Scholar of Plato and Aristotle and recovering Evangelical here: I think this is a useful analysis, but I have one issue. I don't think Plato was a Platonist. That is, I follow the school that has increasing support that Plato did not have a doctrine of the Forms. In fact, Plato writes in dialogues to trouble the views of those with whom he speaks, including Pythagoreans who would likely hold something akin to a theory of Forms. Plato uses complex literary devices and historical references to put his interlocutors' arguments in a context that would complicate a straight-forward reading to his contemporaries. I am not suggesting there is an esoteric and exoteric reading, but rather, that the text offers reasons to resist a simple defense of a transcendental theory of knowledge that can govern the world. People take there to be a break between Plato and Socrates, where Socrates is considered the one who is more of an immanent thinker and Plato the transcendent positer of forms (which explains why Kierkegaard was so enamored of Socrates), but I think Plato is also illustrating the impossibility of a theory of Forms. For example, he is quite clear about problems of how you can learn from someone if you do not yet know in a way that suggests one must become a philosopher and pursue their understanding rather than accept a view from another who knows. You might be interested in my reading of Plato's cave analogy along these lines. I spend the time to make this point to suggest that Plato might in fact undo the defense of authoritarianism he is taken to support. And that I find worthwhile and important! https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/bapj/36/1/article-p31_3.pdf
"In order to prescribe a certain culture as 'Biblical' that is normative apart from people’s culture or experience or even reason, you simply have to put your prescription in Platonic form."
I don't mean to defend Plato, but a mere human claiming discovery of a Platonic form would not therefore make it one. Even if the Bible were dictated by God Himself (and not just the treasured literature of a people of God), readers can't help interpreting what they read, making claims *about* Biblical Platonic forms claims subject to inquiry, too.
Mathematicians have a reputation for being Platonists in their area of expertise – with good reason: Material reality is continually approximating, but not achieving, mathematical patterns that are often first glimpsed by what Pascal called l'esprit de finesse — visionary, wordless thought that leaps ahead of discursive reason (l'esprit de géométrie) to draw it onward – glimpses which do feel like submission to a revelation outside the self, like "unselfing", to borrow Murdoch's terminology. Of course, math also subjects these glimpses to rigorous verification. But (in pure math, at least) this verification isn't an empirical process (empiricism can guide mathematical intuition, but it's not mathematical proof).
"Good news everyone! I've discovered a Platonic form!"
"How do you know it's one?"
"Because..."
Whatever the reasons following "Because", they can't help being reasons, *claims* subject to testing by some method including appeal to human reason. Not every valid method of testing is empirical (see pure math) or rigorously so (our daily lives revolve around empirical decisions that are far from rigorous). But there's no warrant for turning reasoning off completely, even with revelation.
Test the spirits and hold onto what's good: When my unchurched husband asked recently, how do Christians know that God is talking to them, I replied that we don't, not for sure. We must resort to moral reasoning (often quite mundane!), hopefully informed by good formation, to discern as best we can.
I'm neither classicist nor philosopher, and from what little I know of Plato, he did have an authoritarian streak. But if Platonic forms did exist (as they might, in a way, at least in math), they wouldn't be human-created. We couldn't *put* our prescriptions into Platonic forms. Claiming our prescriptions were discoveries of these forms would be claims, subject to testing – and any reasonable amount of intellectual humility would force us to admit that we may have not perceived the truth – the "forms" – "out there" correctly.
Amazing. Your writing is incredibly insightful. I have suspected authoritarianism as the core problematic ideology for awhile, but I didn't realize how deep it went.
I like the link you draw between views of truth and authoritarianism. Related to that, you are right that evangelical authoritarians try to abduct Plato. They want to think they are operating within the classical tradition and wish to press it into service, at least that this their approach when they are paying it any attention.
But they're sloppy and opportunistic. The tradition isn't really theirs.
I want to push back on one suggestion you seem to be making: that there's a direct line between Platonism and evangelical assumptions. Platonism has a cosmology and view of truth - an entire world picture - that evangelicalism really does not channel very well, especially not when it has its culture war or apologetical masks on. In fact, evangelicalism has a thoroughly modern worldview, not at all a classical one, with the result that it doesn't intuit important Platonic notions like "participation" well. A deeper delve into Platonism results in a picture that is richer and more useful than its common (mis?)use suggests.
On a personal note, I remember very well struggling with my evangelical worldview years ago, especially its insistence at just knowing truth directly and with certainty and in a complete way, and then insisting that reality conform itself to that "truth." This resulted, I thought, in a depressing inattention to discovery and observation and creativity as well as a failure to take responsibility to one's own shaping of the world. During that time, I did draw from post-modern insights. But I also doubled down on my knowledge of Plato as a kind of artistic and philosophical counterweight. To me, what Plato brought to the table was an insistence that things like Beauty are real and discoverable, but that we find Beauty in the world because things participate in it. So Beauty is hidden in and shrining through many things, things that ought to be valued and noticed and cultivated, and we probably can't apprehend Beauty without contemplating the places where its light shines, and we should contemplate things carefully enough to find how Beauty is present in them. That framing is, I think, something quite different from either scientism or Protestant Christian fundamentalism, and it is worth keeping around. It's a tool to keep in the kit, anyway.
Scholar of Plato and Aristotle and recovering Evangelical here: I think this is a useful analysis, but I have one issue. I don't think Plato was a Platonist. That is, I follow the school that has increasing support that Plato did not have a doctrine of the Forms. In fact, Plato writes in dialogues to trouble the views of those with whom he speaks, including Pythagoreans who would likely hold something akin to a theory of Forms. Plato uses complex literary devices and historical references to put his interlocutors' arguments in a context that would complicate a straight-forward reading to his contemporaries. I am not suggesting there is an esoteric and exoteric reading, but rather, that the text offers reasons to resist a simple defense of a transcendental theory of knowledge that can govern the world. People take there to be a break between Plato and Socrates, where Socrates is considered the one who is more of an immanent thinker and Plato the transcendent positer of forms (which explains why Kierkegaard was so enamored of Socrates), but I think Plato is also illustrating the impossibility of a theory of Forms. For example, he is quite clear about problems of how you can learn from someone if you do not yet know in a way that suggests one must become a philosopher and pursue their understanding rather than accept a view from another who knows. You might be interested in my reading of Plato's cave analogy along these lines. I spend the time to make this point to suggest that Plato might in fact undo the defense of authoritarianism he is taken to support. And that I find worthwhile and important! https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/bapj/36/1/article-p31_3.pdf
Interesting! I'll definitely check that out thanks!
"In order to prescribe a certain culture as 'Biblical' that is normative apart from people’s culture or experience or even reason, you simply have to put your prescription in Platonic form."
I don't mean to defend Plato, but a mere human claiming discovery of a Platonic form would not therefore make it one. Even if the Bible were dictated by God Himself (and not just the treasured literature of a people of God), readers can't help interpreting what they read, making claims *about* Biblical Platonic forms claims subject to inquiry, too.
Mathematicians have a reputation for being Platonists in their area of expertise – with good reason: Material reality is continually approximating, but not achieving, mathematical patterns that are often first glimpsed by what Pascal called l'esprit de finesse — visionary, wordless thought that leaps ahead of discursive reason (l'esprit de géométrie) to draw it onward – glimpses which do feel like submission to a revelation outside the self, like "unselfing", to borrow Murdoch's terminology. Of course, math also subjects these glimpses to rigorous verification. But (in pure math, at least) this verification isn't an empirical process (empiricism can guide mathematical intuition, but it's not mathematical proof).
"Good news everyone! I've discovered a Platonic form!"
"How do you know it's one?"
"Because..."
Whatever the reasons following "Because", they can't help being reasons, *claims* subject to testing by some method including appeal to human reason. Not every valid method of testing is empirical (see pure math) or rigorously so (our daily lives revolve around empirical decisions that are far from rigorous). But there's no warrant for turning reasoning off completely, even with revelation.
Test the spirits and hold onto what's good: When my unchurched husband asked recently, how do Christians know that God is talking to them, I replied that we don't, not for sure. We must resort to moral reasoning (often quite mundane!), hopefully informed by good formation, to discern as best we can.
I'm neither classicist nor philosopher, and from what little I know of Plato, he did have an authoritarian streak. But if Platonic forms did exist (as they might, in a way, at least in math), they wouldn't be human-created. We couldn't *put* our prescriptions into Platonic forms. Claiming our prescriptions were discoveries of these forms would be claims, subject to testing – and any reasonable amount of intellectual humility would force us to admit that we may have not perceived the truth – the "forms" – "out there" correctly.
Omg this is brilliant
I'm very glad (and humbled) that you find it so. Thanks for reading!
Amazing. Your writing is incredibly insightful. I have suspected authoritarianism as the core problematic ideology for awhile, but I didn't realize how deep it went.
Outstanding. I want to sit down and have a long discussion with you about this.
We might have to schedule a Zoom
Yes, let’s.
I like the link you draw between views of truth and authoritarianism. Related to that, you are right that evangelical authoritarians try to abduct Plato. They want to think they are operating within the classical tradition and wish to press it into service, at least that this their approach when they are paying it any attention.
But they're sloppy and opportunistic. The tradition isn't really theirs.
I want to push back on one suggestion you seem to be making: that there's a direct line between Platonism and evangelical assumptions. Platonism has a cosmology and view of truth - an entire world picture - that evangelicalism really does not channel very well, especially not when it has its culture war or apologetical masks on. In fact, evangelicalism has a thoroughly modern worldview, not at all a classical one, with the result that it doesn't intuit important Platonic notions like "participation" well. A deeper delve into Platonism results in a picture that is richer and more useful than its common (mis?)use suggests.
On a personal note, I remember very well struggling with my evangelical worldview years ago, especially its insistence at just knowing truth directly and with certainty and in a complete way, and then insisting that reality conform itself to that "truth." This resulted, I thought, in a depressing inattention to discovery and observation and creativity as well as a failure to take responsibility to one's own shaping of the world. During that time, I did draw from post-modern insights. But I also doubled down on my knowledge of Plato as a kind of artistic and philosophical counterweight. To me, what Plato brought to the table was an insistence that things like Beauty are real and discoverable, but that we find Beauty in the world because things participate in it. So Beauty is hidden in and shrining through many things, things that ought to be valued and noticed and cultivated, and we probably can't apprehend Beauty without contemplating the places where its light shines, and we should contemplate things carefully enough to find how Beauty is present in them. That framing is, I think, something quite different from either scientism or Protestant Christian fundamentalism, and it is worth keeping around. It's a tool to keep in the kit, anyway.