13 July 2026
Brief Notes on Various Topics – 101
1. The Political Perspective
I listened to a brief presentation by a professor of philosophy regarding Plato. He argued in favor of the interpretation of Leo Strauss; I mean that the professor argues that Strauss is the most insightful recent scholar on Plato. And the reason given for the importance of Strauss is that Strauss abandoned metaphysical and mystical interpretations of Plato’s Dialogues and brought out the political nature of Plato’s works. I have read this kind of interpretation before (I am also aware that there are those that disagree that this is how Strauss treats Plato, but that’s another issue. The view of Strauss presented by this philosophy professor is widespread.)
As I mentioned, the video was brief, only a few minutes, and I hesitated to respond. But he invited people to comment, so I asked him, given his views, how would he handle the episodes in the Dialogues where Socrates goes into some kind of trance, or meditative state. I mentioned specifically the Symposium and Phaedrus. I suggested that, given these episodes, it is difficult to maintain that Plato was in some sense anti-mystical, that Plato was kind of a proto-analytic philosopher who specialized in political philosophy. The professor responded by saying that what Strauss had accomplished was a realignment (his word) of what is significant in the Dialogues; that is to say that Strauss foregrounds political thought which earlier Platonists (he specifically mentions Christian Platonism as an example) had neglected.
Needless to say, this is not my point of view. It isn’t only the episodes depicting trance states that are significant. A Dialogue like Phaedo which is focused on the nature of the soul, the teachings of rebirth, and the practices of asceticism, is entirely devoted to non-material realities and mystical experiences that are depicted in the penultimate section of mythic unfolding.
The separation of Western Philosophy from its spiritual roots is, to my mind, a kind of cultural tragedy; but that is what has happened. And that is the what Universities are structured to present as philosophy. From the perspective of this kind of separation, the history of philosophy is understood to be a kind of freeing itself from superstitions such as mysticism and spirituality.
For the contemporary Platonist who wants to actually practice the Platonic Way or Path, I think one important step to take is to let the Dialogues speak in their own voice, without bringing to them contemporary assumptions such as materialism, reductionism, and so forth. When this step is taken the Dialogues of Plato open up a vaster and richer understanding of the cosmos, an understanding that can be pursued and practiced for many lifetimes.
2. Monism
The term ‘monism’ emerged, I think, in the 18th or 19th century. It appeared as part of an effort, centered in Germany, to approach the history of philosophy through classification systems that in some ways mimicked scientific systems of classification, such as the periodic table of the elements and biological classifications, that have had great success in their respective fields. ‘Monism’ came with ‘dualism’ and ‘pluralism.’ In general, I think that this specific classification of monism, dualism, pluralism has been successful and has its uses. But it is good to keep in mind that, for example, Platonists did not refer to themselves as monists; the term has been applied to some Platonist philosophers, such as Plotinus, retroactively.
I think of myself as a monist, and think that monism is a good descriptor of the Platonist tradition, while recognizing at the same time that there is variation among specific Platonist authors; that’s not unusual. My view is that in Platonism there is one thing, the Good and the One, that is completely real in Platonist term. But unlike some other examples of monism, Platonism does not consider the material world unreal. Instead, Platonism views material entities as derivative of the ultimate and unique source, the One. Material things are real, but they are less real than the One or the Noetic realities such as abstract objects and Platonic Forms.
Sometimes I read in scholarly works that Plato did not really commit himself to a specific metaphysical position. I think this is mistaken. I suspect that what is going on with that kind of assertion is that the scholar, or University Platonist, is looking for some kind of clear statement as to affiliation in the way that some philosopher today might say they are an existentialist, or a materialist, or a monist, pluralist, or dualist, and so forth. What I suggest is that Plato does not seem to normally choose that way of speaking to present his metaphysics. My observation is that Plato usually uses allegories and myths to express metaphysical truths, especially when Plato is dealing with realities that are difficult to present in terms of affirmations and negations. I think the primary example of this is the allegory of the cave which, in my reading, culminates in a monist vision of the metaphysical sun. And the sun is a symbol of what Platonist monism means. In other words, the allegory of the cave is Plato’s statement on his metaphysical commitments and I think that allegory expresses a metaphysics that is consistent with monism.
Ultimately all things emanate from the transcendental sun of the One and are dependent upon the One. In addition, the One is ineffable and beyond affirmation and negation. This means that ultimate reality is unknowable through intellect and reason, but is approachable through intellect and reason. Terms we use to designate the One are analogies of that which is beyond our grasp, of that which is the source of all that exists.
3. Plato on Change
The Athenian Stranger: “Change, we shall find, is much the most dangerous thing in everything except what is bad – in all the seasons, in the winds, in bodily habits, and in the characters of souls. It isn’t the case that change is, so to speak, safe in some things and dangerous in others, except, as I just now said, in bad things.
“Thus, if one were to look at bodies, one would see how they become accustomed to all foods and all drinks and exercises, even if at first they are upset by them; one would see how, with the passage of time, they grow, out of these very materials, flesh that is akin to these things, and come to like, be accustomed to and familiar with, a whole regimen – thriving on it in the best way from the point of view of both pleasure and health; one would see that if someone is ever compelled to change back to one of the reputable diets, he is at first upset with sickness, but then once again with difficulty recovers, by regaining a habituation in the food. Now one must hold that this very same thing applies to the thoughts of human beings and the natures of their souls. If they’re brought up under laws which by some divine good fortune have remained unchanged for a great length of time, if they neither remember nor have heard that these things were ever otherwise than they are at present, then the entire soul reverences and fears changing any of the things that are already laid down. Somehow or other the lawgiver must think up a device by which this situation will prevail in the city. The following is what I at least have discovered: as we said before, everyone thinks that very great and serious harm can’t follow from changes in the games of the young, on the grounds that these are really just games. As a result, they don’t prevent such changes but give in to and follow them, not taking into account the fact that these boys who practice innovations in their games must necessarily grow up to be men who are different from those the earlier children grew into; being different, they seek a different way of life, and in seeking it they desire different practices and laws; from this it follows that none of them fears the arrival of what was now said to be the greatest evil for cities. There are, indeed, other changes – those affecting outward appearance – that would do less damage; but whatever brings about frequent change in the praise and blame accorded to dispositions is the greatest of all changes, I believe, and would require the most attentive watching.”
(Plato, Laws, Book VII, translated by Thomas L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980, pages 186-187, 797d-798d)
3.1 Plato talks about change and stability in Laws as well as in other Dialogues. The passage quoted is one of the longer and more thorough on the subject.
3.2 In Laws Plato wants the laws of the proposed new city-state to be written in a manner that aligns the citizens to higher realities. Higher realities, such as Nous and the One, are stable and unchanging. Therefore, in order to live in accordance with these higher realities at least the appearance of stability needs to be cultivated and in this dialogue that means laws that are so well written that they do not change over long stretches of time.
3.2.1 I believe ‘long stretches of time’ means thousands of years, even ten thousand years, in Plato’s mind because in Laws the Egyptians are admired because their regulations for painting have not changed for thousands and thousands of years.
3.3 It is somewhat a puzzle for me that Plato argues that the changing seasons and the shifting of the wind are negative changes rather than, say, neutral, or perhaps even positive. Perhaps these are symbols of instability for Plato as opposed to the sun and its light which is a symbol of stability. I’m not sure of that, and I’m not aware of another dialogue where Plato unpacks the meaning of the changing seasons and the wind. Nevertheless it is a puzzle to me because the changing seasons proceed in an orderly manner; yes the seasonal changes are changes, but the manner of the changes is predictable and points to a deeper stability. It’s just not clear to me why this would be a problem.
3.3.1 But there is an example where Plato has a constructive relationship to a natural phenomenon; I am thinking of the sound of the cicadas in Phaedrus.
3.3.2 Perhaps Plato is thinking along the lines that the changing seasons in some way ‘teach’ young people that change and innovation in a city’s laws might lead to misalignment for the souls of its citizens. I get the overall impression that Plato is concerned here, and in other places in Laws with the effect of precedent; the idea that if change is permitted, or even admired, in one context then change will be introduced into a context where it is inappropriate.
3.4 If the reader interprets Laws as teachings that are applicable to one’s own life as a practitioner of the way of philosophy, then a passage like this is directing the person dedicated to philosophy to be very cautious about introducing changes into a traditional spiritual practice. In today’s culture, which exalts change and alteration simply for the sake of change and alteration, as if they are inherently a good thing, such changes are introduced, even demanded, of spiritual traditions that are many thousands of years old, and they are often introduced thoughtlessly; kind of in the way a cultural fad is introduced. Plato resists that kind of approach.
3.4.1 A Daoist teacher once told me that Daoists are people who show up at an open village meeting to discuss the village’s plan for a new bridge and then ask if such a bridge is necessary, pointing out that the city has been in its current location for a long time and is doing just fine.
3.4.2 In my long involvement with Buddhism in the West, I have observed such innovations being introduced frequently and often adopted. Because I studied overseas in Korea and Japan, I was sometimes aware of how this innovation or change would diminish the tradition; I rarely brought this up because there was no context to do so. But sometimes in conversations with individuals it could be discussed, with mixed results.
3.4.3 Looking at a passage like this as instruction for practitioners of the way of philosophy helps to cultivate patience and endurance. The ascetic practices of Platonism bear fruit, but that does not always happen immediately. Contemplation bears fruit, but that does not always happen right away. Dialectic bears fruit, but it can take time to learn how dialectic works.
3.5 Plato writes that changes of the negative kind (and negative changes are changes that make it more difficult to align with the transcendent) require ‘attentive watching.’ I think this is a good instruction for life in general; I mean that if you introduce a change into your spiritual practice, it is good to attentively watch how it impacts your spiritual development, whether or not the change is a step forward or a step back.
No comments:
Post a Comment