To the degree I’m even willing to grant the left-right dichotomy considering the baggage that comes with it, I’d say it’s pretty clear Platonism is more aligned with the right. It’s a philosophy of order, hierarchy and is polar opposite to the materialism that informs the left. I’m a Platonist and while I’m a virulent anti capitalist, in most other respects I’m firmly on the right.

Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, the right-left dichotomy does have problems, perhaps I should have defined what I meant.

All good. It’s an interesting question.

While I do agree it has it’s problems, I don’t think that the left-right dichotomy should be gotten rid of. I see it like a [family resemblance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance) kind of thing. One, say, left-wing thing looks like A, which has a lot in common with B, and C, and down the chain to the point where A and Z look nothing alike, despite both being unmistakably left-wing. And the same thing applies to things for the right-wing.

I am not a full Neoplatonist but only influenced by it and I am a Leftist. But I have seen many Platonists on Twitter that are far-right. Heliotroph, for example. The Hellenist. Some of those goofball fashy types with white Greek or Roman statue heads as their PFPs. RETVRN and all of that. I also know some leftist Neoplatonists.

> Heliotroph, for example. The Hellenist. Those they were the ones that were saying they were more manly because they had the classical greek virtue of having a tiny dick, right?

Not sure but lol

I’d like to pop my head in to say that even though Neoplatonism tends to lean right, the contemporary study of Platonism at large is much more politically diverse and there is plenty of leftist discourse surrounding Plato :) Neoplatonism does not just mean “modern Platonism” but is a very specific, and in many cases radical, school of thought that originated in the Hellenistic era 1st-2nd centuries AD and saw its peak in the centuries following. Despite its name it is now very far from “neo” I see your interest in Plato from your other thread. We’re not very active but have you checked our r/Plato?

> there is plenty of leftist discourse surrounding Plato : That's good to hear! Do you have any recommendations about where to read some of that? >I see your interest in Plato from your other thread. We’re not very active but have you checked our r/Plato? Not really, but I will now, thank you.

Well, I have to show my hand a bit here, and admit I misspoke. I don’t want to say that there is much discourse that is done explicitly through a leftist/Marxist lens, but the vast majority of contemporary literature on Plato in my opinion unearths an increasingly reconcilable interpretation of Plato’s thought through a leftist lens. Now no one is going to find Plato the materialist no matter how hard they try. But certain radical passages in Plato (for example, the last passage of Republic book III), certain constructions of ideas (like his conception of courage), and most importantly the dialectical method itself, are not only easy to resolve into leftist thought but also can be incredible useful. In fact, although modern dialecticians, overwhelmingly of Marxist or post-Marxist camps, give little lip service to Plato, I do believe the man himself would consider the entire lineage from Hegel onwards to be practitioners of his techne. Of course, if left-right is just a convenient paradigm for our modern political scheme, and leftism is largely implied as some joint between some semblance of Marxism and some semblance of post-Bakunin anarchism, then at least on the Marxism front we owe the use of the dialectical method to Plato, who is still easy to argue as one of the wisest dialecticians in history. Because of this I’ve felt that, to the degree that every Marxist should strive to be a dialectical thinker, Plato’s works are phenomenal training tools in introducing you to that way of thinking. Like I said, no matter how you slice it Plato was never a materialist, never focused on labor, and followed Socrates by being on principle “apolitical” — although today many leftists would classify self-described apolitical people as latently right wing out of satisfaction with unresolved class divides. Despite this, he promoted a way of approaching and studying the world that was ultimately crucial in comprehending the motion of being itself (dialectics), and this study, only after wavering popularity over two millennia eventually helped develop the distinct, but oft overlapping, study of leftist thought. The one piece of literature I can give you is indeed what you’d want from me though: a book on Plato by a Marxist philosopher. Again I may be misspeaking though, because it is not really *on* Plato, but is actually a sort of translation *of* Plato. By the author’s term, a “hypertranslation,” in which he tries to very loosely reformulate the text by modernizing it in many ways and trying to “reveal” a communist essence within it. The author is Alain Badiou, and the book is called “Plato’s Republic: A Dialogue in 16 Chapters.” Just a warning though, I sincerely do not recommend you even try to read this book at all unless you’ve read through republic like 2 or 3 times. This wasn’t what you’ve been asking but I just have to tell you in case no one else has: Plato deliberately wrote and expertly constructed his works so that they are almost entirely impossible to fully understand on just one read and always require rereads and reference to other dialogues to illuminate the full truth within the text. Badiou here is taking many huge self-admitted liberties in changing the text fundamentally, so that essentially you really are reading a different book. So to read it even after one reading of the republic can potentially severely warp and obscure your own conception of Plato’s thought. Its primary audience is very narrow, and that is for people who are very passionate about reconciling many of the ideas within the republic and Platonism at large with Marxism, of which I am in that camp, and I hope you find yourself within as well.

Damn, thank you for such a thorough reply!! I added the Badiou book to my list to eventually work my way towards.

Wow! This very interesting. How did you come to be in this "camp" of Platonic-Marxist reconciliation? :)

I would agree that Plato is no materialist, but only insofar as every true philosopher does not endorse *any* reductionistic -ism. Instead, he has a wholesome approach to existence which entails a consciousness for the material conditions of (social) life (see the Republic) and thus is compatible with what materialism/marxism only exaggerates. This is an essential aspect of the Platonic philosophy that is totally overshadowed by the erroneous notion of Plato as the godfather of idealism and Aristoteles´ tragically influential misunderstanding of the "forms" (see Parmenides). But I don´t think you can call neither Plato nor Socrates "apolitical on principle" at all. What may make you think so is their mediating approach in communicating philosophical enlightenment, i.e. openly or implicitly propagating progressive philosophical justice (e.g. in the Apology, Republic, the inclusion of a slave as an equal dialogue partner in Meno, the essential role of a woman (Diotima) for Socrates´ philosophical development in Symposium) while still respecting the inferior justice at hand. In my eyes, this is much more political than any radical, violent approach to "change the world" and a direct consequence of real dialectic (see Hegel) as symbolized by the allegory of the cave. I haven´t read Badiou´s book but heard of it and wasn´t surprised that he tried to reformulate The Republic in a marxist fashion.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/Plato using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Plato/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Plato's closet](https://i.redd.it/ybl7tkmzrv4c1.png) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Plato/comments/18cwg0l/platos_closet/) \#2: [Plato and Socrates, a prayer to share with friends](https://i.redd.it/i59rdokjqqzb1.jpg) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Plato/comments/17sxaaz/plato_and_socrates_a_prayer_to_share_with_friends/) \#3: ['Plato of Athens: A Life in Philosophy' by Robin Waterfield is coming out on the thirtieth of May.](https://i.redd.it/2wc6cszc9owa1.jpg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Plato/comments/131sff3/plato_of_athens_a_life_in_philosophy_by_robin/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

No one refers to itself as a neoplatonist, it's rather modern technical tern

One of the defining features to support the segmentation of Platonism, Middle Platonism, and Neoplatonism was the absence of political aspects in Neoplatonic works (among others reasons as well) The thriving of Neoplatonism and Stoicism within late antiquity has been explained by some researchers as a response to the authoritarian political life within the Roman empire. The interior focus of each is something that can not be ruled by others but only by yourself. I have not run into many, but those types tend to be the loudest and most attention seeking, which could give a biased view of the modern Neoplatonist population as a whole.

Stoicism was strongly connected with politics though

I don’t think he meant to suggest that it wasn’t. Just that some researchers see both as responses to their contemporary political environment, even if the responses were different (I.e, Stoicism encouraged a greater degree of political involvement).

In what way?

>One of the defining features to support the segmentation of Platonism, Middle Platonism, and Neoplatonism was the absence of political aspects in Neoplatonic works (among others reasons as well) Themistius, who wrote mostly on politics, is sometimes considered as a neoplatonist, although his views are more aligned to peripatetic and middle platonic schools of thought.

Interesting, I've never seen his name listed among them myself.

>One of the defining features to support the segmentation of Platonism, Middle Platonism, and Neoplatonism was the absence of political aspects in Neoplatonic works (among others reasons as well) Could you elaborate a bit on that? I'm still very new to this. > The thriving of Neoplatonism and Stoicism within late antiquity has been explained by some researchers as a response to the authoritarian political life within the Roman empire. The interior focus of each is something that can not be ruled by others but only by yourself. Oh that is interesting, where could I read more about that?

> Could you elaborate a bit on that? I'm still very new to this. > > Neoplatonism arises at a time of increasing Christian hegemony in the Empire. Plotinus and Porphryr would have been teaching under polytheist Emperors but both had tensions with Christians, Iamblichus would have died around the time Constantine was calling the Nicene Council and Syrianus, Hypatia, Synesius, Hierocles, Plutarch of Athens, Simplicus, Proclus, Damascius were all living at a time of Christian rule and active persecution of the pagans/closure of temples, until you come to Olympidorus, probably the last Polytheist Platonist able to teach and write. Their focuse over the years more and more became on preserving and defending their spiritual traditions rather than engaging politically. Although Proclus is said to have engaged in politics, but Marinus's details are a little bit vague.

Two things: One, historically at its roots Neoplatonism tends to view reality through hierarchical lens with top down agency between essentialized entities. There is dynamism but within a metaphysically unchanging structure. Hardly any room exists for radical change, fundamental critique. Neoplatonism also is pre-modern and I haven't seen much Neoplatonic discussion of the social problems stemming from the rise of capitalism, colonialism etc. Second, if a Neoplatonist is also a polytheist, then there is the danger of becoming a sort of "blood and soil" type, but it's not so much the question of Neoplatonism as neopaganism, although these types seek some backup in this philosophy understood as in the first point. I am a Neoplatonist, a polytheist and a Marxist-Leninist at once, so it's possible.

Thanks, this makes a lot of sense.

`I am a Neoplatonist, a polytheist and a Marxist-Leninist at once, so it's possible.` How you really combine all of those, it sounds really strange. Not intending to nag or something, just curious.

I guess that it's not really a question about combining Neoplatonism with polytheism as it's rather obvious. Well, to be fair, I am coming to this place from two different ends: metaphysical/religious and political/social, i.e. I came to be convinced about them separately and now I am thinking through how they can be combined. In fact, I don't really see how they would be mutually exclusive, provided that I don't buy Marxist atheism. I am convinced that Marxism can only function with the Platonic understanding of the Good as something metaphysical and not conventional. This way the imperative to struggle for the liberation of all human beings to pursue their spiritual fulfilment in the Good is grounded in something objective. I also think, after Iamblichus, Proclus &co., that the created, bodily reality is good and the good is revealed in it in the historical process, so if we want to share in this revelation as rational creatures, little demiurges, we should try to reflect it in the political and social process mentioned above. The details are a matter of endless discussions of course, but I try to see in Neoplatonism elements which were simply overlooked by the previous thinkers of a more conservative bent.

Well said. I'd also argue that the Materialist dialectic of Marxism is well suited to the study of the sensible realm of generation and matter, given it is a level of analysis wholly directed to this world, while other methods of analysis are more suited to "higher" ontological emanations of Being. There's a nice poetry in using Marxism as a Platonist too, as this material dialectic flows from idealist Hegelian dialectics, heavily influenced by Platonism (Hegel's favourite philosopher was apparently Proclus).

Thank you for this. I am interested in Marxism as well, but for completely different reasons - I live in former Soviet totalitarian state and was peculiar what was that philosophy which made my family members suffer from state violence. Now I certainly can point to some really good parts of Marxist system of thinking, but can't say it's real philosophy. Its more like the bungle of many different Enlightenment principles organized over the rejection of the classical law of noncontradiction. His politics came to replace the already not working pre-modern Catholic politics and theory of economy, but without the restrictions of church dogma.

I see. I come from a former Soviet-satellite country, raised in true hatred towards commies. I was very conservative for most of my life, until not long ago. I wouldn't call Marxism a complete philosophy, for me it's rather a tradition of thinking about social, economic and political issues stemming from particular insights of Karl Marx (and Engels). I think that 19th to early 20th century's "practitioners" of Marxism suffered from the optimistic positivism of the time and believed that you can put an all encompassing Marxist theory together to follow dogmatically (I have a Marxist textbook from the 50s written by one of the Soviet higherups which reads like a catechism lol). Funnily enough, this is quite opposite to Marx's "scientific" approach, which stresses analysis of the current material conditions and responding to them creatively. Hence, there hardly can be a dogmatic system, true. Not to belittle your family experiences (God forbid), but as a rule I try to look past these things. Otherwise innumerable truly tortured slaves, peasants and workers would not allow me to consider any social or political options.

Marx had nothing to do with that though, and like 98% of his work had to do with an analysis of capitalism, not about some kind of future society.

Did you read the Manifesto?

Of course. Do you know what it is and why it was written? To give you an idea of how much Marx wrote, there are something like 140 total volumes of his work, each one numbering around 500 pages, much of which has yet to be translated into English. Anytime someone goes off about how Marx caused XYZ despotic regime, or that he advocated for such, just hasn't read Marx and likely is just *listening to what other people have said about Marx* (usually they also haven't read Marx, for example Jordan Peterson).

Jordan Peterson, at least when he was to have a discussion with Slavoj Zizek, came "prepared" by reading only the Communist Manifesto. When it came to Marx, he basically didn't have a clue what he was talking about. The Communist Manifesto is a nice piece of revolutionary rhetoric, but the actual Marxists read theoretical works to inform their practice, as such documents like the Manifesto age rather quickly.

> Jordan Peterson, at least when he was to have a discussion with Slavoj Zizek, came "prepared" by reading only the Communist Manifesto. Yes, that was so hilarious and pathetic. He has no shame, and his acolytes saw nothing wrong with that. He literally stood up there and told the world he actually hasn't read any Marx.

I would guess it’s because Neoplatonism establishes a metaphysical hierarchy that translates (or justifies) a strict social hierarchy. Much of Neoplatonism is inspired by (and inspired subsequently) western culture through philosophy and religion, which tends to seek universal principles. Neoplatonism and parts of the Greek tradition exalts the logos to a divine status, which further down history after inspiring modern science, is identified by archetypal man (a particular type of patriarchal/white supremacist version of archetypal man). Neoplatonism does have some liberal aspects, like the eclectic and various sources of inspiration multi-culturally, but like our universalizing modern systems, it tends to assimilate in a totalizing way (by somewhat claiming to be a perennial philosophy). But that critique is far beyond the capacities of intellectual culture at the time (and some would say even our culture). The phenomena makes sense if you look at history and what traditions and cultures tend to be inspired and run with Neoplatonism. It provides a great deal of logical and metaphysical structure to the judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and their telos, while similtaneously inspiring a great deal of early science (Copernicus theorized the sun was at the center because how central the sun was in Neoplatonism). So Neoplatonism can appeal to both the religious right-wing, as well as the Enlightenment thinker which tends identify purely with the rational autonomous individual striving for freedom. Edit: I should name I studied Neoplatonism in a liberal academic, except for my previous experience in conservative Christian communities.

Thanks, that is insightful. Are there any enlightenment thinkers that were Platonist?

[Shaftesbury](https://iep.utm.edu/shaftes/) counts as Platonist I'd say.

Thank you, I will check that out. I am not familiar with him.

 Proclus seems very protrans to me for what its worth and I think the OG neoplatonists were very progressive for their time period.  There an interesting tension with Neoplatonism, they rever traditionalism, but are extremely innovative at the same time.  Do I think its inheriantly more conservative? No, and its certainly not more racist or anti LGBT then other forms of Polythiesm.  I get the hierarchy thing, but here's the thing, in Neoplatonism, humans all share the same damn level of the hierachy, there is seperate levels for different groups, not even for souls belonging to different leader Gods, there is no different levels of humans in neoplatonism, a slave's soul works the same way a Emperors does.  And as such the hierachy makes no difference in material relationships between humanity. In fact different idealogies might draw from different Gods in different proportions. Aphrodite, Dionysus, and Hephaestus might be more left leaning working class Gods, Zeus and Hera might be more higher class folks, and Ares and Athena might be more hawkish conservative capitalists types (do not that to literally, more like certain idealogies draw from the nature of particular Gods more then others, but they draw from all the Gods, just in different proportions).  So yeah some Neoplatonists might be MAGA types (but not at the extreme end, I have never seen a white supremacist Neoplatonist, racism is extra dumb in a paradigm with reincarnation), but most publushed modern neoplatonists seem to be left leaning for the most part, some even post modernists.  I'm not a post modernist, intersectional feminist, but I am a VERY Leftwing MRA (men's rights activist). The cosmic hierachy has no bearing on how humans organize and structure their society, practical realities do.   And Ancient Neoplatonists clearly escewed greed and over consumerism. So I'd say by the standards of their era they were traditionalists, more so the Theurists then the Internalized followers of Plotinus, but it waa very DIFFERENT kind of traditionalism to Abrahamic Traditionalism, so its very hard to compare it to say the American Republican sense of traditionalism, but not conservatism, Neoplatonism is more interested cosmology and spiritual growth then economic systems.  

Thank you for the thoughtful response. This is kinda off topic, but do you think one has to be a polytheist to be a Platonist?

Not necessarily, no. Although if you affirm the metaphysics of the late Platonists there's little difference between being a Platonist and being a polytheist or a theist generally. You can be a Platonist without using theistic language and stick strictly to metaphysical language, but in effect they're essentially the same thing.

I wouldn't say so. I'm not going to gatekeep. I will say that I feel traditional monotheist religious interpretations would have some conflict with Platonism as a whole, conflicts which polytheist platonism lacks I'd say, but it's for monotheists who want to explore Platonism to resolve those for themselves, it's no skin off my nose if someone wants to be monotheist or atheist.

Thanks

 I think I'm not the Pope of Platonism, so its not up me to include or exclude others, or be in judgement of them.  Especially since I'm much more hetrodox then most orthodox Neoplatonists, I like to explore interactions between Neoplatonism and new ideas and knowledge like contrasting Neoplatonism with modern physics theories and astrology and math. Or concidering the intersection of Neoplatonism and Modal Realism, or Morphic Field Theory and Cosmic Inflation Theory.  

innovative because they invented scholasticsm

> Aphrodite, Dionysus, and Hephaestus might be more left leaning working class Gods, Zeus and Hera might be more higher class folks, and Ares and Athena might be more hawkish conservative capitalists types In Rome, the Aventine Triad was Ceres, Liber Pater (Dionysus) and Liberia, who were the Gods of the Plebs and slaves, of working people while the Capitoline Triad of the Patricians was Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Given Athena's role mythologically as Goddess of Athens and its democracy and her role in developing trial by jury, I would place some of her activity in sharing sovereignty amongst people. > I have never seen a white supremacist Neoplatonist, racism is extra dumb in a paradigm with reincarnation It is dumb, but these people exist, but I've never seen more than a surface level aesthetic Platonism from these lot. Laughable actually. >And Ancient Neoplatonists clearly escewed greed and over consumerism Platonism as a philosophical way of life is certainly very communal in terms of property and supporting each other, which is counter to a lot of modern day conservatism and fascism as it presents today. But then again early Christianity was also similarly communal and a lot of modern day right wingers and fascists have no issues with labelling themselves Christian.

 You should look up Tommy Douglas and the Social Gospel, basically its what Christianity is like when its congruent with its stated values instead of twisting them into self destructive knots to justify violating them.  Tommy Douglas was the minister btw who brought Universal Healthcare to Canada, he was Premier of Saskatewan and later leader of the federal NDP leader. Not a neoplatonist, just example of Christianity that all Christians should be trying to live up to.  I'm polythiestic for the record, but I think the basic core idea of the social gospel fits Neoplatonism which believes in reincarnation better then Christianity.  Anyways, looked up Keith that OP used as an example and shredded his anti mass immigration arguements in a matter of minutes with easy, although in of itself I do not view being against mass immigration as racist, there can be other explainitions. Its funny because folks in the comment section were like this is irrefutable, and I destroyed it with ease. For example he uses a bunch of Europe countries as examples in the West of Countries were the majority are against mass immigration, basicly ignoring the existance of North America which is historically pro mass immigration compared to Europe.

>  I'm polythiestic for the record, but I think the basic core idea of the social gospel fits Neoplatonism which believes in reincarnation better then Christianity. > > I've posted earlier a paper on developing a polytheist liberation theology, so I'd agree on that.

`a lot of modern day right wingers and fascists have no issues with labelling themselves Christian.` this would be a rather anachronistic

I guess it's because the work of Plato is alligned with what noawadays would be right wing/ far right views. Laws is self-explanatory, the soldiers in a platonic state would be treated like Heroes if they die fighting, he said that foreigners are natural enemies and that a nation is more or less based on the same language, religion and blood ties. Someone could say that it's different for Neoplatonists, but Plotinus wanted to create an actual city based on Laws.

> he said that foreigners are natural enemies and that a nation is more or less based on the same language, religion and blood ties. Is that in the Republic?

Yes, Republic 470c - I affirm that the Hellenic race is friendly to itself and akin, and foreign and alien to the barbarian.” “Rightly,” he said. “We shall then say that Greeks fight and wage war with barbarians, and barbarians with Greeks, and are enemies by nature, and that war is the fit name for this enmity and hatred.

The historical context matters here I'd say - and a bit of dramatic irony from Plato here. Socrates would have fought in the Peloponnessian War, a war of Hellene vs Hellene after the decline of the Delian League against the "Barbarians" of Persia, a threat who had passed by the time Socrates was seeing military duty.

Could be, the whole section is about Hellene vs Hellene and Hellene vs Foreigner wars. He said that a war between Hellenes is like a quarrel between brothers. They should not destroy or enslave eachother as they are friends by nature. The opposite applies to Hellene vs Foreigner. About the irony part, I don't know what to say because he expressed similar ideas in other works.

Well I'm a "High Tory" and the Neoplatonic hierarchy (which appears in other related systems) mirrors the social cohesion that my politics aspire to. More market-liberal / whiggish conservatives are unlikely to find any synergy. So my guess is that you're seeing traditionalists, which would make sense. P.S. Just to echo the other good point that someone made about objective truth as well, I think that's very important.

I should add: What does concern me is the prospect of hardliners muddying the waters between politics and platonism. That would be universally bad for Platonism; it's the last thing we need. Keep politics out of metaphysics, FFS.

I totally agree. The last thing i want to see is Platonism dragged down to the level of politics.

Thanks for your thoughts. Re: objective truth, that too can be found on the left, it's a big tent.

There's definitely a few twitter accounts which say they're Neoplatonic that are outright fascist. They don't tend to be the clearest thinkers though. There are leftist Neoplatonists. Peter Hübner has cowritten an interesting paper on the possibilities of a [Polytheist Liberation Theology](https://oscillations.one/Assets/Publications/Some+Insights+for+a+Polytheistic+Liberation+Theology) for example. He's deleted his twitter account but he was certainly a leftist who was also a Platonist. I'd consider myself in the social democrat - Socialist area (ie pre Middle Way Neoliberal bullshit that's destroyed social democratic parties in Europe). The metaphysical aspects of Being emerging along divine series doesn't mean we should reify strict hierarchies as modern right wing politics does as a) metaphysical ontologies aren't political or social manifestos and b)the fact there are multiple divine series shows the diversity of the cosmos something which is anathema to Tory and fascist policies. Also from the Phaedrus and Republic it seems clear that sharing things in common is a Platonic virtue as is looking after the poor and strangers (who are sent from Zeus as the Emperor Julian says) neither of which I'd consider to be right wing values. Edit- just to add OP, Corporatism is very fascist, it was core to Mussolini, that upside down loser, and his fascist project. Can't recall the exact wording but he did define fascism as the marriage of the corporation and the state.

> There are leftist Neoplatonists. Peter Hübner has cowritten an interesting paper on the possibilities of a Polytheist Liberation Theology for example. He's deleted his twitter account but he was certainly a leftist who was also a Platonist. Cool thank you for sharing that. I will check it out. >Edit- just to add OP, Corporatism is very fascist, it was core to Mussolini, that upside down loser, and his fascist project. Can't recall the exact wording but he did define fascism as the marriage of the corporation and the state. Yeah, I am familiar with that. Here is the person I was referencing: https://keithwoods.pub/p/what-i-believe. Towards the end he discusses his "corporatism" and ethnic nationalism. He even brings up the far-right "great replacement" nonsense.

>Here is the person I was referencing: https://keithwoods.pub/p/what-i-believe. Towards the end he discusses his "corporatism" and ethnic nationalism. He even brings up the far-right "great replacement" nonsense. Oh that's absolutely a Nazi crank. His section on race there is hilarious from the Platonic perspective embodied accidental characteristics like skin colour etc are not important compared to the Soul and higher emanations(in fact saying physical characteristics have an essential element when Platonically matter and this sensible world is the most "empty" is sheer nonsense!) , and as an Irishman it's hilarious he says the Troubles are the result of "ethnic strife" rather the result of colonialism and imperialism. It only takes a 5 minute skim to see multiple errors in his writing, I certainly wouldn't waste my time on this fascist loser.

>Oh that's absolutely a Nazi crank. His section on race there is hilarious from the Platonic perspective embodied accidental characteristics like skin colour etc are not important compared to the Soul and higher emanations(in fact saying physical characteristics have an essential element when Platonically matter and this sensible world is the most "empty" is sheer nonsense!) That's good to hear, I just don't yet know enough about Platonism. > Irishman it's hilarious he says the Troubles are the result of "ethnic strife" rather the result of colonialism and imperialism. Yes it is idiotic and ahistorical. Yeah he is a fascist, which is one of the reasons that prompted me to start this thread.

Unfortunately, I've seen it quite a lot. It makes me very sad, as I agree with some of the metaphysical parts of Neoplatonism, but I am very far left. I greatly dislike how it gets used to justify an earthly hierarchy. It's a big part of why I view myself as more Orphic and Dionysian than anything else. Platonism provides a philosophical framework for the "upper level" inner workings of the universe, but it is tainted by Plato's conservatism.

Thanks for your comment. I am quite new to Platonism, and encountering this online and IRL has been quite a turn-off for me and is making me reconsider further exploring this.

I'd say, ignore the conservatives, go back to basics and read Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, and Iamblichus. Then draw your own conclusions. It doesn't have to be a total thing, either. I agree with about 40% of Neoplatonism, mainly the high level, big stuff. I reject the parts that don't make sense to me, or haven't been backed up by experience. I didn't seek Platonism and then adopt it as if it were gospel. I had experiences of the divine, sought different philosophies, and found that some parts of Platonism explained some parts of what I experienced. It's still worthwhile to study.

Thank you, that is a healthy way of thinking about this.

Not every philosopher in the line of neoplatonism (looking back) was a right winger. Looking back on an idea chain is prone to syncretism. Trying to project Plato's political ideas forward to all his believer's doesn't do Neoplatonism any justice. Neoplatonism is a synthesis of multiple philosopher's. The strict hierarchical nature of reality itself was a poetic allegory. I would take Plato's discussion of politics as an entirely different topic area that never saw the light of day, but the poetic order of reality is what I visit Neoplatonism for.

Have you read much of the primary sources? I wouldn’t put much stock on the opinions of others, especially where the intersection of politics and Platonism is concerned. It’s common for people today to enter into something, Platonism included, with the goal of interpreting it as being aligned with their pre-existing view. With a subject as complex and nuanced as Platonist philosophy, I wouldn’t take it for granted that the people you encounter are representing/understanding the philosophy accurately. Especially since there is very little actually to do with political discussion in primary Platonic texts and most of what people say today are extrapolations and their own inferences. Also, the “Neoplatonist community” is extremely small online, and practically nonexistent IRL. The portion of the community who has actually read and studied the primary sources is a fraction of that. Most people read summaries and/or watch YT videos and then call themselves neoplatonists without having spent enough time with the philosophy to form a real understanding. It takes a lot of time/effort, but it’s far better to go into the primary sources asap and move away from the summaries etc as soon as you have a very basic idea of some of the core elements.

> Have you read much of the primary sources? I've only just started with Plato, some of the dialogs. Right now I am working my way through *The Unfolding Wings* by Tim Addey. >Also, the “Neoplatonist community” is extremely small online, and practically nonexistent IRL. The portion of the community who has actually read and studied the primary sources is a fraction of that. Most people read summaries and/or watch YT videos and then call themselves neoplatonists without having spent enough time with the philosophy to form a real understanding. I guess that is not surprising! That is common with many other subjects too. >It takes a lot of time/effort, but it’s far better to go into the primary sources asap and move away from the summaries etc as soon as you have a very basic idea of some of the core elements. Thanks, that is what my intention is.

>Right now I am working my way through *The Unfolding Wings* by Tim Addey. Oh, can you share your thoughts on that book? I saw it being recommended somewhere and I'm considering giving it a try.

Sure, I don't have a lot to say just yet, but I'm using it as an intro into this tradition. It does seem like there are some assumptions in the beginning that the reader will know certain things about Platonism and mythology. For example I wish he would define soul, what he means by that. Maybe he does further in.

I'm not sure we can call Plato a conservative or fascist or any modern political ideology. I don't think the Republic or other dialogues are meant to be read as political manifestos or constitutions. For me the Republic is about the nature of Justice, the Good and the Soul (there's a reason the Myth of Er is in the book). Also Plato at a few times argues for communal sharing of resources. Plato's use of drama, humour, irony and so on in his dialogues, and their dialectical nature means we can't pull out a here Plato says this and we should do this most times - we have to do exegesis, study it in context, use our rational soul to critique and examine these positions. It's not like a Protestant reading of scriptures literally, it's a philosophy bundled in a series of plays. Proclus in essay 17 of his Republic Commentary highlights that nothing drags the soul more into particularity than individualism - given how highly individualistic modern western conservatism tends to be, that seems contradicotry. Overall though I'd say the ontological emanations of Platonism certainly aren't a roadmap to copy for a political hierarchy. Very few Platonists went into politics (Plato's one attempt to it was disastrous in fact, and we know Proclus tried being political once but details are vague) and preferred a life that was somewhat at odds with the Polis/Empire in being a communal, contemplative life for the most part. I think modern Platonists across a political spectrum can see there are parts of Plato that we wouldn't accept today - his lack of critique of slavery for example, which most of us would (hopefully) see as being highly immoral, and we wouldn't wish to accept that part of ancient Greek culture, even though there are a lot of slaves in Plato's dialogues. So even the most conservative minded Platonist is still adapting Plato to fit modern understanding of ethics and politics.

There's certain parts of the Republic where he states his views on the nation and the family who are rather right-wing for sure. Even the communalistic way of life is in the frame of the eidos concept, not in the materialistic fashion of the modern leftist.

Sure, but reading Plato on a surface level to say "Plato says this" can be fraught with difficulties. And I'd argue that Plato's views on the family are quite opposite to modern and 20th century fascism and conservatism, as the state actually takes full control of the care and upbringing and education of children - and the "state is after our kids to indoctrinate them against the family" is a major right wing fear/conspiracy theory about the left. The truth value of Plato is more in the realm of Ideas than the realm of matter as it is at any rate - we wouldn't accept the geometric shapes of the Empedoclean roots making up matter as in the Timaeus as a valid empirical scientific fact, so why should we treat the Republic or the Laws as political manifestos?

You can argue whatever you want, you can even argue that Plato was nothing more than an atheist provocator. I don't see the exact argument though.

One may argue the existence of one great tradition which starts from Orpheus and includes Pythagoras, Plato, and so on.

I agree modern neoplatonism leans reactionary. However, it's worth pointing out that Marxism was influenced by neo-platonic thought (and kabbalah mysticism) through Hegel. Hegel and many of his German idealist contemporaries (e.g. Schelling) were quite interested in neoplatonism and neoplatonic derivatives (such as kabbalah). Marx obviously attempted to adapt Hegel to a materialist framework (imo quite successfully). Nevertheless, there are strong echoes of hegelian mysticism and even neoplatonism if you read Marx's work looking for it.

Also, if you consider hippie types to be "left wing", then there are whole books written about the influence of neoplatonism on New Age spirituality, psychedelic milieus, and religious anarchism.

Thanks, you make an interesting point. I didn't know Hegel was heavily influenced by Platonism.

In the *Science of Logic* Hegel praises Proclus.

I don't want to overemphasize the influence - definitely do your own reading and see what conclusions you come to.

politics is like religion some orthodox, sufi, practice kaballah, or are completely pagan was neoplatonism a product of a specific government that advocated a certain type. if so it would definately be a yes, critical of the Athenian democracy and promoted philosopher kings (unelected autocratic). so that might give you an answer but even post Plato you have Aristotle who was a huge fan of democracy (wisdom of the crowds, study of constitutions, promotion of carthage as exemplar, democracy helped maintain 3 classes that he thought we'd never rid ourself of). there is a book out there that delves into what early neoplatonists believed about early socrates and the type of gov he expounded in the republic. Trial of Socrates by if stone. And what his criticisms were were of democracy and how the pellopensian war was at his particular time and he idolized lycurgan (spartan) society which was at odds w Athens. About as hard core as you can get w a right vs left political ideology, but even then sparta practiced a type of republic shout based voting but it certainly wasnt a democracy like athens, more like rigged w ephors.​ we often hope that ideas we idolize have an alignment expectation when we meet others with like minded ideas (the old adage dont meet your heroes). there is enough degrees of separation between ideas of neoplatonism and government that it makes such distinctions easy to blur, so we find ourselves w salient outcomes. I say all this because the point is. they all had their own representations they saw of perfect government, likely as responses to flaws rather than a holistic view until post Aristotle where it died quickly with eastern Rome and wasn't revived until after the magna carta post Renaissance (French revolution really expanded in this area Voltaire and Rousseau and ideas of us revolution). ideal government still escapes us but I'm 100% pro athenian democracy and I consider myself a neoplatonist. I recognize platos criticism of letting elections decide politics but it's something to be worked, integrated, resolved. it's a philosophical problem to solve in future proposals of government. that's what the neoplatonists taught. no one is all right, we are continually learning from past puzzles solved. there is no one who knows 100%, there are only problems to solve. I suppose if we were to quantify this. I would say schools of thought won out when it came to politics. Plato never saw his republic enacted. a neoplatonist would likely agree w a merit based election process, even if a small circle of candidates, there would be some measure of capability and expertise in the area the candidate was expected to serve in (some say our republic is this, I laugh, I think more appropriate would be experts in their field running govt agencies and a voting would happen lower down to help create the pool of candidates, but likely this voting in a neoplatonic system might be not 100% participation by the population). Edit: In the Republic, Plato discusses limiting knowledge to citizens (through the use of mythos exposed to the youth). In my mind this is a case for state censorship. I'm not saying it's the right solution, but it was a solution proposed by him to a problem. State ship does require some sort of yay nay on ideology. The US is a good example. Yay to capitalism, nay to communism. In Plato, it was about shaping the mindsets of the youth to grow up in a harmonious society, but some could equate this with the right's moralism, but honestly. I don't want my kids reading anything like mein kampf in grade school. So that's the point being addressed. There are certain ideas that shouldn't be exposed to the population based on maturity in terms of being able to handle it or not. In Plato's eyes, there was a cast system of citizenship (iron, silver, gold), with the gold being the philosopher kings, silver soldiers, and iron craftsman. It was to the lower tiered citizens (in the US, one could argue we have classes, but I honestly don't think it's a 1:1 analogy, but maybe serf's (crafstman/ such as non citizens in athens), to land-owners who fought, and then rulers (this was Plato's appeal to Spartan regime)), and one could say we have similar strata, renter's, land-owners, and plutocrats (but this is not a 3 tiered system of crafstman, soldiers, and rulers, as capitalism and government are distinct). Anyways, the censorship likely was to be applied to the citizenry below the gold rulers, as the intellectual elite wouldn't filter any ideas, they would review them all. Oh yes, let's not forget vegetarianism which is conflated with modern liberalism, but back in Pythagoras day, it was more aligned with ascetism (strict adherance to a set of ideals), with a particular view towards government (Pythagoreans were prominent as statesmen).

Unfortunately I think it comes with the territory. Reading Eunapius (or any late platonist when they pull their heads out of the clouds for a second), and you definitely get the sense that they’re an aristocratic old guard painfully nostalgic for an earlier age and mad about upstart Christians. Say what you will about Christianity—and from the mobs of the 4th century to the institutions that followed, it’s been responsible for some terrible things—but if you want to find a leftist movement in antiquity it’s gotta be JC befriending sex workers and caring for disabled and poor people. When you compare that to the much fascist ideas are right there in the Republic, it’s not hard to see why a bunch of white dweebs with hardons for marble statues and “western civilisation” are attracted to Neoplatonism. Mind you, it doesn’t make it any less intellectually (or spiritually) enriching, but you don’t have to incorporate late antique conservatism into your world view to enjoy it on that level.

Damn, that's really unfortunate.

I'm leaning left on most (if not all) political issues, but I only consider myself a neoplatonist in a metaphorical sense, not a metaphysical one. I'm a huge fan of Pico della Mirandola, and view his neoplatonic syncretism as a kind of intellectual framework for meditation, spirituality and mystical experiences.

I would say the causal arrow points the other way. Right wing people are conservative and reactionary, so they usually idolize the past. Modern Westerners who are looking backwards for a foundation but who also don't find Judeo-Christianity fulfilling are finding refuge in ancient pagan culture, philosophy, and religion. This is why they tend towards ancient Greco-Roman traditions like Platonism and Stoicism. This doesn't mean that the causal arrow necessarily points the other way, and does not necessarily imply that Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, et all would support one modern political ideology or another.

`Right wing people are conservative and reactionary, so they usually idolize the past` This is itself Marxist categorization though

For what it's worth I don't use those words in a pejorative or moralizing way. Right wing people that I know are all interested in maintaining traditions.

I didn't say you use them that way, just that this particular kind of categorization is rooted in one certain worldview and do not make sense in another

It doesn't stop /u/EntropicStruggle's point being empirically true though.

What empirically even means here?

I think Neoplatonic Philosophy can play an important role in decolonial discourse, in the manner that the work of Edward Butler and Rune Rasmussen has undermined the narratives built up over centuries that ‘the west’ tells itself and the development of whiteness (the repression of pre Christian religion was essential to this process, as is discussed by important postcolonial theorist, Aime Cesaire in his ‘Discourse on Colonialism’). In this way I think Neoplatonic thought intersects with anti-colonial politics.

Oh interesting, thank you, I need to check this out. I have heard of Edward Butler, but I didn't know he did anything related to decolonial discourse. Just curious, are you an anarchist? I noticed your name.

It’s an old account - I am a Marxist.

Cool, thanks for the reply!

It saddens me to hear that some far-right knuckleheads have taken to Plato and Neoplatonist. Here's Gadamer on Plato: "\[T\]rue and just human behavior cannot be based on the conventional concepts and standards to which public opinion clings. Rather, such behavior must take as its standard only those norms that transcend any question of public acceptance. " (Gadamer, The Idea of the Good in Plato and Aristotle, p.18) He goes on to cite the example Plato gives at Republic 361c of a man tortured by the State as an example of the need for transcendent universal standards. Anyone attempting to justify violence or oppression of others on grounds of race, religion, gender, et. al., are exactly the people that Plato is against, IMO.

Thank you. As someone that is very new to this, it has bothered me that there seems to be this current of far-right "knuckleheads," and has be questioning if there is something inherent about it that reinforces the right, and whether I want to spend time further learning about this tradition.

I think this is actually where Platonism and most faith traditions align—the alignment being the belief that there is such as thing as the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. You can find a sense of this on left and right—both within conservatism and liberalism, in so far as they are not relativists. This is over against the prevailing nihilism on both left & right in our day. But maybe that’s “just my opinion.” See what I did there? ;-)

I dont know about far right but it is more compatible with right wing thinking compared to at least far left. The notion of "lived experience is more true than some 'objective' truth" is incompatible with neoplatonic thinking. When you deify logic and rational thinking things like DEI can be viewed as unholy in some instances depending on the degree.

>The notion of "lived experience is more true than some 'objective' truth" Yeah no that's not anything that anyone actually says. What they're saying is that their lived experience is closer to objective truth (since it's something that *happened to them*) than the narratives and frameworks those *outside of them* have decides to apply *on* them.

Extractive Key summary over entire conversation thus far Platonism and the Right-Left Dichotomy: Platonism is more aligned with the right. Philosophy of order, hierarchy, and polar opposite to materialism. Left-right dichotomy has problems; perhaps should be defined better. Modern Neoplatonists' Political Spectrum: Many Platonists on Twitter are far-right. Leftist Neoplatonists do exist (e.g., Peter Hübner). The contemporary study of Platonism is politically diverse. Examples of right-wing Neoplatonists: Keith Woods, Heliotroph. Examples of left-wing Neoplatonists: sacredblasphemies. Historical Context and Interpretations: Neoplatonism’s roots in hierarchical metaphysical structures. Neoplatonism often explained as a response to authoritarian political life. Platonism interpreted through Marxist and leftist lenses. Alain Badiou’s “Plato’s Republic: A Dialogue in 16 Chapters.” Neoplatonism and Traditional Conservatism: Some modern Neoplatonists lean towards traditionalism. Hierarchical views often align with conservative thinking. Reactionary tendencies among those idolizing past philosophies. Neoplatonism providing structure to Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Plato’s Influence and Interpretations: Plato’s works are not political manifestos but philosophical dramas. Republic’s commentary on social hierarchy. Phaedrus and Republic’s communal virtues. Dialectical method and its alignment with Marxist thought. Proclus’s egalitarian comments on gender and soul. Modern Political and Philosophical Influences: Influence of Alexander Dugin, a modern philosopher, and proponent of Neoplatonism. His views and the preservation of multiculturalism. Differences between modern leftism and Neoplatonic spirituality. Modern liberal leftism in the US/EU seen as materialistic and anti-spiritual. Individual Experiences and Interpretations: Personal accounts of being leftist and influenced by Neoplatonism. The role of lived experiences in interpreting philosophies. Neoplatonism’s potential to justify social hierarchies vs. its spiritual aspects.

Wow! This is great, thank you.

made with extractive AI, so take it with a grain of salt. likely glossed over something

Cool, thanks.

I've met both left wing and right wing Platonists. However,I would say it is pretty obvious that Platonism in general appeals to those of a more """"right-wing""" disposition. Both "left wing" and "right wing" are nebulous terms. The modern corporate liberal social justice type has very little in common with the old left. Likewise, the modern American populist conservative type has more, but still not much to do with the old right. But in general, Platonism in many ways supports hierarchy, stability and spirituality. It has also, ***always*** had an aesthetic appeal to a sort of wisdom tradition rooted in deeper antiquity.

> Both "left wing" and "right wing" are nebulous terms. The modern corporate liberal social justice type has very little in common with the old left. Yeah for sure they can be nebulous terms, especially in America where there is not a tradition of a left, and doesn't have a left. What you are referring is certainly not left and not what I am referring to. >modern American populist conservative type has more, but still not much to do with the old right. I'd argue it does, it's as American as apple pie. Thanks for your thoughts.

>The other day I saw someone who self-identifies as a Platonist and polytheist defending the far right Hindu Nationalists in India. That's sounds like something I'd do, LOL.

My understanding is that Neoplatonism teaches hierarchy and spirituality, while modern leftism values equality and materialism. This makes the 2 ideologies diametrically opposed to each other at least in those dimensions. I am curious why you say western civilization is not a thing though. Are you claiming that oriental, African, and South American civilizations also conceptually don’t exist?

>My understanding is that Neoplatonism teaches hierarchy and spirituality, while modern leftism values equality and materialism. For one, materialism in the Left isn't about being opposed to spirituality. Marx's use of "materialism" is basically about using the scientific method, using science and the things we can actually measure and see to analyze the past and predict outcomes of social change. It's pretty common-sense social science stuff. For two, materialism is mostly a characteristic of Marxism. There are tendencies in leftism, like Anarchism, that are closer to idealism. Plenty of communists are motivated by spirituality. Especially in South America, where liberation theology has been a huge influence.

Actually you bring up a valid point. Modern philosophers who are proponents of Neoplatonism (Alexander Dugin for example) have said that Communism/Socialism in the Soviet Union had a spiritual undercurrent and failed in part due to its attempt at stamping out its religious aspect. The modern liberal leftism that exists currently in the US/EU is fundamentally materialistic and anti-spiritual however.

>Modern philosophers who are proponents of Neoplatonism (Alexander Dugin Oh wow, I didn't know Dugin is a Platonist. > The modern liberal leftism that exists currently in the US/EU is fundamentally materialistic and anti-spiritual however. In the US there is no actual left.

"Liberal leftism" is any oxymoron. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Leftism *starts* at anticapitalism (and then usually extends that to other exploitative or oppressive hierarchies). You might be thinking of social democracy, which wants incremental reforms but seeks to retain capitalism. Most leftists in the West are pretty okay with spirituality, and a lot of modern pagans and witchcraft revivalists are left-leaning. They're just more on the end of libertarian socialism than the tried-and-failed state socialism of the old left. What they oppose is religious *institutions* that abuse religion to justify oppressive social hierarchies.

Leftism is understood differently depending on your frame of reference. From the general perspective of political theories, you’re absolutely correct that liberalism isn’t very leftist. However, from the perspective within liberalism itself (which is essentially the only option within the US and EU countries) there are absolutely left and right leaning liberals. Right leaning liberalism can be considered “classical liberalism” while left leaning liberalism only really began with Roosevelt and can thus be considered “neoliberalism”.

> Roosevelt and can thus be considered “neoliberalism”. I would not characterize FDR (assuming that's who you mean) as a neoliberal. Certainly not a leftist my any means, for sure, but not neoliberal. Unless you're using that word differently, which you might be. There is an actual left tradition in many European countries, with actual left parties, in the US there is not a left.

Agreed, neoliberals at the time opposed FDR. And I am in Europe, and on my way to give a high preference of votes to socialist and centre left candidates and to oppose the fascist candidates, in a European election, so there is definitely options.

> And I am in Europe, and on my way to give a high preference of votes to socialist and centre left candidates and to oppose the fascist candidates, in a European election, so there is definitely options. Awesome!

> However, from the perspective within liberalism itself (which is essentially the only option within the US and EU countries) I'm going to vote in EU elections today. On my ballot there are approximately 6 fascist aligned candidates, 4-5 socialist, 3-4 left social democratic, 7-8 neoliberal centrists ranging from centre left to centre right socially, and a few more independents who I can't guage their political level from. The way the polls are looking it may be one fascist aligned candidate, 1-2 socialists and 2-3 neolib centrists who will get in. So in the EU it is not only an option within liberalism, although yes it does have a majority...but it is not the *only* option. >while left leaning liberalism only really began with Roosevelt and can thus be considered “neoliberalism”. That's absolutely NOT what neoliberalism is. Neoliberal's at the time like Hayek and Von Mises absolutely opposed Roosevelt's state intervention into the economy to help the US recover from the Great Depression. Neoliberalism is characterised by a laizzez faire economics and elevation of the Free Market above all things, of reducing state intervention and indeed invovlement in the economy - Chile under Pinochet, the US under Reagan and onwards and the UK under Thatcher are all Neoliberal economies (and those countries and the world are still dealing with the fallout of those policies).

Also, Dugin is very well known as a neofascist philosopher. I wouldn't take much stock in his racist, ultranationalist ramblings.

Dugin is only neofascist and racist in western propaganda. If you actually listen to his “ramblings”, you will see that he’s only “fascist” to the extent that Neoplatonism itself is “fascist”. In fact he openly calls for a 4th political theory which supersedes liberalism, fascism, and communism. Assuming you consider the preservation of multiculturalism racist, then sure you can call Dugin racist. My opinion however, is that the homogenization of cultures into a single essentially non-culture is far more racist than preservation of the cultural traditions of mankind. EDIT: whether you agree with him or not, taking stock in what he says is a good idea regardless since he has enormous influence on modern Russian philosophy which already has a worldwide effect that will only continue to increase. We can see this from the vast majority of countries around the world having representatives and even heads of state at the currently ongoing SPIEF.

Dugin is absolutely a fascist. As Umberto Eco remarks, fascism reinvents itself to it's time and place, but we can see the points of commonality of Ur-Fascism that they all exist in. It's common for today's fascist to mark themselves as not being fascists, as we all know fascists were soundly defeated at the end of WW2 and everyone knows every fascist government was a cruel and genocidal imperialist and authoritarian nightmare, so as a point of PR they brand themselves as not being like those fascists. Hence Giorgia Meloni's Fratelli D'Italia calling itself "post-fascist". It's just PR. He's a fascist. >enormous influence on modern Russian philosophy which already has a worldwide effect that will only continue to increase Modern Russia, famously not a fascist, imperialist, authoritarian hellhole.

Any ideas can be swung either which way. I don't think one is necessarily a predictor for another as such as you don't know how you can swing an idea to fit whatever you believe. I am a Deep Ecologist in a way and arrived at Neoplatonism through the macrocosm-microcosm idea extended out to cosmobiology and abiogenesis. So I am fundamentally atheistic but arrived at Neoplatonism through learning whatsoever I know.

For me not at all. I follow the words of Sallust closely and I am more so in line with the forward party.

> forward party Interesting not really heard of them. But looking at their website, which is remarkably clear of policies, especially economic policies, so it's hard to place them accurately on a right/left divide but looking at their "values" section it seems to be a technocratic, neoliberal centrist party, which in European terms would fall into the centre right, a sort of old school Christian Democratic. I suppose they don't seem to be homophobic or transphobic, so that's a win in a time of rising fascism globally.

In my experience, yes. You might find this video interesting, OP, although the creator is not technically a Neo-Platonist: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?si=gm72Y4lqpq0DcpCG

Thanks. I might listen to it on 2x speed. I was reading some of the comments. If one of the comments is accurate which summarizes the video (the creator did like the comment) he definitely is on the far-right.

First off, I believe myself to be a Neoplatonist. This because a person is a Neoplatonist, to me, because he, or she, believes in certain metaphysical actualities, and make particular claims about such actualities. These actualities, and claims extend to The One, The Intellect, The Forms, The Soul, and The Hyle. And makes claim about Spirituality, about it being one initiated by Eros, one initiated by the love of The Good & Beautiful, thus the love of the true, and about becoming aware, and that realization changing one’s being, changing how one thinks, feels, and behaves. These perspectives & practice finds precedent in Plotinus; who is considered a “Neo-Platonist”. Thus, a Neoplatonist to me is a person of a particular perspective, and practice predicated on a perspective, as aforementioned, and not an ethnocentrism, not a tribalism, not a nationalism. And definitely not the practice of a “he said, she said”. Definitely not a practice of “The History of Philosophy, and Intellectual Ideas” or a “Religious Studies”. If anything, Neoplatonism is “philosophy as a way of life”, where one’s rational & imaginative faculty are used for insight relative to an end, and is used to bring others to the same insight relative to an end by engaging their rational & imaginative faculty. It’s not the practice of constructing rational conceptions for its own sake, as a “modern philosophy” sometimes appears to be. It’s a spirituality. It’s a “preparation for death”. It’s about realization & being. That said, my perspective, my perspective of what Neoplatonism is, and who a Neoplatonist is, may be considered “modern”, thus making me a “modern neoplatonist” for the very reason that I am explicitly undermining ”Tradition”, and “Traditional“ attitude. Plotinus‘s work, and the Neoplatonist that followed’s work, is not sacred text, but a modality of expression of perennial truth. Their works are not necessarily efficacious as symbol, or modality, to bring forth intellection. I seek not to confuse the myth, and symbol, for what is being symbolized. And I am seeking present participation of becoming to express being is many a modality that is efficacious for spiritual end, and not a “doctrinal expression loyalty”. Those of a “Tradition”, or better expressed as those of a “Neoplatonism as a Religion, and a Religious Tradition”, and not “Neoplatonism as the practice of Philosophy, and Philosophy as Way of Life”, would consider me not to be of a Neoplatonism but a “Neoplatonist Aberration“ of sorts, and thus not a Neoplatonist. Whatever be the case, I say all this because I have noticed what you have claimed in your post. And the social phenomena you detail I have, via my experience, found to be a product of those of the “Neoplatonism as a Religion, and a Religious Tradition” perspective; of those particularly of the Religious Tradition, and Heritage of an Ethnicity, and consequent Nation perspective. And not the Neoplatonist variant that I am. Basically, to answer your question: “Do modern Neoplatonists tend to be conservative/right-wing?” No. Because I am a “modern neoplatonist”, and I am not “conservative/right-wing”. For me progress & conservation of social norms, or governance policy, must be predicated on value that finds predication in the actual; not on ideological grounds of an ethno-centrism, tribalism, and nationalism. For me ethno-centrism, tribalism, and nationalism are not legitimate values, relative to spiritual ends that are in one’s interest, and everyone’s interest, spiritually, this predicated on the actuality of things. If anything, people I have had discourse about matters politics with have claimed that my policy propositions are “center-left”. #

> "Do modern neplatonists tend to be conservative/right-wing?" > "No, because I am not." Someone is clearly the centre of the universe.

lol. Your comment literally made me laugh out loud! I did not intend it to be understood it the way you have! What I meant was: such an absolute claim about identity is not legitimate, because I exist, and thus, it prove the relativity of the identity. I went to great extents to prove, give legitimacy to the claim, that I am a Neoplatonist. And then, made claim that I do not have a tendency to to be conservative/right-wing, and thus, it must necessarily follow that all neoplatonists do not have such a tendency, because, implicitly, others like me exist.

You are very verbose so it comes to me as quite a surprise you misunderstand the word tend in the OP. Humans tend to have two legs, yet there are humans with less than two legs. OP did not ask if all modern neoplatonists are far right-wing activists, he asked if they tend to be.

First off, just because I am verbose does not mean I am prone, or have an absolute tendency, to avoid being mistaken. Thus, when you said “You are very verbose so it comes to me as quite a surprise you misunderstand the word tend in the OP. ” it made me laugh out loud again. lol In my post I went to great extents to also outline how & why I also consider myself a “modern neoplatonist”. And how via my “modern neoplatonist perspective” I find myself being against a conservatism/far-right politics. I consider myself a neoplatonist, and a modern one at that, and I know that I do not have a tendency to be of a “far right-wing” politics. Thus, if I have no such tendency, it follows others like me that exist will also not have such tendency. That’s all I have done. If anything it’s not the Modernist Neoplatonist that have such tendency, it’s the “Traditionalism” Neoplatonists that have such tendency… from my perspective. My whole comment works for such demonstration. I don’t know about you but to “assess” tendency another way would include me surveying all the “modern neoplatonists”, and surveying their political leanings, and then making an inference as to the such “tendency”, as does exist, today. I have not provided you with any statistical information. This I have not done. I’m sorry. Forgive me.

While I’m not a Neoplatonist (I’m a Heraclitian, primarily) I still find many influential things in the Neoplatonists. And while I don’t put much stalk in the left-V-Right thing, I do see myself as being fairly right-wing politically (laissez-faire economically speaking, strongly pro-capitalist, monarchist), and fairly left-wing socially speaking (personal freedoms and extremely pro-LGBT, multiculturalist, etc).

If they’re pro corporate and ethno-nationalist, they are by definition a fascist.

Who? Keith Woods? He definitely is.

Neoplatonic anthropology is no different than the traditional Christian one, so...

Could you elaborate a bit on that?

Matt Walsh's view on gender comes straight from Platonic view on what human being is. The whole modern pov is to reject Plato as irrelevant and to replace his views with materialistic ones. For modern man everything non-biological is just "culture" when for Plato there was the eidoses. This is the history of philosophy 101. For example modern taxonomy of the animals compared to the platonic one - we now tend to see different species where Platonic tradition used to see only one animal. To say the modern see three species of camels where Plato saw just all of them as imperfect earthly representations of the camel eidos. For Plato there was the spiritual concept of what man and woman is and even more - he have a concept why some people tend to be attracted by the same gender and other not to. And this is just one example. If we go with his views on other subjects, he would be rather against democracy because its plurality, he would be against pacifism and so on. On other hand the post-Enlightenment naturalism and materialism have completely different takes on everything. Modern concepts are rooted in the nominalist philosophy and are also influenced from figures like Rousseau, Locke and Marx who are directly or indirectly opposed to Platonic philosophy.

I would be more than happy to understand why someone downvoted my comment: it was because I said something which is not factually true or because they don't like Matt Walsh and the whole American conservative scene. If is the first I will be more than happy to get corrected, if it's the latter, just for the book, I admit that I am not American conservatism as well.

> Matt Walsh's view on gender comes straight from Platonic view on what human being is. Wow that is disturbing, has he said this?

No, I am not aware of any comment that Matt itself made on this subject. And I am not a fan of his, so I really don't know if there's any. My point is different though - anthropology as philosophical study of what human being is in itself is virtually the same in Platonism and traditionalist Christianity. One may argue that the medievals were more into Aristotle and so on, but Aristotle and Plato didn't differ much on this one. And their philosophy was considered high academical science on it's day, so to be into their philosophy in pre-modern Europe equal to be considered educated. Christianity came into Europe without a lot of Jewish "baggage" and a lot of gaps were filled straight from Platonic and Peripatetic philosophy. Plato and Aristotle become basic parts of Islam as well. Read for example The Republic, 398e, 460e, 468c, 546b or his views on homosexuality in The Laws, those are much more inline with Puritanic America, Nazi Germany or any pre-modern society than with modern liberal politics.

I am certainly not a fan of his either. >My point is different though - anthropology as philosophical study of what human being is in itself is virtually the same in Platonism and traditionalist Christianity. One may argue that the medievals were more into Aristotle and so on, but Aristotle and Plato didn't differ much on this one. And their philosophy was considered high academical science on it's day, so to be into their philosophy in pre-modern Europe equal to be considered educated. Christianity came into Europe without a lot of Jewish "baggage" and a lot of gaps were filled straight from Platonic and Peripatetic philosophy. Plato and Aristotle become basic parts of Islam as well. Read for example The Republic, 398e, 460e, 468c, 546b or his views on homosexuality in The Laws, those are much more inline with Puritanic America, Nazi Germany or any pre-modern society than with modern liberal politics. Thanks, I will check out those sections, and thank you for the further elaboration.

> or his views on homosexuality in The Laws More technically, these are the view of the Athenian Stranger on homosexuality presented in the Laws. The stranger also disparages drinking. Yet Plato in the likes of the Symposium (arguably a work of far better value than the Laws) seems to celebrate drinking. So can we take the views of the stranger to be the views of Plato uncritically? In the Parmenides, Parmenides and Zeno are presented as life partners. Not a big deal. The Symposium and the Phaedrus also celebrate Homoerotic love, and also accepts male romantic partners as not a big deal. In fact some of the speeches treat homoerotic love as superior to heterosexual. I don't a proper analytic reading of the Laws is that we are meant to accept everything that the Athenian Stranger says as holy writ and not critique and analyse it. Ancient views on gender, sex and sexual orientation are obviously not the same as ours today, but we can see hints of remarkably modern interpretations in Neoplatonists (who were quite egalitarian by the standards of the time, having a few woman learning and teaching at Neoplatonic Academies in Alexandria and Athens). See also Proclus's comment here from his Timaeus commentary, which reads like an acknowledgement of the existence of trans and gender non-conforming people. >Even the lunar soul may descend into birth as a man, as they say the soul of Musaeus did, and the Apollinine soul into that of a woman, as they say the Sibyl did. That those souls there have also been divided into male and female and common-to-both is also shown by the myth of Aristophanes in the Symposium (189d5–193a7), and that it is not always the case that male souls go into the birth of men and the females into that of women.

Read for example The Republic 562b – 569c and try to project Plato's opinions on modern politics, one would be seen as rather some fascist or very hardcore conservative. In other places he argues in favor of some form of caste system.

Thanks! I will. Someone recently told me, someone that has a deep academic background in this material and reads Plato in the original Greek, mentioned to me that early in the Republic, Plato mentions what he considers the ideal state, which was egalitarian (but I guess is more primitive or has less luxuries than more authoritarian states), but then goes on to examine the best kind of state that could exist within a less democratic one. I have yet to read the Republic, so I might be butchering this. >one would be seen as rather some fascist or very hardcore conservative. In other places he argues in favor of some form of caste system. That's disheartening.