I can't tell if you really agreed with John Russon, John, when he said that there isn't anything particularly otherworldly or mystical in Plato, or if you were being agreeable. It is obviously a wrong view. There are particularly mystical, transcendent, otherworldly, or spiritual elements in Plato's writings. Plato's worldview is deeply mystical, does speak of a transcendent realm, and does teach how to know it. John Russon then goes on to say that the whole point of doing philosophy is to appreciate better, more honestly, the reality that we are experiencing or dealing with now, rather than going to another world. Right, but appreciating more fully this human experience we are having now does naturally lead to an awareness of a higher reality that is more real than this one but that isn't separate from this one, and to an awareness of our deeper, spiritual nature, and thus our deeper relationship to the world and to each other, and to the deeper springs of meaning and happiness available to us. It seems here that he doesn't like the transcendent or mystical elements in Plato, and wants to limit Plato's realm of meaning to ordinary, everyday human experience (much like the Buddhists do), and this because he believes that acknowledging such a reality would lead people to turn away from this world, which would lead to problematic outcomes. Fair enough. While I share his concern, I disagree with what seems to be his solution: ignore the particularly transcendent in Plato; pretend that Plato doesn't teach of a higher world, or that the human soul is higher than the animal body, etc. You don't have Plato without this, and cannot understand what Plato is really saying without this. Let's take a moment to think about NDEs. Here are some of the things that are commonly reported: an experience of a higher realm that is more real than this one; greater lucidity than ever experienced before; spiritual intuition and higher knowledge ; spiritual kin and familiars; a divine being/beings of Goodness and Love; life review and understanding one's current life within the context of reincarnation, and so on. Many of the things these folks report can be found in Plato (and I think that Plato even has a passage describing what appears to be a NDE, if I'm not mistaken. At the very least, it is consistent with many other NDE reports). Additionally, the transformation in their mode of being also fits the picture, or is consistent with the transformation that really practicing philosophy can, and does aim to bring. It seems to me that both the experiences of the mystics and the mystical philosophers (Plato, Plotinus, Parmenides, Empedocles, etc.), and those who have NDEs point to the existence of the transcendent. Converging lines of evidence. Furthermore, I think that looking at the spiritual exercises of the mystical philosophers (what they regard as central to actually doing philosophy), the methods and practices they teach as means of attaining to higher being and knowing, can be better understood in light of NDEs. Think about it. Plato and Plotinus, specifically, teach the importance of weakening the attachment to the body for the sake of higher knowing and being. Plato even goes so far as to characterize philosophy as a sort of training for dying. As much as people don't like this idea, it is there in both of their writings. Well, so what happens during an NDE? A weakening of the bond between soul and body that is greater than in any other instance besides true death! And what is often experienced? Higher knowing and being. The pattern is clear. Now, while it is true that some of these folks come back and experience depression and unhappiness and even commit suicide because they wish to go back to the realm they experienced rather than be here, it seems that many, if not most, come back with a greater appreciation for this life, in the same way that many, if not most, who have mystical or spiritual or religious experiences report the same, that is, report improvements in overall happiness, well-being, meaning in life, and so on. My point in digressing into this topic is, mainly, to argue that the experience of the transcendent is actually beneficial for human life, and seems to be for many people a necessary ingredient for living a happy and meaningful embodied life in this planet. I feel this very strongly, and see Plato as a beacon of light in this regard, which is why I have taken the time to type all of this out in response to the apparent brushing aside of the transcendent or otherworldly in Plato that I saw in this video.
Really enjoy these conversations. Wish I had a better brain. Somehow I don’t see mysticism as an escape from this world but more as a personal awakening to and acknowledging of the (already present) sacred within it all. For me it helps as I work to more genuinely live here on this planet in these difficult times.
Some sinologica, if I may: ´Knowledge´ => "arrow-mouth" (知, like in 知道, lit.: "know[ing-the]-way"); ´Wisdom´ => "arrow-mouth-sun" (智, like in 智慧, taken as a rebus, something like: "enlightened knowledge, gained by the >dusting of the heart with a broom
This was absolute Peak Vervaeke. Top-tier conversation. I was trying to draw at first but had to abandon that and start taking notes. John Russon has a beautiful way of describing these things, and it would have been a transformative experience to take his class in real life if it was anything like this! Thank you for this.
Fantastic! I wish I had encountered this perspective on philosophy a long time ago. As I begin to wade into the depths of the tradition, starting late, I feel like this intersection of dialogue and phenomenology - or what John V is calling the "musicality of intelligibility" is a wonderful way to introduce the importance of this practice of inquiry to any individual human life.
"I think there is a natural human desire to do metaphysics." This conversation was such a delight but this particular statement was such a wonderful comment to hear as further exemplification for me of so much of the value coming out of the academy over the past 20 or so years and explicitly as it relates to your work, John, that is pointing in the direction of (re)emphasizing this lost idea.
Thank you for this amazing conversation, John. Hearing the idea that phenomenology can provide a rigorous method of understanding Plato was extremely insightful. I am currently working through After Socrates while reading John’s trilogy in conjunction with the Platonic dialogues. I can sense myself beginning to transcend into the (life)forms in me and around me. It would be wonderful to see John back on Voices with Vervaeke!
I discovered AFTMC series about a year ago, this conversation really sums up the effect of continuing on with Voices with Vervaeke, etc has had. Once the trail towards the "real" starts, or maybe after enough of the material undercuts or has the effect of dissipating previous beliefs (romanticism being a big one in my case), a transformation inevitably starts happening. Into the stream...? Picking up on more, connecting more. Very grateful! All videos lately have hit a really rich stride...you can sense the music!
Another delicious episode. Powerful, practical. Eager to explore your guest’s online content. So grateful for Voices with Vervaeke & these fun introductions to fascinating thinkers.
John has mentioned Russon so many times in his Meaning Crisis series. Haven't had the opportunity to delve into his work yet, but I certainly will. Also subscribed and will attend to his RU-vid lectures. Thank you for sharing
Awesome episode. Ill echo another commenter in that I revisit constantly Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Its such a treasured series to me. Thank you so much for your work!
John or Vervaeke community, is there a long form written treatment of the 'ways of knowing' taxonomy (perspectival, procedural, propositional, participatory) spoken of many a time here on this channel? I use it a lot and would like to know more.
39:01 “theres nothibg particularly other worldly in Plato..”. Socrates literally says that The Good is over and above Being. And his partner says, “what a miraculous transcendence.” Because it means that the Good doesn’t depend on Being to be. For, as I see it, the Good, is another way to refer to The One in the Parmenides. Where to be purely One, or absolutely one, is to be independent is it not? And so not in any comparative relational context for its identity, what ever it is.
Yes and for precisely that reason it is not another world, it is not a substance nor a thing. It has no determination because it is the source of all determination. I would argue that thinking of it as another world, different substance, or super thing are all mistakes. That is what I meant by otherworldly. The One is the deepest reality of the one world.
