So Plato was a pantheist?

>There is a fundamental, ontological distinction between the material world and the intelligible world in Plato's cosmology that disagrees with a pantheistic cosmology.
there is not, it's called eidos. there is only one universe and only one objective reality and only one objective Truth

yeah that's what i'm saying. i think it's you who doesn't understand me (or plato), not the other way round

>that would be like saying a father and child are the same.
or more like saying that Father and Son are the same...

>the visible world is a changing image of an eternal model
that sounds pantheistic to me

I've had this argument so many times (arguing on your side), it's not worth bothering. Just accept that at this point "pantheism" literally just becomes a semantic ambiguity. Hegel spent the early parts of his career when he discovered the Upanishads and Gita asserting with disdain that they were pantheistic, and later in life came over to the "panentheistic" view, where he accumulated more respect for them. It seems people, even Hegel, have a lot of difficulty comprehending the subtle differences here, although in his case maybe it was due to lack of literature or poor philology.

>ultimately pantheism could be defined as deified monism
Yes, but that's a Parmenidean assertion and not Platonic. Plato was influenced by Parmenides, but the system seen in Timaeus does not share the monistic model as seen through the numerous ontological distinctions in the universe.

Something can be monistic but not monism, a system can share elements with another but not be the thing it shares relations with. Plato's system gave superiority to the intelligible world but did not assert that the intelligible world is the only thing in existence as monism would. Also, how am I the one being reductive? I'm saying Plato's system isn't able to be reduced to a term like "pantheism" because it doesn't reflect what the text says and is too broadly applied without any context.

Motherfricker you have not brought a single argument from Plato himself. You just keep asserting "this reminds me of pantheism, therefore it is" and not listening to anything other than a feedback loop
>not really, rather, the form is only one, there is only one universe, one eidos, and only one eternal model, but there are various purely human conceptualizations, some of which are closer to the truth, and some which are farther from it. that is the material world, of us, human beings, and our own illusions and limits to knowledge and limits to rationalism and everything. and yet, we strive for meaning, and thus the many manifestations of the same pure ideas
This has nothing to do with Plato or his perception of the universe, this is simply your belief on how the universe is. That's fine, but just because you believe it doesn't mean Plato did.
>pure ideas themselves are a spook, the only thing that most authentically exists is the empirical realization of the ideal, which is... what Plato preached in the Republic when describing his ideal state. idealism isn't meant just for navel gazing in fact it's not meant for that at all, it's meant for action and that's beautiful about it
Why are you mentioning spooks like you're Stirner in a discussion on Plato? I don't deny that Plato's goal in forming an state was to make a material emanation of the idealized state, but that does not mean both the material and the idealized are the same in Plato's system as you keep asserting
>and I can't help but notice the pantheistic inclination of all of this. the concept of Truth stems from our own minds uniquely capable of abstract thought, so animals don't have a concept of Truth, and yet, humans, with their abstract thought, can basically transcend themselves and transcend their immediate material reality and conceptualize Truth as away from themselves, that is objective Truth, Truth that holds and is independent of any circumstances or individuals or collectives. and in the end Truth can be argued as manifesting itself (even if just in a particle) through every entity that exists, so now we get to the bottom line of philosophy i.e. objective vs subjective reality, the latter being a dead end
Again, this is ENTIRELY your own perception of the universe with no reference to Plato whatsoever. I'm not opposed to your pantheism, all I'm saying is that you're inserting it into Plato with no textual foundation from him other than that co-opting of the Republic

>you're the one not posting a single counter argument lol.
Can you read? Are you actually this moronic?
>i'm following very logically straight from platonism.
Yet you're not refering to instances in Platonism that actually follow your assertions.
>Is there objective reality or is there not?
That's not what we're debating. I could care less if the universe were a Heraclitean flux, a monism akin to Parmemides, a turtle's back, etc., what this argument is about is what Plato said.

>when i participated on skeptics stack exchange we had this rule that statements on things generally acknowledged to be true need no citations because that can get mundane and cumbersome quickly, and easily.
I don't know you from Adam, what I know is what I read (like I posted) and what I've read is off base of most everything you've asserted.
>your problem is i guess just a lack of proper understanding of platonism and no real definition of it inside your head hence the 0 substance of your posts. but it's your personal problem not mine. if anyone here is stuck in a feedback loop it's you
You keep reiterating the same the same idea given even when given evidence pointing to the contrary, that definitely sounds like a feedback loop (also nice "no u" shit head)
>right, and I'm turning the rhetoric on you, is there objective reality or not in platonism
Yes, there is an objective reality in Platonism. It is not the only thing in existence within the Platonic system however.

>when i participated on skeptics stack exchange we had this rule that statements on things generally acknowledged to be true need no citations because that can get mundane and cumbersome quickly, and easily
Nta, but that doesn't work when you're asserting views held by an author, the test of which will be whether they say it anywhere in their writings or reasonably imply it. The argument for Plato being a pantheist has to at the very least establish that Plato thought all thing were divine as a baseline claim, and this claim is harder to defend based on passages such as the Cave in the Republic, the distinction between this world and the intelligible in the Parmenides, and the threefold distinction between the gods, the daimonic, and the mortal in the Symposium. It's easier to argue for a divine cause of that which isn't divine in Plato, but that doesn't necessitate pantheism, because it doesn't establish that Plato thought the realm of becoming as such was divine.

>You're a fricking moron or a bad actor. The One is not something attributed to Plato. It is talked about in relation to him but without any definiteness. Usually in you go into details regarding the One you default to neoplatonist.
>You can still redeem yourself by I will not chill.
I asked you what you thought the point of the One was in the Parmenides you double Black person. If you want to say it's not a Platonic principle, fine, but say what the point of the Parmenides is then.

pantheism can be easily defined as a deified monism:

the One = the Universe = divine = pantheism

>The easy demonstration is that if God is One and the universe is Many, then somehow this would be pantheism despite God's ontological transcendence of the universe and the Many.
yeah, for all practical purposes it would be pantheism, just like eastern religions are, just like the christian doctrine (quite surprisingly to a lot of christians nowadays) is. it's just a question of who do you think god is, what they are represented by, if they manifest themselves in the form of some ontological structure at all

actually it's
>God is the Universe... and more!
that's just pantheism with extra steps. actually just one extra step. actually just one extra half-step. actually just one extremely technical theological extra half-step. it's meaningless

>A) Plotinus argues that even calling it "one" is a misnomer, and B) Shankara resorts to using "not two" because it is more accurate than "one")
well yeah, it's more like The Everything, the Total, or something like that. or better yet, a concept that has already been named: the monad...
>No it's not. God is One, which is not the Universe at all.
the Universe is included in God. we are talking christian doctrine here. you're being unorthodox

I’m reading along and not picking sides (although I’m bias to the Plato not being a monist) but the One is not Plato. That’s Plotinus. That discredits your side.

Plotinus just created a more expanded interpretative framework for platonism, the concepts are handy as descriptors which is why I'm using them

Bullshit. If your whole argument rests in a definitive explanation of Plato's One in Parmenides, give me the synopsis of what supports your view with citations from Plato. Don't explain the dialogue or anything superfluous. Just give me a short summary of what it is your defending as taken from Plato.

I'm not [...], at [...] all I asked was what you thought Plato was doing by devoting a dialogue to the One if you thought Plato didn't hold to it in some way, chill.

Also, weird to ask for both an explanation of the content of a sialogue without explaining the dialogue.

Lol the most embarrassing moment for Cornford as a translator is footnote 2 on page 22.

>so guys i translated kalon as "good"
>Why? It means beautiful.
>see, because the septuagint a few centuries later uses it that way in ch. 1 of genesis

>But there is no meaningful difference between translating it as either beauitful or good, even more so when Socrates acknowledges in another dialogue the interchangability of these two forms
Socrates explicitly takes pains to distinguish between the Good and the Beautiful to Agathon in the Symposium, where they're *not* the same. The subsequent Diotima passages further emphasize the differences.

In the Timaeus passage, looking to the unchanging only guarantees that the model will be Beautiful, not that it will be Good. That this isn't a small incidental matter to Plato can be seen in the treatments of Beautiful youths such as Alcibiades and Meno, whose Beauty in form conceals the vice in their souls.

Imagine reading Plato and arguing against aomeone asserting pantheism and going "ah, but there's no difference between the Good and the Beautiful."