Plato (and legacy)

**Plato** (~428-347 BC) was a
philosopher, as well as mathematician, in Classical Greece, and an
influential figure in philosophy, central in Western philosophy. He
was Socrates' student, and founded the Academy in Athens, the first
institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with
Socrates and his most famous student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay
the foundations of Western philosophy and science.

Alfred North Whitehead once noted: "the
safest general characterization of the European philosophical
tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
This is because even much of aristotle's work was made in contrast to
plato's, and the distinction between them has effected divisions
between western philosophy ever since. And so while socrates laid the
groundwork, many consider Plato the true father of western
philosophy. The Platonic Academy has been cited by historians as the
first higher learning institution in the Western world.

Many modern
works draw on platonism, especially his concepts of the forms,
even including the works of Carl Jung, or the process theists
who are the most well known modern philosophical panentheists. Although note that drawing on does not necessarily mean they are platonists themselves, and their own ideas are often fairly different. Not only jung, but kabbalah and gnosticism also were heavily inspired by the works of plato. So since kabbalah and jung are so relevant to understanding the series as a whole, understanding the basis that these things derived from is useful. That aside, plato is only rarely mentioned in the series itself, with one of the few references being the quintessence bow, which calls itself a platonic ideal in reference to the idea of the forms delineating the ideal version of something.

According to Alexander of Miletus
Plato's original name was Aristocles (the same tradition is found in
several other late sources). Diogenes goes on to say that the surname
"Plato" was given him by one of his teachers in gymnastic,
a certain Ariston of Argos, "because of his robust figure",
adding "but others affirm that he got the name Plato from the
breadth (platutèta) of his style, or from the breadth (platus) of
his forehead": indeed, platus in Greek means "wide, broad,
broad-shouldered, widespread, etc.".

In Plato's text, symposium, Plato
argued that love between males is the highest form and that sex with
women is often lustful, and only for means of reproduction. Implying
that realistically only with men can the Greek male reach their full
intellectual potential. He considered the female form inferior, and
never married. And so is considered likely to have been homosexual by
modern standards.

**Socrates** (470/469 – 399 BC) was a
classical Greek (Athenian) philosopher credited as one of the
founders of Western philosophy. He is an enigmatic figure known
chiefly through the accounts of classical writers, (due to leaving no
writings of his own), especially the writings of his students Plato,
and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes. It should be noted
that plato was a character in almost all of plato's writings, and was
even the main figure in most of it til the end of plato's life. And
so they are necessarily discussed together. Plato's dialogues are
among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from
antiquity, though it is unclear the degree to which the presentation
of him in them is actually an accurate depiction, or mere philosophy
of Plato that he told through the voice of Socrates. It is generally
assumed that plato's earlier works depicted a more accurate version
of socrates, with the later ones being plato's own developed view.
Socrates is famous for stating the Socratic paradox, the statement
that the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing. And for asking
questions, breaking down held notions that individuals had when they
realized they could not support them.

Socrates also heavily relied on
something that was referred to as his **daemonic sign**, an averting
inner voice Socrates heard only when he was about to make a mistake.
It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics.
In the Phaedrus, we are told Socrates considered this to be a form of
"divine madness", the sort of insanity that is a gift from
the gods and gives us poetry, mysticism, love, and even philosophy
itself. The interesting thing about daemonic in the classical use is
that it refers to the mind in general, kind of like a synonym for
spirit, yet considers it divine.

Using the word demon to refer to
spirits in general, including the human spirit was actually how the
old greek word was used, and corresponds more to the smt use, and it
only later became a synonym for evil disembodied spirit exclusively.
And although its a coincidence, talking about human minds corresponds
to the idea that spirits reside there. In the ancient Greek religion,
daimon designates not a specific class of divine beings, but a
peculiar mode of activity: it is an occult power that drives humans
forward or acts against them. since daimon is the veiled countenance
of divine activity, every deity can act as daimon; a special
knowledge of daimones is claimed by Pythagoreans; for Plato, daimon,
is a spiritual being who watches over each individual, and is
tantamount to a higher self, or an angel. And so there is ambiguity
over the use and where it may be placed. Note that eudaimonia comes
from the same root words.

**Socrates' view on moral psychology**. Socrates taught that humans were naturally oriented to wanting to do good. That humans never willingly did evil, since it was not in human nature to willingly do something they considered to be incorrect. But rather that all evil is born out of ignorance. People did not know what was correct, and so did things that are incorrect.

This is mentioned in a school segment of persona 5, and they tie it to training people to be sociable in society. Saying that it is important to teach them how to act. That statement is presented in a semi negative light, implying that the one saying it is emphasizing the need to control and enforce one's own perspectives on a new generation. Something that may itself be harmful.

While this view is considered a little short sighted by modern standards, it does have some merit as a thought experiment. Since it is important to note that it is true in most cases that most people consider their actions to have some kind of justification. Implying partial ignorance as a basis. And while this may be mixed with malevolence or lack of caring about ethics, that it is more rare for people to willfully and knowingly do things they consider incorrect and lacking justification.

## Ethics

Like many old systems, unless there is
something particular to focus on about them, describing their ethics
may not be that interesting to outsiders, since most systems have
similar ethics and other than general outlines knowing about ancient ethics isn't infinitely relevant to smt. Plato is obviously known for **the republic**, which has some relevant issues, but
that will be described in its own section. Plato does have many
important unique ethical staples, but we'll give a short general
summary first. Some of the staples being a rejection of retaliation, or the
return of harm for harm or evil for evil. The claim that doing injustice harms
one's soul, the thing that is most precious to one, and, hence, that
it is better to suffer injustice than to do it.

Some form of what is called
"**eudaimonism**," Namely, **virtue ethics** which argued that true
happiness can only come from living well and virtuously. But this is
hardly surprising, seeing as how virtue ethics was the only known of
ethical theory in ancient greece, save for selfish hedonism. This can
be explained in the sense that in ancient greece, ethics as closer to
what we now call itrinsic value theory. Basically the question of
what thing it was existing in your life made it a good life.

-The view that only virtue is good just
by itself; anything else that is good is good only insofar as it
serves or is used for or by virtue.

-The view that there is some kind of
unity among the virtues: In some sense, all of the virtues are
ultimately just “virtue” manifesting in different types of cases.

-The view that the citizen who has
agreed to live in a state must always obey the laws of that state, or
else persuade the state to change its laws, or leave the state.

**The Ring of Gyges** is a mythical
magical artifact described in one of plato's dialogues of a magical
trinket that turns one invisible. Plato describes a dialogue between
Socrates and an opponent named Glaucon, who insists that if one would
not suffer consequences from actions, due to possessing the ring they
would have no reason to act morally, since morality is a socially
constructed game of give and take. But Socrates argues this down.
Basically the question here being a general reflection on morality
and power without being checked. Which you can compare to almost
anything. The obvious comparison here is not SMT, but lord of the
rings, where a ring that turns one invisible also turns them evil.
Though there is no evidence that Tolkien knew of this story.

**The analogy of the city and the soul**, is depicted as Socrates' proposed and accepted method by
which to argue that the just person is better off than the unjust
person. If Socrates is able to show how a just city is always happier
than unjust cities, then he can have a model by which to argue that a
just person is always happier than an unjust one. (by modern
standards this is of course an odd idea, and generally considered not
true) He plausibly assumes that there is an interesting,
intelligible, and non-accidental relation between the structural
features and values of a city and an individual. There's not much to
say about this idea that is smt related other than that if you
consider demons as existing in part as thoughts literally within
people as some of the games state, you can consider an almost literal
aspect to the individual being like a city in universe, and as what
types of demons live more within them as a reflection of their
morality.

**Moral psychology**. Plato's dialogues
profess two different moral psychologies at different times, showing
the evolution of his thought. Plato originally depicts socrates as a
form of intellectualist, saying that no one willingly does wrong
actions, and so immorality is in a sense a cognitive error stemming
from their lack of acceptance of some form of moral truth. But in the
middle period, Plato conceives of the soul as having (at least) three
parts:

1. a rational part (the part that loves
truth, which should rule over the other parts of the soul through the
use of reason),

2. a spirited part (Which loves honor
and victory), and

3: an appetitive part (which desires
food, drink, and sex),

And justice will be that condition of
the soul in which each of these three parts "does its own work,"
and does not interfere in the workings of the other parts. It seems
clear from the way Plato describes what can go wrong in a soul,
however, that in this new picture of moral psychology, the appetitive
part of the soul can simply overrule reason's judgments. One may
suffer, in this account of psychology, from what is called akrasia or
"moral weakness"—in which one finds oneself doing
something that one actually believes is not the right thing to do. In
the early period, plato's Socrates denied that akrasia was possible.
Leading historians to believe that that was closer to Socrates' own
view.

**Platonic Love** is a term often used
out of context in modern day. The modern definition often defines it
as nonsexual love between non lovers, perhaps who are the opposite
sex. But plato did consider it to be love between lovers. But a
higher form of love. He considered mere sensual love degrading, and
of a lower kind. And believed that a higher form of love would be
intellectual. He considered mere physical and sexual interpretations
of love to be doomed to frustration, since they lack an intellectual
connection.

come from part of a
story in one of his dialogues. Aristophanes states that humans
originally had four arms, four legs, and a single head made of two
faces. It is said that humans had great strength at the time and
threatened to conquer the gods. Some gods feared them and wished to
destroy them, but Zeus came up with the solution to split them in
half for their arrogance, making them weaker, and doubling the number
of humans who would give tribute to the gods. Each human would then
only have one set of genitalia and would forever long for his/her
other half; the other half of his/her soul. It is said that when the
two find each other, there is an unspoken understanding of one
another, that they feel unified. This story was not considered to be
literal. Although about love, one could also compare it with the
fusion and fission in-game. Even on looking at love and how it
relates to what a self is. Since if selves are not discrete as the
games imply, and which is probably true in real life as well, there
are interesting aspects to think of relating to it.

**The Euthyphro dilemma** is found in
Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is
the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious
because it is loved by the gods?" This is considered one of the
most important ethical concepts to come from Plato.

The dilemma has had a major effect on
the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a
modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because
it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by
God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has
presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a
false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and
philosophical discussion today.

Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the
nature of piety in Plato's Euthyphro. Euthyphro proposes that the
pious is the same thing as that which is loved by the gods, but
Socrates finds a problem with this proposal: the gods may disagree
among themselves. Euthyphro then revises his definition, so that
piety is only that which is loved by all of the gods unanimously. At
this point the dilemma surfaces. Socrates asks whether the gods love
the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only
because it is loved by the gods. Socrates and Euthyphro ultimately
both accept the first option:

The idea that god commands that which
is good is called the first horn of the dillema, and the idea that
what is good is whatever god commands is called the second horn. This
concept is still considered a serious criticism of divine command
theory, and the idea that morality is grounded in the will of God
today. Enough so that even theists who are experts in meta ethics
tend to drop the claim that morality comes from God's will. Since the
idea that morality is only God's will makes God's will seem
arbitrary. However, this becomes a problem for denominations or
religious groups which choose to argue the second horn. Some have
tried to consider it a false dilemma by saying that the objective
facts of goodness are simply part of God, or that while goodness in
theory is independent of God, gods control over the world, and human
duties to him still makes him a central piece (perhaps like a
moderator, as in game aspects often present certain gods). But as a
whole meta ethicists say that ultimately these answers come down to
one of the two horns. They also point out that if Good simply means
God's will, then the phrase “God is good” becomes meaningless,
since it boils down to the statement God is approved of by God.

This same dilemma is often used to
critique non-realist forms of constructivist morality. By saying that
the construction can't have an objectively correct form unless there
is an objective correctness external to it..

As far as smt goes, the implication is
obviously that values are higher than the gods that represent them.
Observation works in a way that generates tangible gods based on the
pre existing ideas, meaning that the archetypal ideas are higher and
come first. Mind you, even those ideas can be right or wrong,
implying a higher standard even that that, but either way. The exception to this seems to be that yhvh, in iva represents divine command theory, thinking that following him is an independent good. More information about that in the yhvh section of the ethics page.

## The Republic

**The Republic** was a dialogue
concerning the definition of justice, the order and character of the
just city-state and the just man. For this reason, ancient readers
used the name On Justice as an alternative title (not to be confused
with the spurious dialogue also titled On Justice). It is one of the
most well known and influential works of political philosophy in
history. However, since very little of this section is smt related,
other or even that interesting probably to most readers, you may want
to skip to the cosmology section.

In it, Socrates along with various
Athenians and foreigners discuss the meaning of justice and examine
whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man by
considering a series of different cities coming into existence "in
speech", culminating in a city called Kallipolis, which is ruled
by philosopher-kings; and by examining the nature of existing
regimes. It is divided into ten books. For the most part, socrates'
opponents are different forms of rampant form of chaos.

The paradigmatic society which stands
behind every historical society is hierarchical, but social classes
have a marginal permeability; there are no slaves, no discrimination
between men and women. The men and women are both to be taught the
same things, so they are both able to be used for the same things. In
addition to the ruling class of guardians, which abolished riches,
(which of course sounds a little law) there is a class of private
producers (demiourgoi), who may be rich or poor. A number of
provisions aim to avoid making the people weak: the substitution of a
universal educational system for men and women instead of
debilitating music, poetry and theatre—a startling departure from
Greek society. These provisions apply to all classes, and the
restrictions placed on the philosopher-kings chosen from the warrior
class and the warriors are much more severe than those placed on the
producers, because the rulers must be kept away from any source of
corruption.

**Thrasymachus** defines justice as the
advantage or what is beneficial to the stronger. Basically a solid
chaotic attitude. Socrates requires clarification of the definition:
does it mean that justice is what the stronger think is beneficial to
them or what is actually beneficial to them? Since of course people
often don't even know what is necessary to improve their own life.
Thrasymachus chanes his definition of strong to include not making
mistakes as to how to improve their life. Socrates criticizes him,
pointing out that many strengths and skills are necessarily done for
others, so the idea is not even coherent.

**Polemarchus** claims that justice is
helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies and that this is
what one owes people. This is still a pretty solid chaotic attitude,
placing one's individual perspective and the strife one gets into at
the center of justice. Socrates criticizes him saying that this
personective is relative to the individual, and not a universal term,
and the truly just would be merciful even to their enemies when
virtue called for it. In IV, lilith sputters and calls it hypocrisy
to not hate your enemies if you say you don't hate her while fighting
her. Placing the idea of doing so into chaos.

**Glaucon** is not persuaded by the
arguments in the previous discussion. He divides good things into
three classes: things good in themselves, things good both in
themselves and for their consequences, and things good only for their
consequences. Socrates places justice in the class of things good in
themselves and for their consequences. Glaucon renews Thrasymachus’
argument to challenge Socrates to defend justice by itself without
any consideration of what comes from it. Glaucon gives a speech
defending injustice: justice originates as a compromise between weak
people who are afraid that suffering injustice is worse than doing
it. Although the first half of his argument sounds almost law,
ultimately he seems to be swaying into meaning consequences for the
self. He is the one who brings up the story of the ring, saying it is
a reason to be selfish.

**Adeimantus** expands Glaucon’s
defense of injustice and attack on justice by asserting: the
reputation of justice is better than justice itself, so the unjust
person who is able to keep the reputation of being just will be
happier than the just person; discussion of various ways that the
unjust can acquire the reputation for justice.

Socrates begins to describe how the
rulers of the just city are to be selected from the class of the
guardians: they need to be older, strong, wise, and wholly unwilling
to do anything other than what is advantageous to the city. Socrates
suggests that they need to tell the citizens a myth that should be
believed by subsequent generations in order for everyone to accept
his position in the city. The myth of metals portrays each human as
having a precious metal in them: those naturally suited to be rulers
have gold, those suited to be guardians have silver, and those suited
for farming and the other crafts have bronze. Adeimantus complains
that the guardians in the just city will not be very happy (419a).
Socrates points out that the aim is to make the whole city, and not
any particular class, as happy as possible. Interestingly, this
sounds a bit neutral between law and chaos, since it talks about
sacrifice, but at the same time borders on a eugenics and strict
hierarchy mentality. Something he will go into more later.

Adeimantus and Polemarchus insist that
he needs to address the comment he made earlier that the guardians
will possess the women and the children of the city in common.
Socrates reluctantly agrees and begins with the suggestion that the
guardian women should perform the same job as the male guardians.
Some may follow convention and object that women should be given
different jobs because they differ from men by nature. Socrates
responds by indicating that the natural differences between men and
women are not relevant when it comes to the jobs of protecting and
ruling the city. Both sexes are naturally suited for these tasks .
Socrates goes on to argue that the measure of allowing the women to
perform the same tasks as the men in this way is not only feasible
but also best. This is the case since the most suited people for the
job will be performing it. (Ironically, this is any alignment, since
sexism is one of those things the game implies no alignments want.)

Socrates also proposes that there
should be no separate families among the members of the guardian
class: the guardians will possess all the women and children in
common. Socrates proceeds to discuss how this measure is for the best
and Glaucon allows him to skip discussing its feasibility. The best
guardian men are to have sex with the best guardian women to produce
offspring of a similar nature. Socrates describes the system of
eugenics in more detail. In order to guarantee that the best guardian
men have sex with the best guardian women, the city will have
marriage festivals supported by a rigged lottery system. The best
guardian men will also be allowed to have sex with as many women as
they desire in order to increase the likelihood of giving birth to
children with similar natures. Once born, the children will be taken
away to a rearing pen to be taken care of by nurses and the parents
will not be allowed to know who their own children are . This is so
that the parents think of all the children as their own. Socrates
recognizes that this system will result in members of the same family
having intercourse with each other. This form of eugenics comes off
chaos, yet at the same time a little too structured to be chaotic.
Its not entirely neutral either, and may almost sway a little dark /
law. But obviously trying to classify it in this way is a bit
bizarre, since real world structures especially in the past when
assumptions were different don't always neatly fit into simple
categories.

Socrates claims that the model of the
just city cannot come into being until philosophers rule as kings
(known now as \*\*philosopher kings\*\*) or kings become philosophers. He
also points out that this is the only possible route by which to
reach complete happiness in both public and private life. Adeimantus
objects that actual philosophers are either useless or bad people.
Socrates responds with the analogy of the ship of state to show that
philosophers are falsely blamed for their uselessness. Like a doctor
who does not beg patients to heal them, the philosopher should not
plead with people to rule them. To the accusation that philosophers
are bad, Socrates responds that those with the philosopher’s
natural abilities and with outstanding natures often get corrupted by
a bad education and become outstandingly bad. Thus, someone can only
be a philosopher in the true sense if he receives the proper kind of
education.

Socrates then addresses the question of
how philosophy can come to play an important role in existing cities.
Those with philosophical natures need to practice philosophy all
their lives, especially when they are older. The only way to make
sure that philosophy is properly appreciated and does not meet
hostility is to wipe an existing city clean and begin it anew. (which
sounds like a lot of alignments, but especially chaos) Socrates
concludes that the just city and the measures proposed are both for
the best and not impossible to bring about.

The ones receiving philosopher king's
type of education need to exhibit the natural abilities suited to a
philosopher discussed earlier. After the training in dialectic from
their young, and even years of their adult life, the education system
will include fifteen years of practical political training to prepare
philosopher kings for ruling the city. The point at which they are
old enough to rule would not even be reached until they are close to
fifty. Monarchy is already associated with chaos, and you could argue
that this is a form of meritocracy. But again, it has some aspects of
both, and rejects the outright selfishness of pure chaos.

He proceeds to a second proof that the
just are happier than the unjust. Socrates distinguishes three types
of persons: one who pursues \*\***wisdom**\*\*, another who pursues
\*\***honor**\*\*, and another who pursues \*\***profit**\*\*. He argues that we
should trust the wisdom lover’s judgment in his way of life as the
most pleasant, since he is able to consider all three types of life
clearly.

He details four supposedly incorrect
types of states, in the order they are reached from when an unstable
**just kingship** loses its power.

**Timocracy**: emphasizes the pursuit
of honor rather than wisdom and justice. This city will be
militaristic. It is a form of government in which possession of
property is required in order to hold office.

**Oligarchy** arises out of timocracy
and it emphasizes wealth rather than honor. Socrates discusses how it
arises out of timocracy and its characteristics: people will pursue
wealth; it will essentially be two cities, a city of wealthy citizens
and a city of poor people; the few wealthy will fear the many poor;
people will do various jobs simultaneously; the city will allow for
poor people without means; it will have a high crime rate. It is a
structure where power is held by a small handful of people, who may
not be qualified.

**Democracy**: It comes about when the
rich become too rich and the poor too poor. Too much luxury makes the
oligarchs soft and the poor revolt against them. In democracy most of
the political offices are distributed by lot. People will come to
hold offices without having the necessary knowledge and everyone is
treated as an equal in ability (equals and unequals alike). The
democratic individual comes to pursue all sorts of bodily desires
excessively and allows his appetitive part to rule his soul. He comes
about when his bad education allows him to transition from desiring
money to desiring bodily and material goods. The democratic
individual has no shame and no self-discipline. Note that plato here
is assuming that democracy in this context means that everyone is
assumed to be semi equally knowledgeable about everything, and so
there are no higher standards. While his rejection of democracy was
considered dubious due to it already existing at the times, he did
make some important points about mob rule and its ineffectiveness.

**Tyranny** arises out of democracy
when the desire for freedom to do what one wants becomes extreme. The
freedom or license aimed at in the democracy becomes so extreme that
any limitations on anyone’s freedom seem unfair. Socrates points
out that when freedom is taken to such an extreme it produces its
opposite, slavery, since people are free to use their unlimited
license and power to make their own smaller social structures, which
force others under their power. The tyrant comes about by presenting
himself as a champion of the people against the class of the few
people who are wealthy. The tyrant ends up using mercenaries as his
guards since he cannot trust any of the citizens. The tyrant also
needs a very large army and will spend the city’s money, and will
not hesitate to kill members of his own family if they resist his
ways.

In ancient Greece, the definition of
tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing
the support of different factions, and taking power in a sense by
force. The word tyrannos, possibly pre-Greek, Pelasgian or eastern in
origin, originally carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to
anyone, good or bad, who obtained executive power in a polis by
unconventional, usually somewhat forceful means. However, the concept
of tyrants was mostly looked down on. To mock tyranny, Thales wrote
that the strangest thing to see is "an aged tyrant" meaning
that tyrants do not have the public support to survive for long.

Now, the concept of tyrants is
obviously important to smt, since the chaos side's main race of
leading main character demons, including lucifer himself is the
tyrant race. Obviously from their own perspective they can't be
defining themselves as bad, so its important to see the word
partially in its original greek context. They see using freedom to
establish your own power as a reasonable thing. And even ironically
include that there's a chance that you'll die younger and have a live
fast die young mentality, especially if you are in a position of
power someone else wants, as Isabeau points out in Iv's chaos end.
Interestingly their description in a way matched plato's. In IV the
chaos demons presented themselves as agents of the people's freedom
against the upper class, which in mikado's case was at the oligarchy
stage. So they sought to rebel and establish freedom of the people in
what would seem to be a democratic sense, but which ultimately leads
to the strong taking power. Note that socrates' opponents in the
dialogue were mostly far chaos people justifying such a line of
thought. Its not clear how deliberately they may have been
paralleling the republic at parts, but since they are using the word
tyrant in a Greek context, and this is the go-to greek text, its not
unlikely.

**Atlantis**. The Timaeus (another
text) begins with an introduction, followed by an account of the
creations and structure of the universe and ancient civilizations. In
the introduction, Socrates muses about the perfect society, described
in Plato's Republic (c. 380 BC), and wonders if he and his guests
might recollect a story which exemplifies such a society. Critias
mentions an allegedly historical tale that would make the perfect
example, and follows by describing Atlantis as is recorded in the
Critias. In his account, ancient Athens seems to represent the
"perfect society" and Atlantis its opponent, representing
the very antithesis of the "perfect" traits described in
the Republic. Atlantis being a wicked place eventually destroyed
itself and was lost to history by this myth.

## Cosmology

**Timaeus** is plato's work that is
famous for its account of the creation of the universe by the
Demiurge. Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians,
Plato's Demiurge does not create ex nihilo, but rather orders the
cosmos out of pre-existing chaotic elemental matter, imitating the
eternal Forms.

**The world of Forms**. Is the true
highest world. It is the world of pure being; everything in this
world “always is,” “has no becoming,” and “does not change”
It is apprehended by the understanding, not by the senses. To know
about the forms, which are another of plato's most important and far
reaching ideas, read more in the forms section. But for here, they
are basically abstractions of all properties that are eternal and
unchanging. They exist in relation to eachother in a hierarchy called
 The \*\*Hyperuranium\*\*. And the most important form is the form of the
good, which gives meaning to all other forms, and by extension
tangible reality. Although plato also believed in polytheistic gods,
the ultimate source of divinity was the abstract form of the good.
But despite being divine in a panentheistic or ultimist sense, human
adoration was not adressed to these mindless abstractions, but to the
tangible gods in the cosmos.

**The physical world** (or **The Cosmos**) is the world we live in. It is the world of becoming;
everything in this world “comes to be and passes away, but never
really “is.” It is able to be grasped by opinion and
sense-perception, unlike the world of forms which is understood by
intellect. The cosmos itself came into being a finite amount of time
into the past, created using as its model the world of Forms.

**The Demiurge** is an artisan-like
figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical
universe. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the
same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense,
because the material it uses is preexisting. Demiurge was originally
a word for artisan or public worker, and later became seen as
synonymous with creator. Since it created the world using imperfect
matter, it could not perfectly replicate the forms, though it used
them as a basis for the physical world. And for this reason evil and
imperfections exist in the world, since the demiurge is limited in
power. Plato suggested that the proper goal for human beings is to
seek perfect order and purity in their own souls by making rational
desires control their irrational desires to make up for this
discrepancy, thus ensuring the world is as perfect as possible, and
thus the maximally efficient compliance with the forms. The demiurge,
though a creator, s not seen as the main focus that religion should
be oriented towards, nor is much spoken about it beyond that it is a
creative force.

Note that the concept of the demiurge
is the same concept that became the demiurge of gnosticism. So much
so that some later christians called gnosticism christoplatonism.
However, despite that both the gnostics and plato saw spirit as
superior to crude imperfect matter, plato believed that people
necessarily lived in a tangible world, and so their goal was simply
to improve something that by nature was not fully perfect to be more
compliant with the spirit and perfect forms. And plato obviously saw
the demiurge as a good creator figure, creating as good a world as
possible, but with imperfections being inherent to the world while
the gnostics saw it as an evil figure creating a world that was a
mistake, and trapping people inside it. Interestingly, while the
gnostics explain where the demiurge came from, as an improper
creation of sophia, plato makes no efforts to. He was simply the
first life that came from who knows where, and which is never heard
from again.

Obviously the demiurge and this
division calls to mind YHVH, who in strange journey even has a piece
of him represented as the demon demiurge, with demiurge being
presented as a demonization of him (which is literally what gnostics
used the figure for). So different figures seeing YHVH in different
ways has an interesting parralel in early greece where the gnostics
saw a combined yhvh / demiurge as an evil figure that christians and
platonists respectively saw as good. Comparing yhvh in-game with more
of a demiurge than a monotheistic God makes sense in-universe, since
he lacks some of the important aspects of classical monotheism. For
instance, as the Euthyphro section of this article points out, even
the law side doesn't consider him the absolute source of morality.
And he is not all powerful either. And when “God” is talked
about, they seem to also be referring to the collective aspects of
the great will that they derive order from rather than just YHVH.
Making his importance ambiguous. But what he is is a worldly creator,
who in most universes is implied to be behind creation.

**Elements**. The physical world must
have bodily form; it must be visible and tangible. Hence, its
ingredients must include fire and earth. Since fire and earth will
have to be combined, there must be at least one other ingredient that
serves to combine them. But since fire and earth are solids, we
require two intermediates to combine them. Hence, the demiurge
created air and water, and arranged all four elements proportionally:
as fire is to air, air is to water; as air is to water, water is to
earth. As we will see below, we have not reached the bottom with
these four elements: there are (geometrical) atoms of which these
elements are composed.

Timaeus claims that the minute particle
or atom of each element had a special geometric shape: tetrahedron
(fire), octahedron (air), icosahedron (water), and cube (earth).
There was intuitive justification for these associations: the heat of
fire feels sharp and stabbing (like little tetrahedra). Air is made
of the octahedron; its minuscule components are so smooth that one
can barely feel it. Water, the icosahedron, flows out of one's hand
when picked up, as if it is made of tiny little balls. By contrast, a
highly nonspherical solid, the hexahedron (cube) represents "earth".
These clumsy little solids cause dirt to crumble and break when
picked up in stark difference to the smooth flow of water. Moreover,
the cube's being the only regular solid that tessellates Euclidean
space was believed to cause the solidity of the Earth. The fifth
Platonic solid, the dodecahedron, Plato obscurely remarks, "...the
god used for arranging the constellations on the whole heaven".

Note that these are the five platonic
solids. And this is why they are called the platonic solids. To plato
they were also not full solids as the atomists believed, but were
composed of smaller two dimensional "shapes" which were
more abstract. Since triangles show up on multiple solids for
example, he believed that one substance could become another, since
they could break and reshape into new forms.

**Indeterminate elements.** Before the
formation of the ordered universe, the elements were seen as
undifferentiated and unshaped, and existing in a sea of chaos.

**The cosmos** (yes, I note that I'm
describing it twice, but this time has a different focus) created by
the demiurge was fashioned to be as perfect as possible, but since it
was fashioned using imperfect matter it is limited in its good. This
is not seen as a fault of the demiurge, for its intention was to make
it as good as possible, but as an inherent inescapable fact of the
nature of matter. Since it was as perfect as possible, there was only
one unique cosmos made rather than multiple worlds. It is spherical,
because the sphere is the perfect shape And it has time, since
although by nature of being the physical it cannot be eternal due to
coming into being, it would replicate eternity by moving in time.
What time was implied to be was vague, but it appears to be
synonymous with motion. The motion of planets was seen in some way to
relate to time.

**The world soul or anima mundi.**
Since the cosmos was to be as perfect as possible, and living beings
are more perfect than nonliving ones, the cosmos was gifted with a
soul that expanded the entire length of it and so was in it entirety
a living being. Having thus been created as a perfect,
self-sufficient and intelligent being, the world was then a god which
presided over all those who lived within it. The demiurge however was
not seen as a god who presided over humans in the same way, but a
mere creator. The world soul was formed based on the form of the
living being or animal. Interestingly, plato can be considered
monotheist in various ways, since the world soul is the highest “god”
in his system, but the demiurge was the self existing creator of it,
and the form of the good is the abstract absolute.

**Polytheistic Gods.** In addition to
the world soul, plato also believed in polytheistic gods as in the
greek religion. These were created by the demiurge, and in turn
created man. Plato however did not believe in the myths about the
gods which posited them as doing evil things, but believed they were
morally perfect entities. And thus, humans should censor any stories
from the poets which posit them as morally fallible beings, since it
is the nature of divinity to be perfect. Beyond that he did also say
that the human religions were in part constructs to give an idea to
what they might be like, and the true gods certainly were beyond
understanding, and used names other than their human ones. Likewise,
beyond the gods interested in humans which were vaguely known about,
there may be others which were not, and that humans had no knowledge
of. (You can compare this to noah from nocturne if you want or
various gods in different games).

In Plato's view, the gods are beings
that have no difficulty perceiving the absolute ideals; the gods are
not the standards of justice, beauty and goodness, but they are
living beings who have perfect knowledge of these standards. Human
souls between lives have greater or lesser difficulty perceiving
these absolutes--it depends upon how much wisdom they gained in their
previous lives; but every glimpse they gain of the absolutes, whether
between lives or by philosophical reflection during life, helps to
overcome the pressures that drag them back into the body. Until the
human soul has lived a philosophical life three times in succession,
it must be reincarnated; but when it has done so, it may join the
gods for everlasting contemplation of the pure truths that exist
beyond the heavens.

In the Laws, Plato deems the needed
"religion" to ensure order in the city. He also labels
piety as a virtue as akin to justice. Basically, men have to hold
three key tenets: that gods exist (that is, that the world is not a
purely "material" thing, product of chance or necessity);
that they care for the world; and that they cannot be "bought"
or corrupted by men's gifts or prayers. But there, he makes clear
that he does not pretend to give the last answer on such difficult
questions, but that his version was merely a likely possibility.

Interestingly, his gods are represented
more like christian angels than like many polytheistic forms of gods,
which are usually fallible. and these gods ultimately presiding under
a more abstract world soul brings to mind smt in general with the
angels ultimately being answerable to the great will. Although plato
considers the world soul created, and lower than the forms, later
process theists whose system was based on plato associate these
together in such a sense that you can consider it an analogue of the
great will in its dipolar abstract eternal form that is unchanging
and tangible worldly form that changes.

The concept of needing to ensure that
poets always represented gods positively can probably be considered
closer to law than to chaos here. Since in-universe, the messians
seem to talk of them this way, whereas the gaians are seen (at least
in nocturne, and for explaining the backstor of one of the reasont
they lost out in II) as being less popular, possibly since they
openly allow for that their gods are dicks. (but follow them
anyways?). Light and dark the alignment scale seems to represent a
combination of certain in-universe attributes, such as egalitarianism,
but also seems to depict how the figures are seen both outside and
inside universe. The gaians main gods being often dark chaos (though
a few light chaos), whereas the messians main gods are all light seem
to imply positive publicity. Which is ironic, since the series also
implies at times that angels can't directly lie. Which also ties in
to the seeming incorruptibility thing, albeit incorruptibility from
an ideology that it doesn't outright state is goodness. Plato
mentioning that human religions may still be in some sense a
construct corresponds to how religion is treated in the series in
general. Likewise, this may tie to how law presents god in general as good, and an inspirational figure for humans, with some ambiguity in that they may include yhvh in this despite themselves seeking to get rid of him. Though its unclear whether this was on purpose in for example games like II, or whether it would be then announced to the people afterall that this is an issue.

**The soul**. Plato's tripartite theory of soul is a theory of psyche proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his treatise the *Republic*. He asserted that the soul was made of three parts, those being the logical, spirited, and appetitive aspects. The appetitive of which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. The spirited, or hot-blooded, part, is the part that gets angry when it perceives (for example) an injustice being done. This is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. Plato believes that the logical part should be dominant to ensure the others work properly.

This division is mentioned in the classroom segment of persona 5. But little is made of it. Note that this division is actually about psychological drives more than metaphysics per say. Modern philosophers and psychologists would consider this division of pragmatic use only.

**Reincarnation**. Plato argues that
the just man is rewarded not only in his lifetime (i.e. by his
society) but to an even greater extent after death. However, this
should not factor in to why he acts just. Plato believed that the
soul was fundamentally pure but becomes deformed through association
with the body. Despite this it retains something of its true nature –
and shows this through longing for wisdom. Plato argues that each
individual thing has its own particular evil which will cause it to
deteriorate and eventually to be destroyed. However, this does not
apply to the soul, but only the body. People were rewarded after
death with good or bad ends, and could make it to the realm of the
gods to live among them reflecting on the holy perfections of the
forms forever if they lived three philosophically virtuous lives in
succession. He made various arguments for the viability of
reincarnation, some of which are still used in some forms. Such as
appealing to the nature of the cycle, and how individual lives and
deaths are just part of the cycle of the world, and are so likely
connected. He pointed out also that it is important to stress this
idea, so that people do not fear death like they often did with the
dismal idea of the traditional greek afterlife. Not much to say here
other than pointing out that like everything else with a
reincarnative system that appeals to cycles, it has some smt overlap.

## Forms - Ancient

Here is where we'll describe one of the
most important ideas to come from plato, and one which is very
important even in modern day. However, the modern derivative of this
idea is vastly different from plato's original idea in some key ways.
In fact, its not even easy to quatify how different, since plato was
a little ambiguous about what he meant when talking about the forms
at different times. Which is why to some, its controversial to call
plato a platonist by the modern definition of platonist. But this
section will describe plato's ideas, and the next will describe how
it is seen in modern philosophy. The last section will describe some
even more specific derivatives.
**Forms** as said above, forms “always
are,” “have no becoming,” and “do not change.” They are
eternal objects that exist outside of space and time in an abstract
world he calls the world of forms. Plato believed that true
knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms
with one's mind. Non-material things exist in the **Hyperuranium**, a
special world that you can imagine as a pyramid: at the top there are
good and truth, then there are mathematical ideas and ideas connected
to objects of the real world (so, the idea of a lamp, for example).

In many of his dialogues, Plato
mentions supra-sensible entities he calls "Forms" (or
"Ideas"). for example, two piles each of three sticks each
are equal because of their "participation" or "sharing"
in the character of the Form of the number three, which is
absolutely, changelessly, perfectly, and essentially three. Likewise,
the sticks participate in the form of stick. And various other
properties.

The forms are more fundamentally real,
and come ontologically prior to what we see as the physical world.
What's important to note is that plato's idea of how properties work
is top down. The forms all exist in a hierarchy of archetypes that
build off of eachother, the top of which is the form of the good,
which gives value to all other forms. reality is build out of a
combination of properties manifesting in the physical world, by
participating in their true archetypal eternal form that exists in
the world of forms. Plato also conceived of these forms as normative
in some sense. There were ideological aspects attached to them, and
they were in a sense the “ideal” or “perfect” versions of the
objects that reflected them in the world. Although they do not exit
in space as we understand it, the forms themselves were seen as
having the actual properties of what physical things participating in
them would call properties. The form of beauty was itself beautiful,
etc.

Scholars disagree about the scope of
what is often called "the theory of Forms," and question
whether Plato believed in an unlimited amount of forms, or merely a
few which all other things are built out of. It does seem he thought
that they were discrete in a sense that does not make sense in a
modern context. For instance, plato not knowing about evolution
considered a horse a distinct creature with a form that gave
stability to tangible horses.

The normative aspect of the forms is
apparent in his comparison of the imperfections of the normal world
in comparison with them. If all horses were like the ideal form of
horse, etc, the the world would be perfect. But the nature of
material objects, and time is seen as by default lacking perfection.
They can try to approach and approximate it, but are necessarily
unable. By contrast the forms are seen as “perfect.” Later concepts of universals do not have this normative aspect related to it.

The phenomena in the real world in some
sense are mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary
portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of
universals – how can one thing in general be many things in
particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct
singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in
particular objects.

Note the historical reasoning for people caring about ideas like this. The world is impermanent and changing and people realized things passed away. So they wanted to sort to try to find what type of underlying truth could give value to reality. One which is unchanging and lasts forever.

**The form of the Good** was seen as
the supreme form, which all others necessarily partake in to be able
to have their ideal status. Plato metaphorically associated it with
the sun, saying it gives light to all things. Although the form of
the good is not sentient in any sense, it corresponds with how
monotheists often see God (and Plato himself definitely considered it
holy in this way). But note that via the Euthyphro dilemma, plato did
not think that goodness itself could be grounded in things with
sentient wills and their opinions, but must be an inert abstraction.
The form of good is not in any sense a sentient entity.

Platonic idealism usually refers to
Plato's theory of forms or doctrine of ideas. Thie is sometimes
shortened to capital P Platonism, to contrast it with small p
platonism, which is the modern metaphysics based on plato.

**Allegory of the cave**. Plato has
Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the
wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people
watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a
fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The
shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then
explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the
cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make
up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality
rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

Plato continues, saying that the freed
prisoner would think that the real world was superior to the world he
experienced in the cave; "he would bless himself for the change,
and pity the other prisoners" and would want to bring his fellow
cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight.The returning
prisoner, whose eyes have become acclimated to the light of the sun,
would be blind when he re-enters the cave, just as he was when he was
first exposed to the sun. The prisoners, according to Socrates, would
infer from the returning man's blindness that the journey out of the
cave had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar
journey. Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able,
would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them
out of the cave.

**The Analogy of the Divided Line** is
a description used to explain the real world compared to the forms. A
line is divided into four parts, ranging from most derivative to most
fundamentally real. On the far end you have shadows of objects. In
the second section objects themelves. In the third the composite
forms. And in the fourth the most fundamental forms.

Via these two analogies together, it is
obvious what plato is trying to say about the structure of the world.
In a similar way to how shadows are reflections or illusions of the
physical objects they represent, actual objects are reflections of
the forms.

## Universals - Modern

**The problem of universals** refers to
the question of whether properties tangibly “exist,” and if so,
what exactly they are. The various kinds of properties are referred
to as universals. For instance, one can imagine three cup holders on
a table that have in common the quality of being circular or
exemplifying circularity, or two daughters that have in common being
the daughter of Frank. There are many such properties, such as being
human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father
of, etc.
For instance, if two things were
circular, and identical down to the atomic level, what does it mean
to say they are both “the same.” As odd as it might sound to
someone unfamiliar with asking, if their similarity is a real thing,
and not something that exists only as an illusion, one has to make
sense of what facts actually dictate that these are similar.
Universals in these sense are called properties, and it is said that
both having similar properties is what dictates this. But what is a
“property” and how does one make sense of it? modern philosophy
dictates that these properties relate to what are called abstract
objects, which are an infinite amount of abstractions of various
kinds.

**A universal** is what particular
things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other
words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be
instantiated or exemplified by many particular things. Universals are
often seen as abstract objects, but there are other less popular
theories.

**Particulars** refer to concrete
objects which have properties embodied by the universals. Such as a
ball embodying some degree of relative “roundness.”

**Platonism** refers to belief in the
idea that abstract objects exist. It is contrasted with the term
Nominalism which says that they do not. Platonism is however by far
the dominant position in relevant fields. Modern platonism is
associated with people like Frege, Bertrand Russel, Gödel and Quine.

Abstract objects, also known as
abstracta or abstractum (for singular) are a term used to refer to
objects which have no physical qualities, and don't exist in time yet
still tangibly “exist” in some sense. Basically abstractions such
as facts, properties, or relations. If its confusing what this means
at first, since its not easy to see why a property would need to
exist aside from its instantiation, there is one obvious example that
explains the idea simply, and by extension why its considered more or
less undeniable. That being mathematical facts. Everyone accepts as a
given that mathematical problems have true answers. But for those who
deny the existence of abstract objects, they are faced with an issue
when describing a mathematical problem that does not refer to
anything that can exist in the tangible world. There is still a right
answer, and so they have to make sense of the fact that there is
something they are describing that in some sense “exists / is
true.” It would not be easy to explain why this is, in such a short
space, but in philosophy of math it is taken now in some sense as a
given, albeit with different formulations. The term for platonism
specifically as regards math is mathematical platonism.

Many philosophers take a platonistic
view of properties as well (But according to this sort of platonism,
properties are not the only universals; there are other kinds of
universals as well, most notably, relations.). Consider, for
instance, the property of being red. According to the platonist view
of properties, the property of redness exists independently of any
red thing. There are red balls and red houses and red shirts, and
these all exist in the physical world. But platonists about
properties believe that in addition to these things, redness — the
property itself — also exists, and according to platonists, this
property is an abstract object. Ordinary red objects are said to
exemplify or instantiate redness. Plato said that they participate in
redness, but this suggests a causal relationship between red objects
and redness, and again, many contemporary platonists would reject
this since they want to stress that the world is causally closed, and
that platonism is not meant to be interfering with physical
descriptions.

For instance, take our physical world.
Hypothetically it could have different physical constants, and
everything about it could be different. However, mathematical facts
like 1+1=2 are stable in every possible world. So to make sense of
reality, one has to hold that these stable abstractions have some
kind of existence that is absolute rather than contingent like the
properties of the world. Since if they did not exist apart from the
world, its not clear what it is that cannot change, since everything
about the physical world could logically be in another state.

**The third realm** is a term frege
uses for abstract objects, so say that they are a different kind of
property either from anything physical, or anything mental. Unlike
Plato, however, Frege did not take abstract objects to be the primary
building blocks of reality, but took them to exist alongside other
types of entity. For Frege, abstract objects are of significance for
the logical role they fulfil. Plato, of course, wrote before logic
was a separate discipline, and while his theory of the Forms
possesses elements that we now recognize as being distinctly logical,
his was a broadly metaphysical theory. One important difference
between Plato's platonism and modern platonism is that abstract
objects are closely tied to logic and language in modern platonism,
while being less interested in the metaphysical role of those
abstract objects. While some metaphysicians try to work with them,
often it is simply seen as trying to work with something too
different from human existence to be able to say much about how it
might relate to our world beyond this.

**How is modern platonism different from plato?** Plato's forms were not mere abstractions, but were meant to
be in some sense tangible objects that causally project into what we
know as the world in a precise metaphysical way. They are pre
existing tangible objects that project the existence of a world via a
top down approach that makes sense of what is in it. Properties in the modern sense
are things that things happen to have, not something that projects
into the world, shaping it. Plato's forms were self predicative in
the sense that the form of beauty was in itself beautiful. But modern
abstract properties are not seen as something existing tangibly in
this sense. (Even though note that despite plato thinking the forms
were tangible, he did not think they existed in any kind of space).

Another issue is that plato's forms
were normative. The forms were ideal forms of how an ideal horse
would be. Modern ideas of properties obviously have no use to
ontologically privileging perfection in this way in every single
property, or implying that things are inferior versions of other
things rather than simply being what they are. Modern platonic
conceptions of properties are simply the properties as they are. Not
a projection from a perfect object that physical objects exist as
partial copies of.

Another point of difference is that
Plato thought the Forms existed mostly (but not exclusively) for
epistemological reasons. The Form of the Good doesn't just explain
the existence of everything else, but also the knowability of
everything else). Namely, that by being able to know that two things
are horses, you are implicitly knowing the form of horse. This
particular form of roundabout epistemology is seen as superfluous and
unnecessary to appeal to in modern day.

Another issue is that Forms are
supposed to "exist more" than the things that participate
in them. Namely, that plato saw the physical world as kind of like an
analogue to a reflection of the forms. In the modern sense, this is
not seen as a necessary way to make sense of things, since physical
things are not now assumed to literally be built from projections
from abstractions, but to merely instantiate their properties.

As a whole, though many modern ideas, not only philosophically, but other ideas like jungianism and even kabbalah are based on plato, and his ideas, they don't all have the same connotations. Though there is overlap around the idea of there being a universal property things relate to for any given property. In some sense, the games do seem to hint at this. For instance, in the artbook they mention how in a sense, akira reflects an embodiment of kingship, despite being a human rather than a god. And so its implying that these properties do exist in ways that reflect internal events, and which are reflected in the world. Demons as a whole are also embodiments of ideas in a sense. The games are based on the more maximal interpretations of jung, which relates heavily to platonist ideas. Although none of these de facto imply platonism in particular, even if inspired by it.

Note that platonism considers these abstract universals pre-existent, not human created. While humans in-game do effect the birth of demons, this is not identical to creating the properties, so much as effecting which manifest in the world.

## Plato's unwritten doctrines.

**Plato's unwritten doctrines** are writings claimed to ostensibly be from his time by early followers of his, which depict the multiplicity of the forms as coming from two principles which exist above being or the various forms, being absolute transcendence. The One, which is the principle of unity that makes things definite and determinate, and The Indefinite Dyad, which is the principle of 'indeterminacy' and 'unlimitedness'. The latter differentiates things from the primal monad into the multiplicity of structure and form that gives rise to the different forms, and ultimately the world. However, it is not clear whether plato's unwritten doctrines come from him himself, or were an invention of his early students. It is also not clear whether it is ultimately monistic, with these principles being two aspects of a higher meta version of the one, or dualistic. If it is the former, and came from the time of plato as well, that would make neoplatonism only a slight development to his original teachings. But they are generally seen as a development.

Note how in megaten, the way the axiom is referred to seems to imply a monistic view, stemming from a single fundamental principle. Although it is never explicitly said that it is monistic.

## Neoplatonism

**Neoplatonism** refers to the time period of platonic philosophy that begins with plotinus around 240 ad, and lasted for a few hundred years after. Although it had some differences from plato, it claimed to be based on plato's unwritten doctrines, and to be a proper continuation, and was not seen by its writers at the time as a distinct thing. Neoplatonism had a much more mystical bent than mainstream academic platonism, and was based on heavy inspiration from the fact that by this time greek thought and monotheistic religions were influencing and drawing from eachother. Neoplatonism was a heavy inspiration on the kabbalah which was formed by integrating neoplatonic philosophy into judaic theology. More information about which is on the kabbalah page.

**The one.** is the ultimate monadic source of reality in neoplatonism, but is said to be so simple it is beyond being, and little can be coherently said about it. It is also identified with the good. Note how despite the nous and world soul being seperate emanations, neoplatonism considered itself monotheistic, seeing all of this as derivative of the one absolute.

**The demiurge** or **nous**. The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, the nous, which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things. It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, the nous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as derivative, it is entirely different. What Plotinus understands by the nous is the highest sphere accessible to the human mind, while also being pure intellect itself. Nous is the most critical component of idealism, Neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism. The demiurge (the nous) is the energy, or ergon (does the work), which manifests or organizes the material world into perceivability. The platonic forms are considered to be thoughts of the nous, with the world itself being the actualization of these thoughts.

**The (world) soul**. The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like the nous. Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, and it is permeated and illuminated by the former, but it is also in contact with the latter. The nous/spirit is indivisible; but the soul while preserving its unity is disintegrated into the phenomenal world. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul, it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by the nous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite.

**The phenomenal world**. The soul, as a moving essence, generates the corporeal or phenomenal world.  Although soul is primary, and the physical world emanates from it, it was seen as having some level of concrete existence, not merely existing as a mental object. This world ought to be so pervaded by the soul that its various parts should remain in perfect harmony. Unlike gnostics, plotinus did not see the material world as bad, but in interplay with the mind where as long as the soul governs it and remains primary it is good, but if the material gains power over the mind it is bad. Since the world is based on the archetype of the forms, if it corresponds well to them it is good. Matter was seen as neutral, lacking ideas of its own. Evil was seen as a parasite that had no independent existence, but a necessary aspect of the world. All things have force or potential (dynamis) as their essence. This dynamis begets energy (energeia). Every potentiality generates an activity, and every activity
becomes itself a potential for new activity. Giving it a process-oriented metaphysics.

**Individual souls**. This activity of the Soul results in the production of numerous individual souls: living actualizations of the possibilities inherent in the Forms. Whereas the Intellect became divided within itself through contemplation, the Soul becomes divided outside of itself, through action. So all individual souls derive from the world soul.

Souls when they realize that nature is shaped by mind achieve gnosis. But when they see it as objective and external this is presented as the wrong way around, leading to suffering. The world as a whole is seen as an emanation of mind. This also has to do with people seeing themselves as the result of the world, rather than actors who shape its form. And is seen as a loss of the understanding of one's own divinity. Individual souls also lose their understanding of themselves as connected with the larger world soul.

**Salvation**. Plotinus, like his older contemporary, the Christian philosopher
Origen of Alexandria, views the descent of the soul into the material
realm as a necessary moment in the unfolding of the divine Intellect,
or God. For this reason, the descent itself is not an evil, for it is
a reflection of God's essence. And so is similar to certain forms of gnosticism. One is seen as living properly when having the idea take precedence over the material, and that this reflects orientation to god, but which is at the same time orientation to one's self, since one is seen as unified with the divine, and proper living comes from realizing this. What actually happens when this is achieved is however left ambiguous.

**Gods**. Although plotinus himself did not place much relevance on the idea of gods, later writers such as Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings such as gods, angels, demons, and other beings as mediators between the One and humanity. The Neoplatonist gods are omni-perfect beings and do not display the usual amoral behaviour associated with their representations in the myths.

**Hypostasis** means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the Soul, Intellect (nous) and the One was addressed by Plotinus. In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.

## Other derivatives of Plato

The above section is the general
description of platonism common to most modern metaphysics. But here
I'll list a few other things that stemmed from it.

**Moral non naturalism** is one of the
two forms of substantive moral realism in modern meta-ethics, and
thus one of the main moral theories. It posits moral facts as
existing in the form of abstract objects, in the vein of plato. (In
contrast, moral naturalism sees them as part of the physical world
itself.) Obviously one can draw a parallel from this to plato's form
of the good.

**Max tegmark** is a well known modern
physicist and is known for his theory the mathematical universe
hypothesis (MUH), also known as the Ultimate Ensemble. By his
theory, the physical world may simply exist, since while some
mathematical facts are by nature inert, some include necessary
variables and properties that despite being of themselves inert
generate a tangible universe based on their structure. Basically he
says that for our universe, it came from the abstract object that
happened to correspond to our universe's physical laws, and which
included the property necessary for it to be a real universe. And
likewise there are other universes based on other abstract objects. This is called a form of radical platonism, but has elements of pythagoreanism as well.

**Carl jung's** idea of the
**archetypes** was based on platonism, and plato's forms / the later
ideas of universals. and on relations which he saw as necessarily
present in an abstract unnoticeable way in reality. Since carl jung
obviously is what a large portion of SMT is based on, it helps to
understand the platonic underpinning which led to his own ideas as a
specific way it was seen as manifesting in the world by him. And by
extension the relation between a general platonic underpinning and
SMT in general.

**Process philosophy / Process Theology** is a modern form of paentheism based heavily on plato's
ideas. In fact, the word panentheism is only popular due to use by
the process theists

**Hellenistic Judaism**. **Philo o**f **Alexandria**. Philo (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the
term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo
followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and
perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to
bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos
was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo
"the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the
Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things
together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being
dissolved and separated."

Plato's Theory of Forms was located
within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the
physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew
Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who
also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the
universe. In the Septuagint the term logos is used for the word of
God in the creation of heaven in Psalm 33:6, and in some related
contexts.

Interestingly, this inspiration may
lead to the gospel of John's use of the word logos to refer to Jesus,
who in john before the formulation of trinitarianism was presented as
a kind of lesser aspect of God, and intermediary between God and
mankind. So Jesus may have been being associated with a figure based
on the demiurge, (or the stoic logos, as the theology may have
combined the ideas).

**Christianity** was heavily inspired
by platonic philosophy in various ways, even though as a whole it
chose to reject active identification with Plato in favor of
Aristotle. \*\*Thomas Aquinas\*\*, the catholic saint and philosopher /
theologian for example is seen as quasi platonic. He said that when
we say God is wise we mean that he is the eminent cause or ideal form
of wisdom in all wise creatures. Whatever wisdom we attribute to
creatures pre exists in God, and eminently in a higher way. But god
is identical with his properties, and other creatures are wise or
good by participating in this goodness. Also something is good in and
of that it is desirable, and God is good as the ultimate object of
proper desire for all creatures. Since God is seen as eternal and
unchanging, this means he is describing God very much as if he were a
collection of the ideal forms. In this way, goodness comes form God,
since things are ideally good, but God is (perhaps conveniently) not
accountable for evil, which is presented as the absence of good.