30 March 2026
Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 90
1. Complex
I listened to two YouTube presentations that were centered on Proclus. One of them was had a presenter commenting on one of the shorter works of Proclus. The other one was two people talking about Platonism from various perspectives but once they started talking about Proclus it became fixed on Proclus because one speaker was very dedicated to Proclus and the other speaker had a more skeptical view of Proclus; I would say that the exchange became an argument about the Henads and whether or not they were needed, or even made sense, as a part of Platonic metaphysical cosmology.
What I noticed is that these presentations were complex and used a highly specialized vocabulary. In the case where there were two speakers, the shift to a complex, specialized vocabulary was noticeable because it contrasted with the previous part of their discussion. It seems that when Platonists talk about Proclus, or view Platonism through the lens of Proclus, the vocabulary becomes specialized to a degree that surpasses the kind of vocabulary used by Plato himself, by Plotinus, or Platonists like Maximus of Tyre et al.
My feeling is that Platonism is not as complicated as Proclus makes it out to be. I understand that there is a specific set of Platonic concepts and usages (especially in terms of the Noetic and how the Noetic functions), but that is true of philosophy and spiritual systems in general. What I’m getting at is accessibility. There are difficulties in accessing Plotinus, but the difficulties in accessing Proclus are, I think, greater and of a different kind. But it’s not clear to me that this complex Proclean manner of speaking is necessary or that it is productive of understanding.
2. Can We Break Free from Early 20th Century Philosophy?
One of the stories that contemporary philosophy tells about itself is that there was a split between what would become analytic philosophy and continental philosophy in the early 20th century. And this split centered around questions of meaning and the place that metaphysics holds, or can hold, in contemporary philosophy. It has surprised me how tenacious this description is. Perhaps it is because I have not inhabited the University that I have the feeling that contemporary philosophy is still stuck in this division and does not seem to know how to get out of that moment. For example, I have been amazed at how often I have seen young philosophers with degrees from prestigious Universities presenting the arguments against metaphysics that are found in early analytic philosophy because I really thought that these arguments had long ago been dismissed both theoretically and practically, practical in the sense that metaphysics has continued to be written and talked about without feeling any need to respond to the alleged critiques of what it is doing.
But there is a deeper issue here; I am thinking of the alleged contrast between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy (which in a talk I recently listened to was represented by Carnap vs. Heidegger). The idea is that analytic philosophy rejects metaphysics as meaningless whereas continental philosophy has focused on recovering metaphysics and regaining a foothold from which to uncover what metaphysics is actually about.
What I see is that both sides of this division agree on the idea that the heritage of metaphysics is a failure. Analytic philosophy regards metaphysics as a failure because its statements are not verifiable and therefore not meaningful. Continental philosophy regards the heritage of metaphysics as flawed and in some way deficient, that the heritage of metaphysics actually covers over being, that it talks about being as if being were an entity, and other flaws.
What I see, and offer for consideration, is that both analytic and continental approaches reject the heritage of metaphysics and that in this sense they are united in their hostility towards the philosophical past. And I think that is why contemporary philosophy feels rootless, and why, ultimately, it lacks clarity and focus.
In contrast to this, a Platonist is consciously aware of inheriting a tradition and considers that tradition as a fount of wisdom. Platonism is not aligned with either analytic philosophy or with continental philosophy. It is aligned with an heritage of wisdom that aligns with the transcendent. Platonism is the antidote to both the analytic tradition and the continental tradition because Platonism is both before these and after these because its foundation is eternity.
3. Are We Becoming Post-Literate?
3.1 There are two channels on YouTube that I listen to on a regularly irregular (if that makes sense) basis; one is called ‘Religion for Breakfast’ and the other is the presenter’s name, ‘Jared Henderson.’ Henderson is very interested in philosophy and spent many years in the University advancing to the level of a PhD. Henderson is not a Platonist, but he is a thoughtful individual and, at times, will consider a question in what strikes me as a dialectical manner, if ‘dialectic’ can be applied to an individual talking about a specific topic (I think Plotinus is an example of this).
Both of these presenters are about the same age (perhaps 35ish). And both of them made the decision to step away from the University environment which now and then they talk about on their channels. Because of this common background they decided to do a joint discussion which can be found at Religion for Breakfast. They are both concerned with how technological changes, such as the internet and AI, will impact our culture; that’s why I titled this post focusing on ‘Post-Literate’. Both of them are very literate, but recognize that the place, and status, of being highly literate is changing in basic ways.
Platonism is a highly literate tradition. Reading the Dialogues of Plato, the Enneads of Plotinus, and other works from the Platonic tradition, is a significant part of what it means to be a Platonist. For most of the history of the Platonic tradition I think you could say that literacy was a gatekeeping skill for the tradition. I mean that you had to be literate in order to access the Platonic tradition and literacy was a skill that only a small percentage of people had. This could be said of any philosophy or spiritual tradition; it’s not unique to Platonism.
When literacy became widespread access to Platonic writing became available to an increased number of people. Still, Platonism was, for the most part, confined to elite institutions like elite Universities or centers of theological study. The move that brought Platonism outside of the University was done in the English speaking world by Thomas Taylor (1758-1835). (As an aside, I suspect that some of the criticisms levelled against Taylor came from the feeling that Platonism, and philosophy in general, was the ‘property’ of elite Universities and Taylor was undermining that idea by taking advantage of technologies that allowed Taylor to publish his translations on his own.)
Today we are in a situation where the writings of Platonism can be found easily online, where anyone can post their thoughts about Plato on YouTube, TikTok, or X. It is interesting to consider how this might impact how Platonism is understood. For example, the ease of access reduces the idea that Platonism is something only for highly educated people. This, in turn, may lead some people who do not have a University background to present their understanding of Platonism from a very different perspective than has been done before. This could be beneficial, or could be harmful, depending on how one sees the situation.
The availability of Platonism discussions on social media means, I think, that Platonism is moving more into the realm of orality; I’m not suggesting that it is leaving literacy behind, but I see Platonism as being accessed by young people through presentations on social media rather than by reading a book that was assigned in an Introduction to Philosophy class at a University. In the past I have written that most young people first encounter Platonism through such a class, but now I think that is changing. I’m not sure how that will impact Platonism (partly because I am old and not at ease with the new technologies that younger people now grow up with). But Platonism has been through technological shifts before, such as the printing press. I suspect that Platonism is highly adaptable and will carve out a presence in this new world of technological innovation that is emerging.
3.2 Both Jared Henderson and Religion for Breakfast are concerned about AI and how it will impact human cognition, among other things. Just this year I began using ChatGPT as a tool for clarifying certain questions, for finding sources of information, and asking about how a philosopher I don’t know much about views a certain issue (to give a specific example, I used ChatGPT to learn more about Schleiermacher and his views of Plato and how the impact of Schleiermacher’s essays on and translations of Plato impacted German culture and the wider Western world.)
Personally, I have found AI to be useful, but I think users of AI have to be attentive. It is surprising how often AI gives wrong answers, or contested answers. I think people are surprised by this because AI has an image of infallibility and that image has been deliberately cultivated by advocates of AI, those who will, first and foremost, financially benefit from AI. Henderson and Religion for Breakfast suggested that AI has an ‘oracular’ quality to it and compared the way people approach AI to how people went to the Oracle at Delphi.
My feeling about this is that when new technologies are introduced, they are almost always introduced with very high expectations as to how the technology will uplift humanity. This happened with the telegraph, the phone, the automobile, and so forth. Because there is a strong financial incentive to present a new technology as benevolent and helpful, the downside of new technologies is rarely mentioned or considered, and even when it is mentioned the objections are brushed aside. Over time, though, as people become familiar with the new technology there is a widening realization that the new technology has significant negatives that inherently come with it; for example, automobiles allow us to travel great distances more easily than before, but that comes at the price of vehicular accidents resulting in death or injury.
I think that regarding AI we are still at the ‘utopian’, introductory stage of this new technology and this is reflected in the tendency to think of AI and its impact in very broad, and mostly positive, strokes. In time, and I don’t think it will take that long, people will experience the negatives of AI and it will take its place with other technologies. That’s how I see it.
But it is a good idea to be cautious about AI. As I mentioned above, AI often, not rarely, gives incorrect information in response to a question. (I asked AI a question about Henry David Thoreau and got a very confusing answer. I suddenly realized that ChatGPT was mixing up Thoreau with Emerson and kind of merging the two people. I brought this to Chat’s attention, and it immediately corrected its response. I have heard many other stories along these lines from many people.) There is every reason to think that AI may give incorrect information when asked about Platonism. Just keep that in mind when you visit AI and double check before forwarding what you find out from AI sources.
3.2.1 Religion for Breakfast mentioned in this conversation that the descendants of Confucius in China have created an online AI Confucius personality that people can access and ask questions to. Because this project is state sanctioned and initiated by the descendants of Confucius it seems to be gaining a lot of traction, but I don’t know how seriously users of this AI Confucius take their interactions.
I have a friend who is steeped in the works of Nisargadatta. He once asked ChatGPT to answer his questions as Nisargadatta. He told me that the experience was amazing and that the answers to his questions were very consistent with Nisargadatta’s written work.
Intrigued by these examples, I asked ChatGPT if there was an AI Plato; had someone generated an online Plato with both visual and verbal aspects, that could answer philosophical questions. Chat said there have been some experiments along this line, but none of them have gained traction or widespread notice. Platonism does not have the cultural centrality and status in the West that Confucius does in China, and I doubt that any Western government would support such an effort. Perhaps it has already been done at some University or AI firm and is not widely known at this time.
What would be the status of an AI Plato? How seriously would the pronouncements of an AI Plato be taken? I suspect that the response would be similar to the way people respond to channeled works; mostly books and videos. In other words, there would be a spectrum of responses. Some would be dismissive. Others would consider them as candidates for entering the Platonic Canon. I think it would be interesting to see what emerges from such experiments. Notice the plural use of ‘experiments’. It would be interesting to observe two different AI Platos produced by two different institutions using different AI programs. And then ask each of them the same question. I suspect, depending on the question, we would get different answers (and possibly a few, or maybe more than a few, mistakes.)
3.2.2 I think behind a lot of the discussions about AI is the question of consciousness and awareness. Many have pondered whether or not AI is conscious, or can become conscious. I don’t have any problem with a self-conscious AI, but I tend to think that consciousness, or awareness, is prior to matter and that consciousness permeates the cosmos. That is to say, I think a rock is conscious; or to put it another way, a rock has soul. I suspect that when people talk about consciousness and awareness that this is a way of talking about soul without having to admit that this is their topic.
In the Enneads Plotinus talks about the world soul and its relationship to individual souls. I see the world soul as permeating the material realm. And I see the individual soul as how the world soul is perceived in our realm of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment