The dialogue takes place the day after Socrates described his ideal state. In Plato's works such a discussion occurs in the Republic. Socrates feels that his description of the ideal state wasn't sufficient for the purposes of entertainment and that "I would be glad to hear some account of it engaging in transactions with other states" . Hermocrates wishes to oblige Socrates and mentions that Critias knows just the account to do so. Critias proceeds to tell the story of Solon's journey to Egypt where he hears the story of Atlantis, and how Athens used to be an ideal state that subsequently waged war against Atlantis . Critias believes that he is getting ahead of himself, and mentions that Timaeus will tell part of the account from the origin of the universe to man.
Thanks for uploading these! Your page is the only one where I've been able to find Pierre Grimes' videos in whole -- as opposed to split up into parts. This is much easier to watch. Cheers!
I have an A/A in Philosophy and what iv'e found out since iv'e been reading and writing Philosophy out of school on my own, is that their is not enough time in the College and University time frame to cover the most important concepts of Philosophy. I have learned far more on my own independent study than in any College. Study as much on your own as possible. Just saying.
@@rickypettiford6535 Thanks for your comment. I had no previous contact w/ Philosophy before being accepted into college, and I'm still quite clueless about the whole damn thing, but slowly the things are making sense. Reading philosophy, while still very difficult for me, has become noticeably easier over the past few months, mainly through grinding and repetition until I get it - not sure if that's the right way to do it, but that's the way I've found lol. I still need a bit of discipline in order to study by myself in a consistent basis, but baby steps I guess.
Metaphysical Realism: Reality = That which is. The smallest atomic unit of subjective experience is the impression. The three elements of an impression: 1. Sense perception - modality 2. Qualities of perception - submodalities 3. Qualities or 'driving' submodalities that change our inner state of Being as they change. It is the nature of the all-inclusive One without a second or Absolute to 'Serve' as the Infinite, Eternal Continuum of Being that functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse. Soul = Integrated Psyche (Heart, Mind, Will). When the Heart aspires, The Mind inquires and the Will conspires (combines). That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential), and thus is the one all-inclusive Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself. Love is the recognition of our shared Being. Because the potential for actualization is Infinite, the actualization of potential is Eternal - only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity. The rhythm of Life is a movement and a rest. The optimum (Heaven), is always found somewhere between the extremes of too much and too little (hell). Core Self = That which is/That I am - being aware of being aware. Essential Self = What I am - predelictions, talents, aptitudes, etc. Social Self = Who I am - identities, roles, personas. Creative Intelligence is omnipresent. Nearer than hands and feet. Potential = Being = Infinite Actual = Becoming = Eternal We are not a drop in the ocean, we are the ocean in a drop. Whatever appears as separate and opposite is in Reality - Continuum. Being aware of being aware is unmodulated by the 5 senses, thus unfettered, which is the resonant frequency most in alignment with the frequency of the all-inclusive Absolute where all things are possible (Wisdom and Understanding). Ultimately, our most significant choice in Life is between unconscious compulsive reaction and conscious creative response. Namaste'.
The One is unbounded, but by merely speaking about The One we are binding it. "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."
Can you talk about infinity as "one"? If there is one infinity, then its finite? one must add just a little bit more to itself all the time to be infinite? So you cannot tell its ONE, because as you say that its more than itself if its infinite all the time (and when i talk about that this infinity is more than itself, its actually something different than the actual infinity that is already more than the one i talked about, and on and on)
Yes, which is why The One or The Good nothing can actually be said about fundamentally and even their names have to be done away with which I believe is said in Parmenides
Su contenido profundiza esencialmente en tres problemas: el cosmogónico, sobre el origen del universo el físico, sobre la estructura de la materia y el antropológico, sobre la naturaleza humana. Por eso las Ideas que existían en el Siglo VI, V, IV, III AC ya existían, Cristobal Colón no afirmó que el era el autor de la Esfericidad de la Tierra o del resto de los Planetas, los planteos existían antes de Cristo. Socrates Platón y Aristoteles son los mejores Pensadores de la Historia Universal. Pregunto ¿Qué hubiese pasado pasado si Socrates, Platón y Aristoteles hubiesen Nacido en el año 2000 DC? o si con una Maquina del Tiempo los harian tranferir al año 2000? Pasaria que sus Teorías estarian plasmadas en los Inventos del siglo XX-XXI. Todos los inventos o creaciones seguramente partieron a travez de las Ideas de esos 3 Filosofos. No encuentro diferencias por ejemplo entre Platon y Hegel o de Aristoteles con Marx, las Teorias son identicas solamente que cambian el orden de los Significados, Cambian los Conceptos. Por ejemplo Marx Habla de que El Universo es Materia, y lo mismo decía Aristoteles, tambien hablaba de la Materia, de la Realidad y la Forma de las Cosas. El Origen del Universo de Platón es el mismo Origen del Universo planteado en el siglo XX- XXI solamente que cambian el orden de los Conceptos, no hay nada de diferente entre Platón y Hegel o de Aristoteles con Marx por ejemplo. Lo que pasa es que no tenían la Tecnología del Siglo XXI , porque antes no existía el Bombilla Electrica o las Computadoras
like for example explaining why the universe was and is made, if the universe is a condition that is explaining why would include for what cause, because of some cause this condition has happened? any feedback would be great thanks for the amazing video!
in the book Timaeus, if your read carefully it is stated the cause! the disposition of God is to have all. And part of all to be had is to be recognized as if externally, hence come creation (God created mind). The second creation comes because God is good, so his creation must be good like him, and to be good must be free of gealousy, so God authorized the mind to creat as well, so that it wont be gealous of his master, and be offered all that is needed to be good and all thats to be avoided not to be bad. Mind created a representative. the issue was then that Mind has to keep his master's word and have the representative to be good, which entailed two things: first to make the representative recognize his creator's creator, and the second is to authorize him to create as well. On and on till you and I was created and been told to recognize our creator's creater, and was auhorized to creat literature, machines and kids. On hope we keep everyhing good as well.
Muchas preguntas tradicionales de la filosofía pueden ser entendidas como preguntas de ontología: ¿Dios existe? ¿Existen entidades mentales, como ideas y pensamientos? ¿Existen entidades abstractas, como los números? ¿Existen los universales?
El video alude a la Obra de Platón el Timeo, y tambien podemos ver que el Profesor explica siguiendo un Patrón similar a los Años 70, por lo tanto la Clase se entiende y los estudiantes formulan preguntas de la Clase 70. Es una Clase Positivista se entiende la Clase y es mejor que la Clase de la Profesora Menemista Sleibe, por la Clase puedo pagar 40.000= Dolares por Clase porque se entiende la Clase, no se puede pagar dinero a Profesores de Sistema, Edi, Instituciones Escolares, Curriculum y seguir derrochando plata en esas Ruinas
wouldn't cause be before condition? before any condition their must be a reason and before their is a reason their is a cause for that reason if their isn't a cause for a reason, the reason seems pointless? great video though!
If you haven't found out - this is Pierre Grimes, (recently deceased), probably the finest Platonist of the past few hundred years. He was the founder of the Noetic Society and you can find all of his lectures on their youtube page. I would recommend the playlist with 115 lectures in it; it's brilliant.
Primera Pregunta ¿Cual es el Origen de la Materia? ¿que procesos intervienen para su creación? ¿Puede el Azar crear algo o por Generación Espontanea? Surge también el Concepto de Evolución de la Materia de las cosas Πρώτη ερώτηση Ποια είναι η προέλευση της ύλης; Ποιες διαδικασίες παρεμβαίνουν για τη δημιουργία του; Μπορεί να δημιουργήσει κάτι ή με αυθόρμητη γενιά; Η έννοια της Εξέλιξης του Υλικού των πραγμάτων προκύπτει επίσης o ¿Qué es el Espacio Tiempo? tales Ideas tienen el Origen en el Siglo de Oro de la Filosofía Griega, solamente que el resto de los Filosofos toman las Ideas de los otros y crean otras Tesis o Teorías y algunas sirven solo para confundir al resto
The video alludes to the Work of Plato the Timaeus, and we can also see that the Professor explains following a pattern similar to the 70s, therefore the Class is understood and the students ask questions of Class 70. It is a Positivist Class understands the Class and is better than the Class of Professor Menemista Sleibe, for the Class I can pay 40,000 = Dollars per Class because the Class is understood, you can not pay money to System Teachers, Edi, School Institutions, Curriculum and continue wasting Silver in those Ruins
I find this whole thing to be insulting. I've gone over all of the dialogues, and in no case ( other than the 7th letter) do I see any evidence that Plato had anything to do with the dialogues. He is reading too much into them. "Timaeus" is one man's explanation for the creation of the universe, that man's name was Timaeus. Plato did not write that. The dialogues are not hard to understand, they are real conversation that were had by real men. Stop reading so much into them and take them for what they are. How can a serious man give credit to Plato for the story of Atlantis, after it was so well laid out where the story came from? Plato is the most overrated man in the history of man. Socrates was the true philosopher of the dialogues.
I would agree with you about the earlier dialogues. Plato is a great story teller and it appears the idea of perfect forms is his baby, not Socrates. But, it is impossible to know.
+Griffin Evans I don't think so. from everything that I have looked at, Socrates is the philosopher, not Plato. Even up to the moments before his death, he was preaching about a perfect place where the soul came from. A place where the soul knows all knowledge. According to him, when we gain knowledge, we are actually recalling knowledge that we have forgotten. That was the reason for the constant questioning. The questioning was supposed to help his counterpart deliver that which was in him. That's why he called himself a "midwife". I cannot find a dividing line, a place where I can separate Plato from Socrates. It is either one or the other. I believe it is Socrates.
+Gunnerfan I found this video more as an exposition of Platonism, not Plato. The distinction may seem trivial, but Pierre's reference to the commentary on Timaeus by Proclus clearly places this video as part of a discourse on the Platonic tradition, which includes a litany of thinkers who interpreted Plato a specific way. Platonism, rendered as a proper noun, may refer to not only the philosophy of Plato but also to philosophical systems considered closely derived from it, i.e. the ideas of Proclus, Plotinus, Porphryr, Iamblichus, etc. It's clear that Pierre is an exponent of this lineage, and the very thorough exegesis of Plato's dialogues in this video tacitly implements critical notions taken from these key thinkers. He is borrowing ideas from not only Plato, but other notable philosophers within the Platonic tradition. Is there too much being read into these works? Maybe, but there is a long-standing tradition of it that goes back thousands of years. It's on par for the course, what did you expect? As to whether or not Plato came up with Timaeus' account of cosmology, I'm afraid that is of little importance, and an extract from another Platonist will elucidate why: "Nothing, perhaps, is less worthy or more calculated to distract the mind from points of real importance than this very question of temporal origin, which, when we have taken all pains to satisfy and remember, leaves us no wiser in reality than we were before. What signifies it, for instance, that we attribute dialogues to Plato, or trace oracles to Zoroaster, or the Cabbalah to Moses, the Eleusinian mysteries to Orpheus, ; while we are profoundly ignorant of the nature and true beginning of any one of these things, and observe not how truth, being everywhere eternal, does there always originate where it is understood? .....We have seen in our history that the Greeks were not ignorant of the Hermetic Art, which they with their metaphysics (so far indeed as such things may be borrowed which pertain to reason) from the Egyptians and Persians, whose temples were visited by nearly every philosopher of note." It doesn't really matter who wrote them. The tradition of Platonism isn't about a guy named Plato, it's about the truth content of the dialogues attributed to a man named Plato, who could in reality be a guy named Larry Anderson. It would make little difference in the end who wrote it, it's what was written that Platonists find profound and therefore worth expending considerable effort into thoroughly analyzing.
+Eldremore Theodd That's a mouth full. I get your point, and would agree with it, if I thought there was something about cosmology in the dialogue. I don't think that the dialogue has anything to do with cosmology. Timias's payback to Socrates for the Republic is simply his belief on the origin of things. You wouldn't find any more cosmology in that dialogue that you would find in the Book of Genesis. I am a researcher/Explorer, I've spent the better part (9 years) of the last decade mapping that which most people think is a myth. Critias's pay back to Socrates is the story of Atlantis, Atlantis is a true story. Very very little of it is untrue. Hopefully I will complete my work in the next 24 months or so, and the world could see what it is that I'm trying to tell you. I have heard all sorts of explanation given to try to explain what Critias is all about, but the truth is, he was only telling a story that was handed down to him. There's nothing special about it.It is just what it is. My work will shed a different light on the so-called "dialogues of Plato". Timias and Critias were not meant to be philosophical, they were supposed to be historical. In other words, Socrates got history in exchange for philosophy.
This seems like a self-contradictory statement that you made:" I don't think that the dialogue has anything to do with cosmology. Timias's payback to Socrates for the Republic is simply his belief on the origin of things." Cosmology is about the origin of things: how (or maybe why) the Universe or a universe came into existence.
Just how any yoga does. By gaining insight into the nature of reality. Ultimate reality. So if by knowledge you mean the manifest world then ya it's not for you. It's a spiritual practice.
although very compssionate nice old man, but doesnt use dailectic logic to analyse the work in hand. This is greek philosophy explained by someones who dont believe in greek philosophy. The room decoration tells what he believes in.
It blows my mind there are only 100 likes to this...Regardless, to whoever posted all these lectures by this professor: holy shit!!!! Thank you
The dialogue takes place the day after Socrates described his ideal state. In Plato's works such a discussion occurs in the Republic. Socrates feels that his description of the ideal state wasn't sufficient for the purposes of entertainment and that "I would be glad to hear some account of it engaging in transactions with other states" .
Hermocrates wishes to oblige Socrates and mentions that Critias knows just the account to do so. Critias proceeds to tell the story of Solon's journey to Egypt where he hears the story of Atlantis, and how Athens used to be an ideal state that subsequently waged war against Atlantis . Critias believes that he is getting ahead of himself, and mentions that Timaeus will tell part of the account from the origin of the universe to man.
thank you very much for posting, very special dialogue of his
Thank you very much for this video as it is truly wonderful
Thanks for uploading these! Your page is the only one where I've been able to find Pierre Grimes' videos in whole -- as opposed to split up into parts. This is much easier to watch. Cheers!
+thundermaggie182 Thanks. I downloaded all the ones I could find and put them back together.
Good diction, pause and presentation, a professor of the first water. Clarification brings knowledge into being.
Much thanks for these!!! Great
Great discussion, thanks!
Philosophy freshman here: this is (quite literally) saving my ass right now. This video is amazing.
I have an A/A in Philosophy and what iv'e found out since iv'e been reading and writing Philosophy out of school on my own, is that their is not enough time in the College and University time frame to cover the most important concepts of Philosophy. I have learned far more on my own independent study than in any College. Study as much on your own as possible. Just saying.
@@rickypettiford6535 Thanks for your comment. I had no previous contact w/ Philosophy before being accepted into college, and I'm still quite clueless about the whole damn thing, but slowly the things are making sense. Reading philosophy, while still very difficult for me, has become noticeably easier over the past few months, mainly through grinding and repetition until I get it - not sure if that's the right way to do it, but that's the way I've found lol.
I still need a bit of discipline in order to study by myself in a consistent basis, but baby steps I guess.
@Akil I'm already employed sweetie and I'll have no issues with finding a new job when push comes to shove.
this lecture was so good thank you so much
thank you, very interesting, just discovered Timaeus. also subscribed, looks interesting.
Thank you
thank you for the video
great, thanks
Metaphysical Realism:
Reality = That which is.
The smallest atomic unit of subjective experience is the impression.
The three elements of an impression:
1. Sense perception - modality
2. Qualities of perception - submodalities
3. Qualities or 'driving' submodalities that change our inner state of Being as they change.
It is the nature of the all-inclusive One without a second or Absolute to 'Serve' as the Infinite, Eternal Continuum of Being that functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse.
Soul = Integrated Psyche (Heart, Mind, Will).
When the Heart aspires, The Mind inquires and the Will conspires (combines).
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential), and thus is the one all-inclusive Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself.
Love is the recognition of our shared Being.
Because the potential for actualization is Infinite, the actualization of potential is Eternal - only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
The rhythm of Life is a movement and a rest. The optimum (Heaven), is always found somewhere between the extremes of too much and too little (hell).
Core Self = That which is/That I am - being aware of being aware.
Essential Self = What I am - predelictions, talents, aptitudes, etc.
Social Self = Who I am - identities, roles, personas.
Creative Intelligence is omnipresent. Nearer than hands and feet.
Potential = Being = Infinite
Actual = Becoming = Eternal
We are not a drop in the ocean, we are the ocean in a drop.
Whatever appears as separate and opposite is in Reality - Continuum.
Being aware of being aware is unmodulated by the 5 senses, thus unfettered, which is the resonant frequency most in alignment with the frequency of the all-inclusive Absolute where all things are possible (Wisdom and Understanding).
Ultimately, our most significant choice in Life is between unconscious compulsive reaction and conscious creative response.
Namaste'.
Very good the professor
The One is unbounded, but by merely speaking about The One we are binding it.
"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name."
Thank you for all your posting of Pierre's talks. How long have you been study with Pierre and with Noetic Society?
We are living in the post Cartesian world. Look how he lives inside that blackboard, referring to the projected symbols -- AND NOT THE FORMS.
this comment made me laugh!
@@wildeirishpoet , me too...
Being is also a manifestation/presence
A soul in a body changes
It has needs
Comment to help the algorithm
Can you talk about infinity as "one"? If there is one infinity, then its finite? one must add just a little bit more to itself all the time to be infinite? So you cannot tell its ONE, because as you say that its more than itself if its infinite all the time (and when i talk about that this infinity is more than itself, its actually something different than the actual infinity that is already more than the one i talked about, and on and on)
Yes, which is why The One or The Good nothing can actually be said about fundamentally and even their names have to be done away with which I believe is said in Parmenides
Su contenido profundiza esencialmente en tres problemas:
el cosmogónico, sobre el origen del universo
el físico, sobre la estructura de la materia
y el antropológico, sobre la naturaleza humana.
Por eso las Ideas que existían en el Siglo VI, V, IV, III AC ya existían, Cristobal Colón no afirmó que el era el autor de la Esfericidad de la Tierra o del resto de los Planetas, los planteos existían antes de Cristo. Socrates Platón y Aristoteles son los mejores Pensadores de la Historia Universal. Pregunto ¿Qué hubiese pasado pasado si Socrates, Platón y Aristoteles hubiesen Nacido en el año 2000 DC? o si con una Maquina del Tiempo los harian tranferir al año 2000? Pasaria que sus Teorías estarian plasmadas en los Inventos del siglo XX-XXI. Todos los inventos o creaciones seguramente partieron a travez de las Ideas de esos 3 Filosofos. No encuentro diferencias por ejemplo entre Platon y Hegel o de Aristoteles con Marx, las Teorias son identicas solamente que cambian el orden de los Significados, Cambian los Conceptos. Por ejemplo Marx Habla de que El Universo es Materia, y lo mismo decía Aristoteles, tambien hablaba de la Materia, de la Realidad y la Forma de las Cosas.
El Origen del Universo de Platón es el mismo Origen del Universo planteado en el siglo XX- XXI solamente que cambian el orden de los Conceptos, no hay nada de diferente entre Platón y Hegel o de Aristoteles con Marx por ejemplo. Lo que pasa es que no tenían la Tecnología del Siglo XXI , porque antes no existía el Bombilla Electrica o las Computadoras
like for example explaining why the universe was and is made, if the universe is a condition that is explaining why would include for what cause, because of some cause this condition has happened? any feedback would be great thanks for the amazing video!
in the book Timaeus, if your read carefully it is stated the cause!
the disposition of God is to have all. And part of all to be had is to be recognized as if externally, hence come creation (God created mind). The second creation comes because God is good, so his creation must be good like him, and to be good must be free of gealousy, so God authorized the mind to creat as well, so that it wont be gealous of his master, and be offered all that is needed to be good and all thats to be avoided not to be bad. Mind created a representative. the issue was then that Mind has to keep his master's word and have the representative to be good, which entailed two things: first to make the representative recognize his creator's creator, and the second is to authorize him to create as well.
On and on till you and I was created and been told to recognize our creator's creater, and was auhorized to creat literature, machines and kids. On hope we keep everyhing good as well.
From there the bases for all
A soul can be without a body
A body can be without a soul, in which case it is a zombie - an animated but soul-less body. Pretty scary.
Muchas preguntas tradicionales de la filosofía pueden ser entendidas como preguntas de ontología: ¿Dios existe? ¿Existen entidades mentales, como ideas y pensamientos? ¿Existen entidades abstractas, como los números? ¿Existen los universales?
That is memory
:O
El video alude a la Obra de Platón el Timeo, y tambien podemos ver que el Profesor explica siguiendo un Patrón similar a los Años 70, por lo tanto la Clase se entiende y los estudiantes formulan preguntas de la Clase 70. Es una Clase Positivista se entiende la Clase y es mejor que la Clase de la Profesora Menemista Sleibe, por la Clase puedo pagar 40.000= Dolares por Clase porque se entiende la Clase, no se puede pagar dinero a Profesores de Sistema, Edi, Instituciones Escolares, Curriculum y seguir derrochando plata en esas Ruinas
Is spirit
3.19.22
wouldn't cause be before condition? before any condition their must be a reason and before their is a reason their is a cause for that reason if their isn't a cause for a reason, the reason seems pointless? great video though!
There was a reason before the condition but he wasnt interested in that. It went too far back
28:30
Who is the wonderful lecturer?
If you haven't found out - this is Pierre Grimes, (recently deceased), probably the finest Platonist of the past few hundred years.
He was the founder of the Noetic Society and you can find all of his lectures on their youtube page.
I would recommend the playlist with 115 lectures in it; it's brilliant.
Primera Pregunta
¿Cual es el Origen de la Materia?
¿que procesos intervienen para su creación?
¿Puede el Azar crear algo o por Generación Espontanea?
Surge también el Concepto de Evolución de la Materia de las cosas
Πρώτη ερώτηση
Ποια είναι η προέλευση της ύλης;
Ποιες διαδικασίες παρεμβαίνουν για τη δημιουργία του;
Μπορεί να δημιουργήσει κάτι ή με αυθόρμητη γενιά;
Η έννοια της Εξέλιξης του Υλικού των πραγμάτων προκύπτει επίσης
o ¿Qué es el Espacio Tiempo? tales Ideas tienen el Origen en el Siglo de Oro de la Filosofía Griega, solamente que el resto de los Filosofos toman las Ideas de los otros y crean otras Tesis o Teorías y algunas sirven solo para confundir al resto
One part is here the other not
For most people
The video alludes to the Work of Plato the Timaeus, and we can also see that the Professor explains following a pattern similar to the 70s, therefore the Class is understood and the students ask questions of Class 70. It is a Positivist Class understands the Class and is better than the Class of Professor Menemista Sleibe, for the Class I can pay 40,000 = Dollars per Class because the Class is understood, you can not pay money to System Teachers, Edi, School Institutions, Curriculum and continue wasting Silver in those Ruins
All with logos
Fire earth water wind
29:00 people can't comprehend that all definitions are defined lel
0:42:02 marking where i stopped
Analogy
Fisikous
Is the ousia
Meta fisikis
This is ionic school
Timaeus 63 c,d,e = Isaac Newton plagiarized.
unless it is mentioned and we do not know it, like it happened with Copernicus
Pi
Is en on
In greek
Omg this is boring
I find this whole thing to be insulting. I've gone over all of the dialogues, and in no case ( other than the 7th letter) do I see any evidence that Plato had anything to do with the dialogues.
He is reading too much into them. "Timaeus" is one man's explanation for the creation of the universe, that man's name was Timaeus. Plato did not write that.
The dialogues are not hard to understand, they are real conversation that were had by real men. Stop reading so much into them and take them for what they are.
How can a serious man give credit to Plato for the story of
Atlantis, after it was so well laid out where the story came from?
Plato is the most overrated man in the history of man. Socrates was the true philosopher of the dialogues.
I would agree with you about the earlier dialogues. Plato is a great story teller and it appears the idea of perfect forms is his baby, not Socrates. But, it is impossible to know.
+Griffin Evans I don't think so. from everything that I have looked at, Socrates is the philosopher, not Plato.
Even up to the moments before his death, he was preaching about a perfect place where the soul came from. A place where the soul knows all knowledge.
According to him, when we gain knowledge, we are actually recalling knowledge that we have forgotten.
That was the reason for the constant questioning. The questioning was supposed to help his counterpart deliver that which was in him. That's why he called himself a "midwife".
I cannot find a dividing line, a place where I can separate Plato from Socrates. It is either one or the other. I believe it is Socrates.
+Gunnerfan I found this video more as an exposition of Platonism, not Plato. The distinction may seem trivial, but Pierre's reference to the commentary on Timaeus by Proclus clearly places this video as part of a discourse on the Platonic tradition, which includes a litany of thinkers who interpreted Plato a specific way. Platonism, rendered as a proper noun, may refer to not only the philosophy of Plato but also to philosophical systems considered closely derived from it, i.e. the ideas of Proclus, Plotinus, Porphryr, Iamblichus, etc. It's clear that Pierre is an exponent of this lineage, and the very thorough exegesis of Plato's dialogues in this video tacitly implements critical notions taken from these key thinkers. He is borrowing ideas from not only Plato, but other notable philosophers within the Platonic tradition. Is there too much being read into these works? Maybe, but there is a long-standing tradition of it that goes back thousands of years. It's on par for the course, what did you expect?
As to whether or not Plato came up with Timaeus' account of cosmology, I'm afraid that is of little importance, and an extract from another Platonist will elucidate why:
"Nothing, perhaps, is less worthy or more calculated to distract the mind from points of real importance than this very question of temporal origin, which, when we have taken all pains to satisfy and remember, leaves us no wiser in reality than we were before. What signifies it, for instance, that we attribute dialogues to Plato, or trace oracles to Zoroaster, or the Cabbalah to Moses, the Eleusinian mysteries to Orpheus, ; while we are profoundly ignorant of the nature and true beginning of any one of these things, and observe not how truth, being everywhere eternal, does there always originate where it is understood? .....We have seen in our history that the Greeks were not ignorant of the Hermetic Art, which they with their metaphysics (so far indeed as
such things may be borrowed which pertain to reason) from the Egyptians and Persians, whose temples were
visited by nearly every philosopher of note."
It doesn't really matter who wrote them. The tradition of Platonism isn't about a guy named Plato, it's about the truth content of the dialogues attributed to a man named Plato, who could in reality be a guy named Larry Anderson. It would make little difference in the end who wrote it, it's what was written that Platonists find profound and therefore worth expending considerable effort into thoroughly analyzing.
+Eldremore Theodd That's a mouth full. I get your point, and would agree with it, if I thought there was something about cosmology in the dialogue.
I don't think that the dialogue has anything to do with cosmology. Timias's payback to Socrates for the Republic is simply his belief on the origin of things. You wouldn't find any more cosmology in that dialogue that you would find in the Book of Genesis.
I am a researcher/Explorer, I've spent the better part (9 years) of the last decade mapping that which most people think is a myth. Critias's pay back to Socrates is the story of Atlantis, Atlantis is a true story. Very very little of it is untrue. Hopefully I will complete my work in the next 24 months or so, and the world could see what it is that I'm trying to tell you.
I have heard all sorts of explanation given to try to explain what Critias is all about, but the truth is, he was only telling a story that was handed down to him. There's nothing special about it.It is just what it is. My work will shed a different light on the so-called "dialogues of Plato".
Timias and Critias were not meant to be philosophical, they were supposed to be historical. In other words, Socrates got history in exchange for philosophy.
This seems like a self-contradictory statement that you made:" I don't think that the dialogue has anything to do with cosmology. Timias's payback to Socrates for the Republic is simply his belief on the origin of things." Cosmology is about the origin of things: how (or maybe why) the Universe or a universe came into existence.
Absolute tedium. How could this process impart knowledge at all. Better off looking at a paragraph on your own, without this convoluted mess.
Just how any yoga does. By gaining insight into the nature of reality. Ultimate reality. So if by knowledge you mean the manifest world then ya it's not for you. It's a spiritual practice.
although very compssionate nice old man, but doesnt use dailectic logic to analyse the work in hand.
This is greek philosophy explained by someones who dont believe in greek philosophy. The room decoration tells what he believes in.