14) Plato's "Parmenides" 

That's great. What would you say is Parmenides explanation for why we experience motion and change?

Interesting point - sounds pretty Pythagorean!

@@saltech3444 Really thanks, this interpretation is helping me solving the puzzle.

True. Oneness can come in many forms, but because oneness in essence is so divided (like matter) it doesn't really mean that everything being one matters at all. You can categorize everything as having come from the Big Bang, but what significance does that actually hold?

it is fair to say u wont understand any philosopher post plato without reading him. u dont have to but you'd save urself alot of reading if u just read plato. most of the questions we discuss today from stated by plato. most of academic work (focused on epistemology) start from platos dialog's.

It's certainly true that any text must be placed in context to be understood, but I get a bit nervous when we drift too terribly far from taking the text at face value. This is a big issue for reading Plato, whose use of irony always has us guessing what is earnest and what is ironic. To that end, I've got a very different reading of Sophist than your comment is suggesting. The evidence throughout a wide range of dialogues for Socrates/Plato's antipathy towards sophists and sophistry is pretty difficult to overlook. Perhaps a more plausible reading of the aporia in Sophist is that it is exceedingly difficult to pin down the distinction between a philosopher and a sophist (rather than reading Socrates as a secret sophist).

The apparent antipathy towards Sophists is only part of the game. My conviction is based on a deciphering of Sophist allegory, which I could not have done this without the assistance provided by Plato's works. Allusions to Plato's writings are found throughout the Sophist created Gospels. For example, the name Plato is said to mean "wide" so the phrase "...wide is the gate..." is a reference to Plato. (Plato's works are metaphorically a "gate" since they aid in the interpretation of allegory.) In Plato's Theaetetus, there is this comment by Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.” This comment was certainly the inspiration for Mark 4:10-12: "When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" Then there is the link between the Sophist and the "Angler" in Plato's Sophist that suggests that Sophists are "fishers of men". The Messianic Secret is also an attempt to portray Christ as a Sophist attempting to conceal his identity. Even the "tradition" of Veronica of the Veil serves as an admission that the "true image" of Christ is a "veil". Plato's Ion provides an archetype for Philo who is identified as "John" the Apostle in the Gospels. And "tradition" again links John to Ion's home town of Ephesus. (Towns serve as metaphors.) Also, the literal context that Plato provides is that he is simply the recorder of Socrates conversations with others. To give Plato any status as a great philosopher is to ignore the literal context. I would consider this a significant drift away from the face value since it is assigning greatness to a scribe. I believe that this effort to transfer Socrates ideas to Plato was guided by Sophists who knew that Socrates never really contributed to Plato's work. I am sure that you will disagree with my approach, but the next time you find something in your work that does not make sense, consider this context.

@@warrensmith8161 It is suspected that Plato was using Socrates as a narrative device and not so much as a source. You've hedged there, hitting him for both possibilities. You are also twisting your entire argument to fit an attack on Christianity, so you aren't exactly judging Plato on the merits. At the time of the Council of Nicea, the attendees were certainly very influenced by Plato and Platonism, as well as the development of Middle Platonism. To say that Plato is diminished by the association is to put the cart before the horse. If anything, Christianity was bolstered by the incorporation and was able to use Plato and Aristotle to adapt over time. Do not mistake 19th and 20th century Catholic philosophy for what came before. The current Church is handcuffed to a 13th century outlook due to the Aeterni Patris. It could even be said that without Christianity, Plato and Aristotle would not have survived. Throw in Islam and it is almost irrefutable. Plato and Aristotle are then what drove the Renaissance.....literally. How is that a black mark?

​@@KaiTakApproach In Plato’s Theaetetus, the Sophist Protagoras is described this way: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.” And in Mark 4:10-12 Christ is portrayed this way: When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" I don't care how others explain this "parallel". For me, the portrayal of Christ as following Protagoras' practice was intended as a deliberate allusion designed to identify Christianity as a Sophist veil. I also consider the story of Veronica of the Veil as a parable which confirms that the "true image" of Christ is a veil. I would say that without Sophism, there would be no Christianity.

@@warrensmith8161 If you really don't care what other facts or arguments are then you aren't a philosopher. You are a person of your own brand of faith. Do you have your own construct or are you just focused on attacking that of others?