4 November 2024
Brief Observations on Non-Harming in the Platonic Tradition
1. From the brief look I have taken of the teachings on non-harming in the Platonic tradition, I get the impression that Plato received these teachings from previous sources. ‘Previous sources’ means, I think, the usual candidates such as Pythagoreanism, Orphism, and likely some mystery traditions. These observations on non-harming and non-retaliation are referenced here and there in Plato in a way that leads me to think that they are an accepted part of that inherited tradition. Perhaps that can be verified by research into earlier philosophers and spiritual traditions.
2. As regular readers know, I am of the view that Platonism more closely resembles Dharmic traditions found in India than it resembles contemporary philosophy. The teachings on non-harming reinforce that view for me because non-harming, ahimsa, is foundational for a number of Dharmic traditions. Is it possible that these teachings arrived in the West from India centuries before Socrates and Plato? I think it is possible, but in order to think of this as more than just a possibility it would be necessary to compare the teachings of ahimsa in Dharmic traditions to the teachings on non-harming in Platonism. Are they structured in the same way? Do both of them use similar examples to illustrate what they mean by non-harming? And so forth.
3. It is also possible that the teachings on non-harming in India and in the West come from a shared common source that is very ancient. Looked at in this way the teachings on non-harming in Dharmic and Platonic contexts would be branches of these teachings. It would be difficult to make a case for this, but perhaps it might not be impossible.
4. In the context of Platonism, I wonder how Platonists placed non-harming in their overall teachings. I mean is non-harming a virtue and therefore a part of its ethical teaching? I have not run into non-harming in my reading on the virtues, but my reading on this is not very wide.
Or is non-harming a purification practice like vegetarianism, to which non-harming is strongly tied?
Or perhaps non-harming is more metaphysical in the sense of non-harming being an expression of the One and the Good?
Or perhaps non-harming is an alignment with the transcendental in the way that contemplation is that kind of alignment?
5. How does non-harming fit in with ethical teachings found in Platonism? Particularly, how does non-harming impact what most people consider to be the political teachings of Platonism?
I am thinking in particular of how Platonism understands war which is the greatest of human harms. In The Laws it states that all adults of the city should train for war at least once a month. Is this consistent with the understanding of non-harming? Or is there a friction between these two perspectives?
6. In Porphyry’s On Abstinence from Killing Animals, Porphyry writes that refraining from killing, eating, sacrificing, or harming animals is specifically a practice for philosophers rather than a practice Porphyry recommends for society as a whole. I wonder if that is true also for non-harming?
7. Is non-harming a Form; that is to say is the source of non-harming found in the noetic? If non-harming is a Form then non-harming emanates the presence of non-harming into the material realm.
It is my understanding of the noetic realm that it is a realm in which differentiation does not lead to strife. That is to say that noetic realities, such as being, numbers, life, and so forth, are transparent to each other and mutually co-existent. If that is true, then non-harming is the manner in which noetic realities relate to each other rather than a distinct form itself.
8. In a number of dialogues Plato depicts the philosopher as someone who is a bit clumsy in their interactions with normal society. For this reason the philosopher is sometimes the butt of jokes and can be, at times, pitied by ordinary people. I think that non-harming is one of the aspects of the life of a philosopher that can bring ordinary people to this negative conclusion about philosophers. The norm in society is to harm those who have harmed us; in fact someone who does not return harm for harm is often viewed as weak or even cowardly.
But it is more than that. Initiating harm is a very common feature of human society. War is the starkest example as wars are initiated most often for phony reasons. The truth is most people do not think there is anything wrong with war and that war is, in some way, profound. From this perspective war is not something to overcome or do away with. But non-harming and non-retaliation would, if widely practiced, lead to the cessation of war and other forms of organized violence. I think it would transform human beings both at the individual level and at the sociological level as well into something that is almost unrecognizable.
9. In Phaedo Socrates, when talking about separating the soul from the body, will sometimes suggest that we need to do this to the degree it is possible for a human being with a body to do. Similarly, I think it is impossible to practice non-harming completely as long as we are living in the material world. But that doesn’t mean that non-harming should not be practiced and cultivated as part of our Platonic practice.
10. Thinking about non-harming has shifted my understanding of Platonism. This shift has been subtle but significant; more like a spring breeze than a hurricane. It has reinforced my view that Platonism is a spiritual tradition that is meant to guide people to the transcendent, to that which is beyond the material and sensory world. And I suspect that these teachings on non-harming make the path to the transcendent clearer and more accessible.
