Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Roots of My Platonism, or Neo-Platonism, or Neo-Platonic Christianity, or As You Will

Roots of My Platonism, or Neo-Platonism, or Neo-Platonic Christianity, or As You Will

Last updated on: January 10, 2019 at 10:29 pm by John Mark N. Reynolds

Roots of My Platonism, or Neo-Platonism, or Neo-Platonic Christianity, or As You Will 2019-01-10T22:29:24-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I am a Christian because of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I am a Platonist because the ideas of Plato supplement and explain best those areas not directly dealt with in revelation. If I call myself a neo-Platonist, or sort of Platonist, it is partly because Plato is famously hard to understand. There may be as many “Platonisms” as there are Platonists!

Perhaps nobody should be so cocky as to call themselves a Platonist, but instead should be called “neo-Platonist” as a result of our misunderstandings of his greatness and complexity. We try to understand what is difficult and all of us get it a bit wrong. Some thinkers that are very great, think Plotinus, may get Plato wrong, while meaning to exegete him, but are (almost as) interesting! The misunderstandings of a genius can be brilliant.

The rest of us must do the best we can to follow Jesus and make sense of difficult philosophy. Our mistakes are not so interesting as those of Plotinus, but they are our own and those who love us will be find them endearing. The rest will hopefully judge with charity!

I am Platonist (of a sort), because I believe best arguments point to:

The reality of numbers
The reality of ideas (less certainly)
The existence of immaterial mind (consciousness) as fundamental.
The reality of the physical world (as dependent on Mind)
The innate knowledge possessed by each human about certain ideas and numbers.
The relationship between virtue and knowledge.

These are ideas that are compatible and even suggested by Christian revelation, but are spelled out in Plato as I read him. My reading is influenced by my prior intellectual decisions and the most basic is Christianity.

I am not a Christian Platonist, but a Platonic Christian! I find Christianity most persuasive and Plato’s ideas helpful as well, but the Platonism (hopefully!) modifies the Christianity and not the Christianity the Platonism.

Since Plato lived hundreds of years before Jesus, I cannot merely be a Platonist, so I think of myself as a neo-Platonist.

Second, Plato got some things right, but made some errors too. For example, Plato was right to see a connection between knowledge and moral virtue. He was wrong, however, when he asserted that if we knew (really knew!) a moral truth, then we always would obey that truth. I agree with Aristotle and the Bible that this is wrong and so (like Aristotle) would modify Plato’s belief. At the very least, we can have a weak will (in a case like addictive behavior) and so be unable to do what we wish to do or know to do. I cannot, then, be a mere Platonist!

Recently I received a letter asking me the roots of my particular Platonic Christianity. With permission, here is what the person asked:

You convinced me a few years ago that, roughly, Neoplatonism is the best philosophical framework available. However, as I have slowly investigated it, I have come to realize that you have a minority reading of Plato. Now, I do agree with your reading and think, for example, that Platonism doesn’t entail the nonreality of the physical world around me. However, I am wondering: which tradition does your reading come from, and why is it the minority view? Are Descartes and Quine responsible for what I would consider a misreading of Plato? Or is it an older problem that goes back to possibly Plotinus?

There has never been a moment that Plato has been understood one way. Aristotle “misreads” him badly! The main misreadings I have encountered have been Christian misunderstandings (“Plato hates the body.”) that began in looking for a bogey man for problems in the culture. Academically Karl Popper abuses Plato badly. Gregory Vlastos and some in the analytic tradition strip mined Plato’s texts for interesting ideas (to them) and often found interesting ideas. As guides to Plato, they fall short.

I dissent from many contemporary Plato scholars by arguing:

(in a meaningful sense) Plato thought science can be done and was a father of science
Plato believed (in a meaningful sense) that the material world is “real.”
Plato was not writing about a city that he wished to see constructed in Republic, but presenting a “city in words,” a sim-city to help his readers “see” justice.
Plato’s view of the soul is a unified whole over the course of his canon.

The last idea, about Plato’s psychology, is the subject of my book Toward a Unified Platonic Human Psychology and I will say not more about it. For the rest, I am part of a long tradition that goes back to the earliest Church fathers. What are the (fairly) contemporary roots of my ideas, if one wishes to hold them? I have pictured them as a stack of books, with the most important on the bottom. CS Lewis has had a unique influence of my thinking, so his Abolition of Man is pictured separately.

AE Taylor is the twentieth century scholar that grounds my approach to Plato, though less my approach to Christianity. In his magisterial Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, he deals with the text responsibly and allows ancient pagan and Christian commentary to inform his understanding. While I do not agree with this particular thesis about Timaeus, his ability to work as a first-rank Plato scholar while keeping his Christian faith openly in dialog with the philosopher is fascinating. He is a modern example of a long tradition of Platonic Christian thought and he did some excellent work as an apologist (Does God Exist?)! Taylor has a robust reading of Plato that avoids the errors of making Plato a foe of science or every variety of an open society. His Plato is less dogmatic in the particulars of application of his views while holding strongly to certain ideas.

CS Lewis is a contemporary to Taylor and another example of Platonic Christian thought. With JRR Tolkien, Lewis captured the creative or literary elements of Plato in addition to his philosophical commitments. They say that how an argument was made in Plato, the sound, was as important as what was said. There is a Platonic way of writing that makes use of dialog, story telling, and argument that can be freshly applied to any generation. Lewis, in particular, advances a neo-Platonic argument against the Abolition of Man that applies Plato to the last one hundred years of intellectual history with great insight.

Lewis was the first Platonist I read.

Alfred Geier taught me how to approach the text as a teacher. As a student of Leo Strauss there is some “Straussian” influence as well in my thinking, particularly in Republic.* Geier lets the text speak and tries to listen apart from dogmatic ideas about “what Plato said.” Does Plato assert a “theory of forms?” Probably, but Geier would not let you start with this idea and move back to the text. Instead, he urged us to read the text with great care and an open mind.

My debt to him in regards to Plato is incalculable.**

When getting permission to publish my response to this person, the thinker replied:

A second follow up question, if you think it’s worthy of including, is why do you consider yourself a Neoplatonist rather than a Platonist? It seems like you are closer to Plato than you are to any of the later philosophers.

That is my hope. I have found Plato himself (as I have tried to get to him) much more accessible (as Lewis notes of all great authors) and more interesting than most of those who write about him. Have I found Plato? I doubt it. The text is too profound, too complex, too great for such surety. Instead, I have found a good task for the rest of my life: reading Plato with fresh thinking!

Let’s go read Republic!

—————————————

*Warning: whatever it is to be Straussian in the wholistic sense, I am not.

Strauss, Professor Geier noted from his time with him, had a tendency to “guruism”- Opining on everything as if his readings settled issues.

Strauss loved the text and that needed to be recovered, especially in philosophy, where the analytic tradition could have (worthwhile) classes about Plato that had very little to do with Plato’s texts. For example, some would pick arguments out of the text (as they found them) and then work on making those arguments better or showing how they worked. Before long, the arguments and the discussion were about iterations of the (maybe) Platonic argument far removed from Plato himself. Those are great discussions, but there was great value in discussing the text itself.

In his respect for the text, I build on Strauss, but in my hatred of guruism and holding all ideas reasonably, but tentatively (faith!) I am a Geier man.

** I am only talking here about the roots of my Platonism, not my broader philosophy. Great teachers like Bassinger and Modrak deeply shaped how I do philosophy and many ideas I hold, but not my Platonism to the degree of those mentioned here.

Summary:

Read AE Taylor, Alfred Geier, some Leo Strauss (The City and Man), CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and a collection like the fine one by Dominic J. O’Meara (Neoplatonism and Christian Thought).

On Books

On Education

Previous Post

January 9, 2019

The Fall of Gondolin (JRR Tolkien, edited by Christopher Tolkien)

Next Post

January 11, 2019 The Next Step in Education or Beyond Authorial Intent: A Pause for a Fine Phrase (James A. Emanuel)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

The Old Testament prophet Joel spoke of "wonders in the heavens and the earth, blood, fire, and pillars of smoke before the great and terrible day of the Lord." (Joel 2:30) Which one of the disciples quoted him in the book of Acts?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter James Andrew John

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »