Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 71

3 November 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 71

1.  Absence of Spaciousness

I think I already mentioned that I am rereading Process and Reality by Whitehead.  One thing that strikes me in this reading is how deeply connected Whitehead is with the Western philosophical tradition.  For example, there is a section where Whitehead unpacks his own philosophy, which he refers to as the philosophy of organism, by comparing it to the philosophies of Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant.  It’s quite a tour de force.  Whitehead easily highlights the points in these philosophers’ works and then contrasts them with his own understanding.  Sometimes Whitehead agrees, sometimes Whitehead disagrees, sometimes Whitehead will add another dimension to the discussion that Whitehead feels is missing from the previous philosopher’s work which Whitehead then fills in for the reader.

As I was reading these presentations it came to mind that from my perspective there is no practice of meditation or contemplation that is referred to.  In other words, Whitehead is using cerebral, intellectual analyses in his discussions and there is no sense that there might be another way of approaching the topics under consideration.  (As an aside, it occurs to me that Whitehead is influenced by his mathematical background.  Mathematicians use the analytic mind to wrestle with and hopefully resolve difficulties in the realm of numbers.  It is a highly intellectual endeavor and I think in significant ways Whitehead uses this approach in Process and Reality.)

In contrast, Plato depicts Socrates in meditative, or contemplative, trances; in the Symposium there are two such episodes, one near the beginning and one towards the end.  And there are other examples of this in other dialogues.

In addition, Plato uses allegory, and other devices, to depict the experience of mystical ascent, such as in the allegory of the cave.  The use of allegory creates a sense of spaciousness in the Dialogues because allegory can be unpacked in numerous ways with numerous dimensions involved.  This is why rereading the Dialogues is rewarding, because new layers of allegorical meaning come to the foreground. 

In the Western philosophical tradition of modernity, which is what I am referring to when Whitehead begins these discussions with Descartes, the analyses are not grounded in contemplation or interior cultivation of mind (or noetic understandings).  I am a huge admirer of Whitehead but Whitehead does not seem to step outside of this limitation of modern Western philosophy.  And as an aside, I think it is instructive that Descartes refers to one impactful work of his as Meditations on First Philosophy.  ‘First Philosophy’ is metaphysics.  What Descartes means by his title is ‘Thinking About First Philosophy.’ 

But First Philosophy in Plato and Plotinus is illuminated not through thinking about; rather it is illuminated by the direct experience of the ineffable, of the ultimately spacious, of the spaciousness of eternity.

2.  Variations on a Theme

More and more I think of the Platonic tradition as consisting of a series of variations on a theme.  There are certain melodies that are attractive enough that multiple composers use them after they are introduced.  A well-known example is La Folia which appears to have originally been a dance tune from Spain and Portugal but has been picked up by multiple composers down the centuries.

I’m thinking of the basic metaphysical insight of Plato, which I understand as a metaphysical cosmology that explains the origin of all things in the ineffable One, as a Theme, a grand theme that encompasses all of existence and also that which transcends existence.  It has proven to be in its basics very attractive and enduring. 

By ‘Variations’ I mean that over the thousands of years of the Platonic tradition philosophers and theologians have taken this basic view and unpacked it in unique ways.  For example, I’ve spent time on how different Platonists understand the Noetic Realities, the Forms, or the Eternal Objects, that are part of the basic metaphysical structure of Platonism.  Just what the Forms are, and how they are related to the One, and how they  are related to material realities (in other words, how emanation works) varies, but the theme of the Forms is recognizable among all these variations.

My intuition as to why many philosophers are attracted to basic Platonist themes is that Platonism is true in a transcendental sense.  This truth is an invitation to eternity and the beauty that eternity offers. 

3.  Platonism as a Dharma Tradition

I have often posted that I think it is more accurate to comprehend Platonism as a spiritual tradition in the way that Dharma traditions in India are spiritual traditions.  I’m not the only one that has that perspective.  And I think it would be helpful regarding this perspective to post what others have to say about Platonism as a Dharma tradition.  Accordingly, I am going to irregularly post excerpts from those who have this perspective so that readers can see how this perspective works and why people hold it.  The first example of this kind of writing will be by the author and Platonist Practitioner Eric Fallick.  His essay is called An Extremely Brief Introduction to Platonism:

“Platonism is a spiritual or religious or soteriological system that offers a path to release from the endless cycle of reincarnation and its concomitant misery.  It belongs to a family of such systems, comprising Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Orphism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism, that all accept the facts of reincarnation, the cycle of repeated birth and death, that this works by karma, that this state is wretched and painful and unsatisfactory and a fallen and mistaken condition, and that it is possible through great and correctly directed effort to be released permanently from this state.  All these systems consider that the path to this release consists of renunciation, asceticism, detachment, celibacy, vegetarianism and non-harming, abstinence from alcohol and intoxicants, study, and meditation or spiritual exercises.  Platonism differs from the others, as they do from each other, in its metaphysics, its description of reality and how it relates to the spiritual path, the true nature of release or the condition of having attained the freedom of the goal of the path, the texts that it takes for study, its exact method of implementing the required behavioral and ascetic practices, and its method of meditation and spiritual exercises.”

3.1  This short essay, of which the above contains the opening sentences, can be found online at platonistasceticism (dot) blogspot (dot) com.  It can also be found on Youtube at the author's channel; go to Youtube and search for the author, Eric Fallick, or for the title as above.  The video on Youtube gives the listener the opportunity to hear vocal emphasis. 

3.1.1  In addition to the blog and youtube channel, Eric has published a book of his essays on Platonism called "Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle."  You can get it on Amazon.  The essay I am quoting is not in this collection because it was written after the book was published.  

3.2  The essay is a remarkably cogent condensation of what I like to call ‘Orthodox Platonism.’  I mean by that the presentation does not incorporate later modifications such as those found in Christian or Theurgic Platonism.  As far as I can tell the author’s sources are exclusively the Dialogues and the Enneads, and, of course, his own experience as a practitioner.

3.3  I like the way that this essay opens by placing Platonism in the overall context of Dharma traditions; and I also like that the author doesn’t include just Platonism, but also the Orphics and the Pythagoreans.  I think in other essays the author uses the phrase ‘Indo-Hellenistic’ to refer to those broad groupings.

3.4  Having placed Platonism is this broad context he then goes on to point out the differences between Platonism and the other Dharma, or Indo-Hellenistic, traditions; pointing out that all these traditions have their unique practices and texts.  Thus we get a picture of a broad-based tradition with many variations.

3.5  I think the most important point that the author makes about Platonism is that it is a “religious or soteriological system.”  This is the primary reason why I started to think of Platonism as a Dharma and looked to Indian Dharma traditions to make sense of what Platonism is teaching.  Philosophy and religion are, in modernity, thought of as different tasks; academic philosophers, with a few exceptions, don’t think of their task as that of offering salvation from the endless cycle of suffering to their students.  But for most Dharma philosophers that is exactly what the purpose of philosophy is.  And it is my view, and the view of many others, that Western Philosophy also viewed itself as having that task in antiquity.  The story of how that task was lost is a sad one, and complex as well.  But fortunately we have the example of Philosophers from Dharma traditions, authors like Patanjali, Buddhaghosa, Shankara, and many others, whose example shows the soteriological mission of Philosophy and how that mission is embodied in the Dharma of Platonism.

3.6  In the rest of the essay the author unpacks some of the unique aspects of the Dharma of Platonism such as the texts of Platonism, the hypostases or levels of existence, and so forth.

3.7  I think this is an excellent essay, carefully written.  It is a clear presentation of the relationship between Platonism and other Dharma traditions; both their similarities and their differences.  If you get a chance I recommend spending some time with it.

 

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 60

18 August 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 60

1.  Recently I have been thinking that analytic philosophy is autistic philosophy.  Autistics are able to engage in what some people call ‘vertical’ learning.  As I understand it, vertical learning means to drill down into a single topic and also to comprehend all other topics, or subjects, or areas of learning, based on the one thing that has attracted the autistic’s attention.

What autistic personalities are incapable of is what is sometimes called ‘horizontal’ learning.  By horizontal is meant to think about how one subject relates to another subject; this kind of learning usually involves metaphorical or analogical thinking, something which autistic personalities find difficult to engage in.

Analytic philosophy can be understood as fitting into this pattern in that it drills down into analysis, and what they think of as logic, while ignoring, or dogmatically rejecting, other philosophical subjects.  This rejection is particularly strong when autistic analytic philosophers discuss metaphysics. 

Naturally, I am using ‘autistic’ to describe analytic philosophy as a metaphor; I’m not saying that analytic philosophers are diagnostically autistic.  Rather I am suggesting that the pattern of analytic philosophy, its modes of study, communication, and relationship, seem to me to resemble what is described as autistic, or has features that seem to be illuminated by the metaphor of autism.

2.  It’s interesting to me that I don’t find a lot written about Platonist asceticism.  When I asked Chatgpt if there are books on this subject, it came up with only three, and only one of those was specifically focused on that topic (Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle by Eric Fallick).  This contrasts with very numerous books about various issues in Platonic interpretation such as how to interpret The Republic or the relationship between Platonic mysticism and other types of mysticism, or commentaries on various works such as The Symposium or an Ennead by Plotinus.  All of these are valuable and insightful; I’m not objecting to writing about these other aspects of Platonism.  What I’m suggesting is that contemporary writing on Platonism is unable to think of asceticism as foundational for Platonist practice, for how to do, or embody, Platonist practice.  I can understand this; the role of asceticism in early Christianity is often overlooked, and Western Buddhism actively rejects the idea of renunciation as an inherent part of the Buddhist tradition.  This means, I think, that asceticism as a way of life, and Platonism as a way of asceticism, is on the fringes of contemporary thought.

3.  There are two contemporary Western philosophical approaches that are anti-metaphysical and therefore anti-Platonist.  One is the analytic tradition which has its roots in philosophers such as David Hume.  Analytic philosophy had its high point in the first half of the 20^th century and still has many adherents. 

The second anti-metaphysical tradition is what I tend to call the ‘Heideggerian’ tradition.  Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics is, from one point of view, subtle and difficult; and from another point of view his critique is obscure and, some would say, incoherent and largely emotive.  Be that as it may, Heidegger views Western philosophy as having ‘abandoned’ metaphysics by which he means, at least I think he means, that being as such has been put aside for the study of beings.  Heidegger even accuses philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle of making this move.  Heidegger then interprets subsequent Western metaphysical investigations as in some way the fruit of this poisonous tree, by which I mean that he seems to think of all subsequent metaphysics as emerging from this displacement of being as such for the study of particular beings.

Analytic philosophy attacked the heritage of metaphysics by constructing a theory of meaning that eliminated metaphysics because metaphysics does not adhere to the analytic theory of meaning.  The Heideggerian tradition attacks the heritage of metaphysics by suggesting that the Western tradition of metaphysics has actually in some way ‘covered’ or distorted what metaphysics is about and therefore made access to being more difficult.  But what I think is really interesting is that both traditions reject the efforts of previous philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, on the subject of metaphysics.  This is where I see a common purpose that is shared by both contemporary traditions, though they come to this shared approach by taking different routes.

To be a Platonist at this time in Western philosophical history, means to be distanced from both streams of anti-metaphysical thinking.  I look at it this way; Western metaphysical thought did not, and has not, abandoned being as such.  Instead I see Western philosophy as offering a variety of interpretations as to the nature of being, as well as to the transcendence of being, as well of the relationship between being as such and individual beings. 

Personally, I regard this rejection of the Western metaphysical tradition by both analytic philosophy and the Heideggerian tradition, as having an obsessively critical and narrow view of how to do philosophy.  My view is that both traditions do not understand, for example, how words work, or the status of metaphysical thought and investigation.  This rejection, again, in my opinion, is aligned with, and nourished by, the pervasive view that treats the past in a completely negative way in the sense that the past is understood to be deficient and the present is superior both in understanding and in science and technology.  From this perspective the past has nothing to offer; in terms of philosophy this results in a dismissal of metaphysics in particular because metaphysics had a high status in the past and is therefore a target of those who adhere to the idea that the present is superior in every way to the past.

I know that analytic and continental philosophy are often configured as antagonistic to each other.  But when looked at from the perspective of metaphysics I understand both traditions to share a common goal, a common purpose.  The shared goal and purpose is to clear the field and practice of philosophy of metaphysics, shrinking the range of human thought.  It is true that analytic philosophy and Heideggerianism offer different reasons for rejecting traditional, Platonic, metaphysics; but in a sense, that is a minor issue.  It is the rejection of metaphysics itself by both approaches that, I think, is significant and deeply misguided.

4.  Continuing with the Sentences of Porphyry, here is Sentence 6:

Not everything which acts on another, effects that which it does effect by approximation and contact; but those natures which effect any thing by approximation and contact, use approximation accidentally.  (Thomas Taylor)

The things that act upon others do not act by approximation and by contact.  It is only accidentally when this occurs [that they act by proximity and contact – emendation by the translator].  (Kenneth Guthrie)

That which acts upon something else, does not do what it does by approach or contact; but even those things which do perform an action by approach and contact, employ approach by accident.  (Thomas Davidson)

Not every active being that influences another by approaching or touching the object of influence does so through direct touch and interaction, and some beings that interact in this way use approaching only as a side element of their activity.  (Isaac Samarskyi)

4.1  I have incorporated the translation of the Sentences of Porphyry by Thomas Davidson.  Davidson’s translation was published in a scholarly journal in 1869.  I’m not aware of it being published in book form. 

4.2  This is another of the Sentences that is mostly opaque to me in the sense that I am not sure what the purpose of the Sentence is.  I mean it’s not clear to me how this Sentence fits in with the other Sentences.

4.3  The word ‘approximation’ used by Taylor and Guthrie has, I think, changed meaning since those translators used it.  I think it more accurately means ‘approach’ which is used by Davidson and Samarskyi.

4.4  One way of unpacking a sentence like this one is to try and understand the words it uses and how the words fit together.  Sentence 6 is about how some things influence or impact other things, when they do impact or influence other things.  It seems to me that Sentence 6 is closely related to Sentence 3 which is also about things interacting. 

4.5  I think one concern of this sentence is how incorporeal beings influence other beings when, by definition, incorporeal beings do not touch, approach, or otherwise contact material beings (though Porphyry does not explicitly mention incorporeal beings in this sentence).  This would be an item of discussion in Platonism because noetic realities are incorporeal, yet it is noetic realities which house the incorporeal forms, from which are emanated material realities.  The specific means by which emanation happens cannot be material in nature.

4.6  The use of the word ‘accident’ is interesting.  In most Platonic works I have read the idea that things arise accidentally or randomly is rejected.  But here Porphyry suggests that some things influence other things in a random manner.

The idea that things happen in a random manner was very widespread in Greek popular culture; for example the Gods were viewed as capricious and incomprehensible.  The Goddess Tyche, Fortuna in Latin, was prominent and people often felt that fate governed their lives.

This attitude was present not only in popular culture, but also in some philosophers such as Heraclitus.  There is a famous fragment where Heraclitus compares the activity of an eon to a child playing a game with dice.  Notice that games have rules, implying some order in the cosmos.  But the toss of the dice and the results that appear seem arbitrary and unrelated to the individual who tossed the dice.

Still, it is unusual for a Platonist, at least Platonists I have read, to suggest that things happen accidentally or randomly and I wonder how this fits in with Porphyry’s philosophy as a whole?

5.  I have been thinking about how the Classical World viewed Plato as communicated in comments and biographies/hagiographies.  Primarily the Classical World thought of Plato as ‘divine’ and as extraordinary and as blessed by the Gods.  One aspect of this is found in the belief that Plato was born from a union between a God, Apollo, and Plato’s mother.  His father had approached Plato’s mother for intimate relations, but withdrew when he saw the presence of Apollo.

This story, or mythos, lasted for a long time.  According to some scholars it was Plato’s nephew, Speussippus, who was also the second head of the Academy, who first presented this mythos.  I tend to think that Speusippus may have been the first to write about it, but I suspect that the mythos preceded that writing.  In any case, the mythos seems to have an early origin.  And the mythos was repeated and passed on throughout the classical period.  For example, Plutarch, who lived about 40 to 120 AD, writes about it.  So does Olympiodorus who died in 565 AD. 

It’s interesting that I have not found in my reading any mention of Plato being thought of as a God, though he may be depicted as having God-like qualities.  And I don’t find any mention of a cult of Plato in the sense of temples of worship being constructed for such activity.  Perhaps the Academies in Athens and Alexandria served that purpose.

I do find mention of a yearly celebration of the birth of Plato, and sometimes Socrates at the same time.  This seems to have consisted of a meal (probably vegetarian) and the reading of people’s philosophical essays.  This was a way of expressing their appreciation for, and reverence of, Plato.

I think it is an intriguing picture where Plato is admired, given a kind of divine birth, but is not himself transformed into a God for the purposes of cultic worship.  My reading of this is that it expresses that Plato is beyond the Gods in the sense of transcending the realms that the Gods inhabit.

According to Diogenes Laertius there were a number of epitaphs inscribed at Plato’s tomb, which was at the Academy.  Here is one of them:

Excelling among mortals for temperance and justice,

Here lies divine Aristocles.

If anyone ever won great praise for wisdom,

He won the greatest, without arousing envy.

(Plato’s given name was Aristocles, which was his grandfather’s name – translator’s footnote.)

(Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, translated by Pamela Mensch, Oxford University Press, 2018, page 156, ISBN: 9780190862176)

I like this epitaph.  It emphasizes the virtues of temperance and justice, and adds that Plato won great praise for his wisdom.  And Plato managed to do this without arousing envy which speaks to his divine character.

 

 

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 5

14 February 2024

Brief Notes on Various Topics --5

1.  John Peter Kenney in his book Mystical Monotheism suggests that Plotinus advocated for an ineffable One as a way of countering the infinite regress implied in some versions of earlier Platonism; most of those versions were derived from the Plato’s Parmenides.  I don’t see it that way.  Plotinus’s apophatic approach to the One is derived from his contemplative experience rather than from an analysis of inferential systems. 

David J. Yount in his book Plotinus the Platonist understands this; for example, “I believe Plotinus had the same experience or vision of the Good that Plato did, and so their philosophies come out sounding, if not being, the same.  However, it is not because Plato wrote what he did that Plotinus agrees with it; Plotinus agrees with it because he achieved knowledge of the Good; thus Plato wrote what he did because he also had the experience of the Good.”  (Page xxiii)  And later Yount writes, “. . . it is my unprovable contention that Plotinus exited Plato’s Cave, saw the Good and described it in as much detail as he and his listeners had time to question and investigate – everything from the shadows on the wall to the Good Itself.” (page xxix) I would add, that I think that Yount’s view is provable if you walk the Way of Platonism long enough and enter into contemplation long enough; ‘long enough’ in this context means something like ‘many years.’

2.  I often compare Platonism to Dharmic traditions from India because I think Platonism has more in common with Dharmic traditions than it does with what philosophy has become in modernity.  Lately I have been comparing Platonism to Confucianism.  Points to consider include that rather undefined nature of ultimacy in both systems.  In Platonism the One is ineffable.  In Confucianism Heaven is mentioned, but it is not an idea that is unpacked in detail; it is rather an influential reality.  Heaven isn’t quite apophatic in a Plotinian sense; on the other hand, Heaven isn’t specified in any detail.

Another similarity is that the Confucian Sage is dedicated to the Way of the Scholar Sage; in a Confucian context this means the study of the Confucian Classics such as the Analects and the Book of Rites and the Book of Poetry, and so forth.  I think it is possible to map onto Platonism some aspects of the Way of the Scholar Sage such as the dedicated reading and study of the Platonic Classics, specifically the Dialogues and the Enneads.

Though it is not generally understood in the West, Confucianism has a contemplative dimension.  This dimension is also present in Platonism.

Two big differences are, first, that the Confucian Sage regards serving the State as a noble calling.  In contrast, the Platonic Sage is not inherently drawn to such service.  And second, Confucianism is not an ascetic tradition, though it does have strong ethical commitments that might, in our hedonistic time, be thought of as unnecessarily restrictive.  But asceticism is central to Platonism, it is a primary form of practice.

3.  I’ve been thinking about why I spend time comparing Platonism to non-Western spiritual systems.  I think I am motivated to do so because Western Philosophy has evolved in a manner that makes it almost impossible to understand Platonism if you only view Platonism through the lens of contemporary, or modernist, Western Philosophy.  If I were to focus on a single absence in modernist Western Philosophy it would be that there is no understanding of Philosophy as salvific; the very idea of Philosophy as salvific sounds strange in a contemporary philosophical context.  In contrast, Dharmic traditions, and a tradition like Confucianism, view their philosophical studies as leading to salvation and the overcoming of negative metaphysically rooted conditions and situations.  For this reason I feel a need to link Platonism to, especially, Dharmic traditions, and other spiritual traditions in an attempt to explain what Platonism is about.

4.  I’ve posted several times about the topic of evil recently.  In a book by Eric Fallick, a contemporary Platonist practitioner, there is an essay, Some Thoughts on the Great Problems of Manyness and Evil.  Here is a quote;

“How and why can there be more than the One, especially when everything else is a descent from Its perfection?  How and why do many things come from the One?  Even more incomprehensible, how can evil, which is so evident and undeniable, arise from the Good Itself, and why should this be so?  Indeed, compared to the One Itself, just the existence of anything else, even of those things we ordinarily describe as good, is evil in itself just as those things being other than the Good!  Why are they then, and how can this be so?  Why did our souls descend in the first place and the beginningless cycles of birth and death, genesis, samsara begin?  These sorts of questions, and related variants according to different systems, have been considered and answered by many different people in many different systems of many varieties.  No answer has satisfied everyone and perhaps there is no answer but to realize union with the Absolute through diligent contemplative ascetic practice, at which point both the question and the questioner cease or, to put it another way, the answer is obvious.”

(Eric Fallick, Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle, published by lulu-dot-com, 2019, pages 164 and 165, ISBN: 9780359773015)

Some things are answered only through practice.  I think this is true even in mundane activities.  For example, an instructor might tell an aspiring musician to hold his hands in a particular way around the instrument.  For the student this position may seem awkward or counterintuitive.  Later on, though, as he becomes more skilled, he finds out that this hand position allows for skillful performance of many pieces of music.  The analogy has some flaws, but I think you get what I’m saying. 

5.  Beautiful things in this world are like the sound of a bell.  They are attractive like the sound of a bell.  They arise due to causes and conditions like the sound of a bell.  The sound of a bell endures and then fades, just like beautiful things endure and then fade.

The beauty of the sound of a bell is the beauty of the noetic and the One manifesting in the dimension of time.  And this is true for all beautiful things.  But noetic beauty is Beauty as Such and does not fade because it transcends time.  Following the beauty of the sound of a bell back to its noetic source and we find ourselves in the presence of eternity.

 

 

The Food of the Gods

6 March 2023

The Food of the Gods

“For asserting the first principles to be gods and born of gods, they say that the beings which did not taste of nectar and ambrosia became mortal, and clearly they are using words which are familiar to themselves, yet what they have said, even about the very application of these causes is above our comprehension.  For if the gods taste nectar and ambrosia for their pleasure, these are in no wise the causes of their existence; and if they taste them to maintain their existence, how can gods who need food be eternal?”

(Aristotle, Metaphysics, The Complete Works of Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book III, the Revised Oxford Translation, Edited by Jonathan Barnes, Volume Two, Princeton, 1984, pages 1579-1580)

 

In Late Classical Platonism there is an ongoing discussion about what I refer to as the ontological status of deities.  This discussion is complex because it is embedded in discussions about many different types of deities, their specific traits and functions, and their hierarchical status.  Here are a few remarks on this topic:

1.         My view of deities overall is shaped by decades of study in the Buddhist tradition.  Although in many respects I have left behind many basic Buddhist understandings (e.g. I reject the Buddhist view of no-soul), I find the Buddhist view of the place that deities have in a metaphysical cosmology still makes sense to me.  As I understand it, the Buddhist view is that deities, of all kinds, are embedded in samsara, or genesis, or what I like to call ‘becoming and begoning’.  Although deities live very long lives, they are not eternal/immortal.  At some point, they will die, just like every living being in becoming and begoning. 

2.         Applying that understanding to a Platonic context, I see deities, of all types, as residing in the realm of soul, rather than residing in the realm of nous, or even higher.  Because of this, I remain unsympathetic to the idea that there are deities that are, in some sense, residing between the One and Nous/Mind/Intellect.  I have this view because deities are differentiated from each other and from other beings in the realm of soul.  The degree of differentiation, indicating a lack of unity, and metaphysical distance from the One, is a distinguishing feature for those residing in the realm of soul, and for those who have fallen into the material dimension.

3.         Partly how a Platonist understands this depends on how the dialogues are read.  Eric Fallick, in his book, Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle, speaks to this point as follows, “. . . in the Phaedo when Socrates, who symbolizes the higher divine soul and individual nous, not any actual individual named Socrates, says that he is consecrated like the swans to Apollo, that ‘Apollo’ in Greek is a pun on ‘a-polla’ meaning ‘not-many’, i.e., that Socrates as nous is consecrated to the One as non-multiplicity (nisprapanca in Sanskrit).  Similarly, when he says that the accomplished philosophos when the soul is released from the body goes to be among the gods or his soul will go to the good and wise god (note . . . the indiscriminate use of singular and plural) he means that the individual nous and higher soul released from the lower soul and the experience of the body re-merges with Nous and the One.” (page 161)

This is a skillful symbolic and allegorical reading of Plato.  It is an approach rarely used these days, but I have found that it uncovers meanings and insights that were previously inaccessible to me.

4.         In Laws Plato argues that the gods must be ‘honored,’ and enacts laws to that effect.  That makes sense to me.  I’m not arguing that deities do not exist; I’m not an atheist.  And I have no problem with honoring the gods through ceremony.  Just as I honor my human teachers and my human ancestors, honoring the gods is a kind of spiritual duty.  But I don’t see aligning myself with the gods as a procedure that will guide me to the Good and the One.  I say that because I see the gods, deities, as a part of becoming and begoning, whereas the Good and the One transcend becoming and begoning.

5.         This is one of those issues that is difficult to resolve.  Partly I rely on what I think of as the ‘ordinary’ or ‘folk’ understanding of how deities behave; meaning that deities are involved with deceits and deceptions, are often seen by Greeks as heartless who treat humans as ‘playthings’.  I tend to see this as an accurate presentation of the gods and their behavior.  Plato, and Platonists, were, understandably, appalled by such behavior and argued for deities who are free from these character flaws; even arguing that stories about the misbehavior of gods should not be read to children.  In the end, though, I think this creates confusion.  No doubt the gods, like humans, have within them, hidden away in their soul, the light of the One.  And if a god turns to that light the god can ascend to the One.  But as they are, they are like human beings, a mixture of tendencies some of which lead them to the darkness of the cave, and some of which lead them out of the cave to the light of the One.

The confusion is to think of a trait of a god as essential; for example, that the beauty of Aphrodite means that Aphrodite is essential beauty.  A god may participate in beauty in a manner that is purer than that of a human being, because human beings are more mired in materiality.  But that does not mean that the deity is essentially that quality.

6.         In the opening quote by Aristotle, he highlights the contingent nature of the gods.  Aristotle argues that if the gods are dependent upon causes, such as ambrosia, for their existence, they cannot be immortal.  This is a causal analysis remarkably close to a Buddhist analysis of gods of all types.  Though some argue that Aristotle and Plato parted ways on significant issues, I tend to have a higher opinion of Aristotle.  Yes, there are differences between Plato and Aristotle, but in many significant areas there is agreement.  I think this quote is an indication of one of those areas.

7.         I take a contemplative view of the Platonist path; that it is through the practice of contemplation, and the cultivation of other virtues, that the practitioner approaches the One.  I realize that others have a different understanding of the path, and I wish them well on their journey.  As for me, I am content with my slow walk on the path of purification and other virtues that leads to the One, the Good, and the Beautiful.

 

 

20 October 2022

The Geography of Platonism Today

Platonism is a tradition that has developed over thousands of years.  Over this long span of time different interpretations of Platonism have emerged.  I think of these interpretations as communities, or loosely defined subdivisions, of the City of Platonism.  They all share a common polis, but each subdivision of the City of Platonism has its own rules and regulations and its own self-understanding.  Perhaps a good comparison would be the Cantons of Switzerland.  Here are some of the Cantons of Platonism as I see it at this time:

1. Academic Platonism – This is where most people are introduced to Platonism today.  Plato is viewed in this context as an important figure in the history of Western culture.  My personal experience, which has been affirmed by others, is that contemporary Academic Platonism is interested in Plato for the structure of Plato’s arguments, and for Plato’s place in the history of Western Philosophy.  But many contemporary academic philosophers reject Platonism as a living option and topics such as rebirth or the goal of attaining transcendence tend to be dismissed these days because they clash with the dominant views of materialism and reductionism. 

There are academics who find Platonism inspiring, but there are not many of them.

2. Christian Platonism – Early Christian authors such as Justin Martyr and, most famously, Saint Augustine, retained significant Platonist views when they converted to Christianity.  This has left a deep imprint on Christian theology and mysticism.  This has continued to be the case, though the explicitly Platonist interpretation of Christianity has been muted by the turn to Aristotelianism in the Middle Ages.  Nevertheless, Platonic Christianity has its articulate spokespeople today; Peter Kreeft is a good example.

3. Mathematical Platonism – There has always been a strong connection between mathematics and Platonism because numbers are a fine example of Plato’s doctrine of forms.  Mathematicians who hold to the view that numbers and their relations are discovered, rather than numbers and their relations being human creations, are Platonists and most of them are consciously aware of that. (As an aside, if you go on youtube and search for discussions on this topic you can find many.) Platonism nourished mathematical knowledge and was, in turn, nourished by mathematical approaches to philosophical issues.  For example, Proclus wrote a commentary on Euclid’s Elements and sought to adopt Euclid’s structure in Proclus’s The Elements of Theology. 

4. Aesthetic Platonism – In the arts, such as poetry, music, architecture, and painting, there are some who understand their own art or craft in Platonic terms.  The exalted place that Beauty has in the Platonic tradition, particularly in the writings of Plotinus, means that this is an easy connection to make.  Music and poetry are understood to be means for connecting with higher hypostases and even with Beauty itself.  Often this is heavily mixed with occult procedures, rituals, and history so that it is not always easy to see the specifically Platonic views.  But there were, and are, people who understand the connection and find the Platonic world view nourishing for their own aesthetic efforts.

5. Thomas Taylor Platonism – Thomas Taylor (15 May 1758 to 1 November 1835) was a British Platonist who was dedicated to translating the works of many Platonist authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Maximus of Tyre, Proclus, et al.  Taylor was the first to translate into English the entire works of Plato and Aristotle.  Taylor’s understanding of Platonism was heavily influenced by the works of Proclus (8 February 412 to 17 April 485).  Proclus was the head of the Athenian Academy and a prolific commentator on Plato, as well as writing original interpretation of Platonism such as the above-mentioned Elements of Theology.  Proclus’s approach is analytical in many ways, but it is also interested in the practice of Theurgy which becomes a central concern for Proclus and those who align with Proclus’s interpretation, such as Thomas Taylor.

Taylor’s translations have been the foundation for a contemporary understanding of the Platonic tradition.  It operates through the Prometheus Trust, whose home base is in England.  The Prometheus Trust is dedicated to making available Taylor’s translations, offering classes in the Platonic tradition, and in general supporting the presence of the Platonic tradition in the English-speaking world.  My observation is that many contemporary Platonists have studied with the Prometheus Trust or are in some way connected with the Trust; there are, for example, a number of youtubers, such as Mindy Mandell, who have this kind of connection.

I think it is instructive that the Prometheus Trust is not part of any academic institution; in fact, it is critical of Academic Platonism, which is understandable.  In some ways I feel that the Prometheus Trust offers a model for others who want to nourish the presence of Platonism in the world today. 

6.  Ascetic Platonism – There are some contemporary Platonists who are inspired by Plato’s, and others’, ascetic writing.  That is to say that they view Platonism as an ascetic spiritual tradition.  The Dialogue Phaedo is the primary resource for these ascetic teachings, though one can find the ascetic perspective scattered throughout the works of Plato and Plotinus. 

Ascetic Platonism understands Platonism as a spiritual tradition that closely resembles the monastic traditions found within Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.  For example, Eric Fallick, a Platonist Ascetic, writes, “Platonism is a spiritual or religious or soteriological system that offers a path to release from the endless cycle of reincarnation and its concomitant misery.  It belongs to a family of such systems comprising Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Orphism, Pythagoreanism and Platonism . . . “ (Eric Fallick, An Extremely Brief Introduction to Platonism, www.platonistasceticism.blogspot.com; also Eric Fallick’s book Platonist Contemplative Asceticism: Practice and Principle is a good resource for this perspective.)

It is difficult to know how much of a presence Ascetic Platonism has.  There is no organization dedicated to presenting this view, and asceticism as such is highly marginalized in modernity.  Nevertheless, I suspect that there have always been ascetic Platonists; you read stories about them here and there in the Platonic tradition.  And this way still has a presence even in the midst of modernity.

7. No doubt, I have left out some Platonist Cantons; for example, I suspect that there is at this time a Hindu Platonist Canton or Region, which means a Platonism that is informed by the Hindu tradition and Hinduism’s structures of interpretation.  But I have only been able to see it at the margins and don’t really know much about it.

Personally, I see all this activity as a sign of health.  In a time when materialism and reductionism dominate the world, it is a sign of the strength of the Platonic tradition that it has the capacity to flourish even in a cultural situation that would, at first, seem hostile to its presence.