, most famously, Socrates.

What I’m getting at is that it doesn’t seem to me that Classical Philosophy sought to be popular in the way that religious movements sought civic significance.  Some philosophies were very influential (I’m thinking of Platonism and Stoicism), but the influence of these philosophies was based on the influence of their ideas and practices which helped people lead a calmer and more transcendentally based life.

2.  The Classical Philosophical traditions don’t seem to have set up temples.  Instead they set up centers of learning, like Plato’s Academy.  Most philosophers seem to have been dutiful regarding the commitments of civic religion, though at times they could also be critical of those institutions.  From the institutions of learning the ideas of these traditions would slowly filter into society.

3.  There have been attempts to create a popular Platonism; the most famous is Julian the Apostate who wanted to use Platonism in its Late Classical theurgic form as the basis for a hierarchical church that could compete with Christianity.  I have posted before that I think the failure of this project was at least partially due to Platonism being a ‘bad fit’ for such a project.  Platonism is about primarily the cultivation of, and the love of, wisdom and looked at in this way it is an Academy which makes institutional sense rather than an organized church.

4.  I think in the context of this kind of question it is worth pointing out that not all spiritual traditions seek widespread popularity; I think we miss that because the most well-known spiritual traditions, like Buddhism and Christianity, have been very intent on spreading their tradition.  But there are many spiritual traditions that do not do so.

Some spiritual traditions are confined to a particular group of people such as a tribe or even an extended family.  Some spiritual traditions require belonging to a particular heritage and if you are not a part of that heritage you won’t really be able to become a member even if you are very interested.  Some spiritual traditions are based on initiations and eligibility for such initiations is restricted.  And so forth.

5.  Lots of human activities are restricted to those who live up to specific criteria.  Examples are being a musician, or a sportsman, or a mathematician, and so forth.  But because of the influence of universalist religions there is the widespread idea that spiritual traditions should be open to everyone without restrictions.  I’ve seen people become overtly offended if they are told that a spiritual tradition’s criteria for membership excludes them even though they aren’t interested in that tradition.  But I don’t think there is any good reason for feeling offended about this.

6.  In the Dialogues of Plato and the Enneads of Plotinus I don’t recall anything that indicates that Platonism felt a need to become a widespread, organized, tradition resembling what seems to have been advocated for in early Buddhism, and in Islam, to pick two examples.  Instead, I get the impression that the teachers of Platonism are content with the number of students that they have naturally attracted.  And I don’t see Platonist teachers attracting huge numbers; for example it seems that Socrates knew his followers by name, and that Plotinus’s teachings were offered to a modest audience whose membership shifted over time. 

7.  Platonism has a number of aspects that, I think, will always limit its number of adherents.  First, you really need to love reading in order to be a Platonist.  You can’t leave this reading to others; as a Platonist daily reading of its central works (the Dialogues and the Enneads) is essential.  Most people do not love reading in this way; by ‘in this way’ I mean reading as a spiritual practice.  I think this is a bigger barrier to Platonism than is generally realized.

Second, Platonism is a wisdom tradition; by ‘wisdom tradition’ I mean that Platonism views making clear distinctions as essential for the spiritual ascent.  (I often refer, for example, to ‘distinguishing eternity.’)  Making these kinds of distinctions, and then following through on their implications is a kind of spiritual practice that only a few find attractive.

Third, purification of body and mind is foundational for the Platonist tradition.  And this kind of purification means ethical commitments which are outlined in works like Phaedo.  These include non-harming, a vegetarian/vegan approach to food, abandoning the use of drugs and alcohol, restraining bodily desires including sexual desires, and so forth.  In other words, Platonism is an ascetic tradition.  The number of people who will be attracted to this way of life has always been small, but in modernity that number has contracted almost to the point of invisibility.

I think the above three items indicate that Platonism as a spiritual practice will always be limited to a small number of people.  That doesn’t mean its ideas will be similarly limited or that its insights will be confined only to those who follow the Way of Platonism.  Insights can spread beyond the tradition that gave birth to those insights.  But it does mean that Platonist practitioners, who live out the heart of the tradition, are always going to be limited.

8.  I think that sometimes there is the assumption behind this question that implies that a spiritual tradition to be valid should, in some way, be for everyone.  When I say ‘be for everyone’ I mean that a genuine spiritual tradition is seen as devoted to saving all people, or all sentient existence.  As a recovering Mahayana Buddhist, it took me a long time to overcome this kind of perspective. 

But Platonism doesn’t see it that way.  Instead, Platonism accepts that people make their own choices and it is not up to me to require that they make choices that I consider better for them.  They have their own karma and their own destiny.  This is a type of acceptance. 

There is no requirement that people lead a spiritual life.  It is likely that most people never will.  (As an aside, Platonism is not the only spiritual tradition that has this perspective; Jainism shares this kind of view.)  Most people are not interested in the transcendental; they have other things to do. 

9.  On the other hand, many people over many centuries have found Platonism rewarding.  For some, like Boethius, Platonism offers consolation in difficult circumstances.  For others, Platonism offers a secure path to the transcendental. 

There is great beauty, wisdom, clarity, and insight in the Platonic tradition.  Many of us find it a nourishing foundation for a spiritual life as we find our way to the Good, the One, and the Beautiful.