Athenian Nights

  There is a lot to say about the dialogue Parmenides , both due to its actual content and the various receptions it has received in the Platonic tradition over time. The main focus of the dialogue is the rigorous examination of the logic underlying the fundamental principles of Plato’s metaphysics – so it is very heavy. My first exposure to it, I would say was bewildering and I even found it tedious towards the end. Parmenides is typically divided into two parts. The first part is a devastating critique and takedown of a “theory of Forms” that underlies Plato’s metaphysics. The second part indirectly shows how to correctly view the first part so that the arguments against Forms don’t seem quite so convincing as they once did. Relating this dialogue to others, the unwritten doctrines of Plato, and Aristotle’s testimony as well as the successive Platonic tradition shows that we also see an indirect exposition of the “Neoplatonic” doctrine of 3 fundamental hypostases – the One, Int...

                I ended Part I after a long reflection on the importance of math, specifically proportion, and even more specifically the golden ratio followed by some short comments on the Trinity. Part II will focus more on the specifics of the great creation myth that Plato bequeaths to us in Timaeus . From late antiquity onwards it was said that Parmenides (the next dialogue I will post about) was Plato’s focus on theology and Timaeus was his focus on science. There is a lot of truth to that in my opinion and Plato wasn’t only concerned with pondering eternal realities and being more of a rationalist than an empiricist. That was primary for him, no doubt, as it should be to any sane person – but he was more balanced than that. “A man may sometimes set aside meditations about eternal things, and for recreation turn to consider the truths of generation, which are probable only; he will thus gain a pleasure not to ...

              Timaeus is definitely the most difficult and rewarding of the dialogues that I have read so far. It took me far more time, effort, and research to understand this one and I’m sure future readings will reward me with even more knowledge I missed on this go-around. This will be reflected in the fact that I will have to divide this into two blog posts – it would just be too long otherwise. This was the first dialogue that forced me to read secondary literature in order to understand it. I’ve been attempting to avoid that insofar as possible so I can make my own interpretation of it, unclouded by the thoughts of others, though they know more than me. This classic dialogue is definitely one of the pinnacles of all of Plato’s writings. It is esoteric, weird, bewildering, highly technical in terms of mathematics, and covers a fairly large array of topics that Plato nevertheless manages to consummately reign into an...

There are questions that haunt you and keep you up at night or at least they should. At any rate they do that for me. The question confronted in Plato’s dialogue Philebus is one of those questions. What is the good life? How should we live? I’m reminded of the 2006 Russian film Ostrov (The Island) . The answer given there by the holy fool for Christ is, “Live however you can, just try not to sin too much.” This answer seems to be grounded in the Blessed Augustine’s words, “Love, and do what you will” found in his 7 th homily on 1 Jn 4:4-12. Pretty good advice coming from a real source of authority. But should we unpack this more? How exactly can we be sure we are being truly loving and not just under the illusions of prelest and self-centeredness? We humans are awfully good at rationalizing our evil and deceiving ourselves. Plato, in this dialogue offers us a more concrete yet not overly deterministic path on how to make sure we assimilate ourselves to God as he urges us in Theaetet...