Plato: Misconceptions and attempts at clarification...

So, I saw this one girl on another sub—won't say who, because she already said she’s bowing out of the debate and I don't want to look like I'm chasing her down—but she was posting some stuff about Plato. And man, it wasn't just wrong... it actually hit on those super common misconceptions that people always fall for. Honestly? It kind of bugged me. So, I'm gonna try to clear the air and set the record straight here.

Look, Christians didn't just "hijack" Plato's teachings just to twist them around to fit a Christian vibe. That's not how it went down.
Honestly? I feel like Christian doctrine is basically just Plato's teachings all over again.
So, who's actually to blame here?
Honestly, looking at some of Plato's work... man, you'd almost think the guy was a Christian or something. It’s wild how much he sounds like he belongs in a church instead of ancient Greece.
Or maybe just Christians who act like they’re some kind of modern-day Plato with their preaching?
Honestly, it’s kind of wild how much Plato shares with the Catholic Church and pretty much every other major religion out there. They’re all basically running on the exact same core ideas that form the backbone of their entire philosophies. It's all connected.

So, according to Plato, this whole physical world we're living in? It's basically just a blurry, low-res copy of these perfect, flawless ideas.
To Christians, this whole world is basically just a rehearsal for eternal life.

So, what even are "perfect ideas"? Like, where do they actually live? What do they look like? Where do they even come from?? Seriously, I've been spiraling on this lately.
Plato just doesn't get it, man. Seriously. And yet he built his entire philosophy around it, acting like those ideas actually exist in the real world!

Christians are always pushing this idea that eternal life is just... guaranteed. Like, it’s this absolute constant. But honestly? Where exactly is this "eternal life" supposed to be? And what does it even look like? I mean, seriously, what are we talking about here?

Honestly, you can't deny how much Plato and Christians actually have in common. It's pretty wild when you think about it.

Catholicism basically boils down to Faith.

I believe in one God—the one who created the heavens and the earth, everything you can see and everything you can't.
So, Christianity: basically just one God, the creator of everything you can see and everything you can't.

Look, when you’re reading Plato, you really have to keep track of what’s myth and what’s actually logic—the *logos*. It’s honestly not that hard to tell them apart, though. He basically leaves enough breadcrumbs every single time he switches over to that mythical storytelling mode. But whatever, that's not even my point right now. Even if we ignore that distinction entirely, it's still super easy to show how this whole thesis just doesn't hold up.
So, looking at Plato, he’s got this whole crowd of gods popping up everywhere. He doesn't actually go out of his way to call a spade a spade and reject polytheism—he just kind of pushes back against certain parts of it.
Second thing—and this is actually the big one—is that the Demiurge, you know, that creator god from the *Timaeus* myth? He’s definitely NOT some "creator of everything visible and invisible." That whole distinction between what we can see versus what we can think about... yeah, that’s totally Platonic. But here’s the kicker: those things that are "thinkable"—the Ideas—they weren't actually created by God. They aren't "made" at all; they're eternal. Like, they just *are*. And the Demiurge isn't some all-powerful being acting on pure whim, either. He creates by following the blueprint of those Ideas. So, if you think about it, the status of those Ideas is way higher than the status of the Demiurge himself.

Look, Plato and Christianity? They aren't even on the same page. Like, at all. Unless you're one of those people who just loves being cozy in the dark and wants to call every single cow black just to feel right.

So, here's the deal with Christianity: it all boils down to believing in one Savior, this historical figure named Jesus, who’s the only Son of God. Basically, having that faith is the one and only requirement to save your soul. It's everything. You don't need anything else, but honestly, nothing less is gonna cut it either.

Honestly, you can't get any further from Plato than that. He isn't looking for some kind of blind faith; he’s all about actual knowledge. And let's be real—no historical figure could ever truly embody the Highest Good. History is just a collection of things that don't last forever, right? But the Highest Good? That's eternal. It's the Idea of the Good.

So, basically, there’s zero Christianity to be found in Plato—and honestly, why would there be? For him, faith isn't really the point, God as some sort of creator isn't his thing, and the whole idea of a historical figure stepping in as a "savior"? Yeah, that just wouldn't fly with his philosophy.

So, how did Platonic ideas even end up inside Christianity in the first place? It’s actually kind of wild when you think about it. Basically, as the Christian faith started moving out from its Jewish roots and spreading through the Roman-Hellenistic world, it ran right into Platonism, which was pretty much the heavyweight philosophy ruling everything back then. But here's the kicker: even back then, "Platonism" wasn't exactly pure Plato. It had already been filtered through so many layers over four centuries. You could say Saint Augustine was the one who really cooked up that specific blend of Platonism and Christianity—that was basically the gateway. But let's be real, that’s more like "Augustinian" philosophy than anything directly from Plato. Plus, everyone knows the guy didn't even speak Greek! He couldn't have read Plato himself if he tried. All that Platonic stuff he leaned on was just Plotinus's take, passed down through some third or fourth-hand version of the truth.

Later on, Christianity found a philosophy that felt a lot more relatable through Aristotelianism (even if people totally butchered the interpretation back then). The Christian Platonists—think guys like Dionysius the Areopagite or Nicholas of Cusa—have always been flagged for being way too mystical, sometimes even getting labeled as heretics.

But wait, let's dig deeper: does Plato actually advocate for just checking out of worldly affairs and waiting around for some afterlife? I mean, really? This is a guy who dedicated his biggest works to organizing the state right here on Earth. Isn't he the one who insists those who reach the highest truths have to head "back into the cave"? And wasn't he the guy who traveled to Sicily three separate times, trying to make his visions a reality in the real world, only to end up being sold into slavery because of it? He spent his entire life teaching his fellow Americans, bringing together the most brilliant scientists of his era at his Academy.
The whole idea that Plato’s "world of ideas" is the only thing that matters, and that we should basically ignore this physical world, is just plain wrong. For Plato, the absolute core is MEDIATION—being that bridge between the heavenly and the earthly, the realm of thought and the realm of sight. It's about being like a plant with roots in heaven, but still growing right here in our world.

So, basically, Plato splits everything into two camps: the stuff we can actually see—you know, "things"—and the stuff we just think about, which he calls "ideas." The visible world? It's always shifting and changing constantly. But the realm of ideas? That stays exactly the same. Always.

So, what even are "perfect ideas"? Like, where do they actually live? What do they look like? And honestly... where do they come from?
I mean, Plato honestly has no clue, yet he builds his entire philosophy around the idea that those concepts actually exist in reality! Like, come on.

So I toss a pebble up in the air, right? It spins around somehow and then just hits the ground. Then I throw another one. Next thing I know, I’m watching a leaf drift down—totally different vibe. And the Moon? Well, that isn't exactly falling. But rain? Rain falls. Is there actually some kind of pattern here? Because from what I can see, everything just looks... well, all over the place. Like, based on what's actually happening right in front of me, it's just pure chaos.
But seriously, we all know there’s something that stays EXACTLY THE SAME in all those scenarios. It’s the same natural law—and I get it, it looks like we're dealing with a bunch of totally DIFFERENT things if you just glance at them, but if you actually stop to THINK about it, you see that there's a natural law at work here that is ALWAYS THE SAME.

But seriously, where even is this "natural law" supposed to be? Is it just some random thought floating around in our heads? Give me something real—something I can actually touch and feel!
So, does that "natural law" even exist when nothing is actually falling?
Look, bottom line—whether I toss a pebble or not, the law of universal gravitation isn't changing. It’s just... there. But where exactly is it?

Seriously, ideas like that? Based on totally made-up, fake concepts? It’s honestly insane. It feels like we’ve set human civilization back thousands of years!
People just stopped asking what's actually real anymore. Like, what's factual? What can we actually touch, taste, or see for ourselves? It's like everyone just gave up on trying to figure that out.
People finally started believing.
They didn't give a single damn about empirical proof.
It feels like everyone’s just out here living in a total fantasy world lately. Honestly? It's like imaginary stuff and fake beliefs have completely taken over everything.

Honestly, it feels like we hit a wall. Like, at that exact moment, civilization just... stopped leveling up when it comes to actual scientific breakthroughs and big-time achievements. Everything just stalled out.
Man, it’s like all those old-school philosophers who actually tried to explain how stuff works using real, hard facts just... got totally lost in the shuffle. Their ideas? Basically buried.

Even Plato was one of those guys who "suppressed" things.

So, everyone knows that legendary sign hanging over the entrance to Plato’s Academy: "Let no one ignorant of mathematics enter here." It's wild to think about, but seriously—some of the absolute heavyweights of that era actually walked through those doors to learn. I'm talking about the legends, like Eudoxus and even the one-and-only Euclid. Total icons.
So, everyone knows that modern physics is basically just math-heavy physics—totally different from that old-school Aristotelian vibe we used to deal with. This whole shift actually started with those Renaissance Neoplatonists, especially Kepler. And honestly? It’s wild to think that Newton straight-up used Kepler’s laws to build his own law of universal gravitation.
You can totally see that Keplerian Platonic vibe if you check out this article Wolfgang Pauli wrote called "The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on Kepler's Scientific Theories." He was actually the guy who won the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, by the way. It’s all featured in that piece published in C. G. Jung and W. Pauli's "Interpretation of Nature and Psyche."
So, check this out—one of the heavy hitters from the early 1900s, A. N. Whitehead (you know, the guy who co-wrote that massive *Principia Mathematica* with B. Russell), had this wild take on Plato. He basically said that all Western philosophy is just a bunch of messy notes scribbled in the margins of Plato's dialogues. Like, seriously. To him, Platonism wasn't just some school of thought; it was pretty much synonymous with philosophy itself. Pretty intense, right?
So, I was reading about C. von Weizsäcker—he was Heisenberg’s long-time student and right-hand man, a total heavyweight in physics. Honestly, he’s one of those guys who actually got me hooked on philosophy. Seriously, if you can find a copy of his *Unity of Nature*, you HAVE to read it. There’s an old American edition floating around from back in the eighties that’s gold. Anyway, regarding how he viewed quantum physics, he said something pretty wild: "I quickly realized I couldn't REALLY wrap my head around quantum physics without first grasping Kant's philosophy. And then, I couldn't grasp Kant without understanding Aristotle. And then, I couldn't get Aristotle without Plato. It wasn't until I reached Plato that I finally felt like I was standing on solid ground."

So, like, Plato was part of that whole metaphysics crowd, right? And honestly, they’re basically the polar opposite of those materialist philosophers. I mean, if those guys were around today, they’d probably be out there trying to study the world through nothing but hard facts and actual science. Total opposites, seriously.

So, you've got philosophers like Democritus and his successor Epicurus hanging in the mix too.

So, basically, Plato just wants to explain the world however it fits his own narrative, right? Like, he’s just making stuff up and throwing out assumptions about how things "ought" to be, just because that's what he thinks makes sense. It feels like he's trying to make sense of everything by using these totally unexplainable mechanisms. Total reach.

So Simplicus is basically saying (check out fr. 38) that Democritus laid everything out by using fullness and emptiness as his starting points—calling one "being" and the other "non-being." He pretty much treats atoms like the actual physical matter of a body, then just builds everything else based on how those things shift around.

So, if you think the whole "everything is just tiny little particles" vibe from Democritus is the gold standard for science, honestly? That's kind of a naive way to look at what natural science actually is. I mean, sure, that mindset totally worked for 19th-century chemistry and physics. But for 20th-century physics? Yeah, not even close. Total fail. Relativity and quantum mechanics basically blew that entire worldview out of the water—the whole idea that we're just dealing with separate little bits bumping into each other in an empty void is just... dead wrong.
So, first off, Relativity basically just nuked the whole idea that matter is permanent. Like, atoms aren't even "solid" anymore. Not only can these particles just swap identities—meaning nothing is truly "elementary"—but they can actually just vanish. Poof. Annihilate. They turn into something totally non-material, like pure light or whatever. It's wild.
Then quantum physics comes along and just completely wrecks the whole idea of a "particle" being this solid, localized little chunk of mass with set physical traits. Like, the whole concept just falls apart. Because that "particle"? Turns out it's also a wave. Honestly, it’s easy to just shrug and be like, "So what?" and move on. But if you actually try to wrap your head around it, the problem becomes super obvious: something can't really be both a wave and a particle at the exact same time. Two particles can't just pass right through each other, but two waves totally can. Waves interfere with one another—particles don't. Waves diffract—particles don't. You know, all that stuff. And look, nobody is seriously claiming that light or an electron is *simultaneously* a wave and a particle. It's more like... depending on how you run the experiment, light (or an electron) acts more like a wave in some cases and more like a particle in others. So yeah, we're definitely not dealing with those tiny Democritean pebbles anyone used to imagine.
So, here’s the thing—based on how we look at physics today, there's no such thing as a truly "stable" elementary particle. Like, none of them. Every single one has this specific lifespan where it's just gonna decay. And it's not even because something from the outside is messing with it, you know? No. It just happens. On its own.
The second half of Democritus’s whole atom/void ontology isn't doing any better than the first. I mean, come on. "Vacuum" is basically just massive zero-point energy. You've got these virtual particles popping in and out of existence constantly—I honestly don't know what Democritus would even make of that! Under the right conditions, they actually become real. In that sense, "emptiness" is even less of a thing than his tiny little particles.

So, what actually *is* light? Or an electron—or really any other elementary particle for that matter? It can show up acting one way or another, but what’s the deal at its core? Honestly, it’s just a collection of values we assign to specific variables within conservation laws. Particles aren't "things" in the way we think; they're basically just a string of properties expressed through numbers. These traits have absolutely zero connection to anything you can see, hear, touch, or taste. You can only grasp them through pure thought. To highlight how totally untouchable these properties are, physicists give them these bizarre names; like, elementary particles supposedly have "charm," "color," "flavor," or even "beauty"... And yeah, none of that has anything to do with what those words actually mean in real life. It's all just a bunch of arbitrary quantum numbers.

So, basically, that whole idea of Democritean particles being "hard" stuff? It’s been totally swapped out for nothing but raw numbers and symmetries. There was this one contemporary of Democritus who didn't even see the foundations of nature as solid little bits of matter—to him, it was all about specific symmetries and mathematical ratios. He was the same guy who famously put that sign over his Academy entrance: "Let no one enter who does not know mathematics." Honestly, if you look at any modern physics lab today, they could probably hang that exact same sign on their front door.
Nowadays, we don't really look at the foundation of nature as anything VISIBLE anymore—it's all about what's THINKABLE. Honestly, modern physics feels way more aligned with the Platonic spirit than anything Democritean.

Just because most people never move past that flawed Bohr model of the atom they get stuck with in seventh grade doesn't mean it's actually true. There aren't some little balls spinning around each other. I mean, why even teach kids this nonsense when everyone knows it's wrong? You can't find a rational reason for it. But hey, there are plenty of irrational ones—maybe I'll write something about that later.

W. Pauli, winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, says:
''In contrast to this strictly empirical view where you can only rightfully derive natural laws from experimental data, a lot of physicists lately have been pointing out again that intuition and where you direct your focus play a massive role in developing concepts and ideas—usually way more than just raw experience. Honestly, you need that stuff to actually build a system of natural laws (you know, a scientific theory). Looking at it from this non-purely-empirical perspective, which we also lean towards, you gotta ask: what's the actual nature of the bridge between what we sense and the concepts we hold? Anyone who respects logic has pretty much hit a wall realizing that pure logic alone is totally incapable of building that connection. It feels like the best move here is to assume there’s some kind of cosmic order that exists regardless of what we choose and is distinct from the world of appearances. Whether someone talks about 'natural things participating in ideas' or 'the behavior of metaphysical things'—meaning those things that are real in their own right—the claim still stands that there's a link between sensory perception and the idea itself. And that's true even though both the observer's soul and the thing being observed are subject to one single order that we think is objective.
Any half-baked attempt to grasp that order leads to statements that either deal with the world of appearances or try to transcend them by using these broad 'idealistic' logical terms. The whole process of understanding nature—and yeah, the happiness a person feels doing it, like that rush you get when you finally wrap your head around new knowledge—seems to be based on a match. It’s like an alignment between those 'inner images' already living in the human soul and the external objects and how they mimic them. This way of interpreting scientific knowledge goes all the way back to Plato, and Kepler is a huge advocate for it. (...)''

mistyfox812:

Nowadays, we don't look at the foundation of nature through what is VISIBLE, but rather through what is THINKABLE. Modern physics actually aligns much more closely with the Platonic spirit than anything Democritean.

👋 👋 👋

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics...

And you? You deserve a special award for this absolute masterpiece of yours. 😘

Hey there!!

How long did you actually spend typing this whole thing out??
There isn't a single thing you haven't tried to twist here.

It’s going to take me a few days just to work through my responses to everything you've said.

Honestly, I would have just walked away from this entire debate (the one we started regarding Faith—is it just a viral mental illness?) if you hadn't come back and grabbed me by the throat with this mess you've posted here.
I really wouldn't want people to walk away thinking your little essay is some kind of sacred scripture. Because it absolutely isn't.

Just glancing over this quickly, I can already see how many things you conveniently ignored and how incredibly biased your stances were while you were busy writing this.

You mention Plato at one point and his attempts to organize the state.

But you completely fail to mention what that state of his was actually supposed to look like.
Why didn't you bother to mention that Plato believed the souls of slaves were worthless, or that he viewed the female soul as being more material and tied to the body, whereas the male soul was supposedly "perfect"?
In Plato's vision of an organized society, women and slaves would have had almost zero say in any decisions made about the state. It was disenfranchisement in its purest form.

And there's more...
Why didn't you mention who would actually be running the show under Plato's system? Why didn't you mention that it would be an aristocracy?

Of course you left that out, because it wouldn't exactly help your case while you're trying to defend him.

Let's take a much closer look at the whole picture...

In his Laws, Plato actually attacked and condemned all those materialistic philosophers (the ones who stood in opposition to the metaphysicians, including Democritus), labeling them as godless skeptics, devils who corrupt the youth, spread immoral ideas, and undermine social order as well as divine and state authority.

Let's try a quick comparison between Democritus and Plato in at least one specific area.

Plato actually proposed that Democritus's works should be banned. To him, Democritus was nothing but a thorn in his side.

So why was Plato so obsessed with banning Democritus?

First, let's look at the actual ideas held by Democritus that caused such a stir with Plato:

-Virtue is based, above all else, on respecting all other people.

-We must do everything in our power to help those who have suffered injustice.

-Being good doesn't mean you never do evil, but rather that you never even desire to do evil.

-Every human being is a small world unto themselves.

-It is good deeds, not mere words, that truly count.

-We should avoid doing evil not out of fear, but out of our own sense of justice.

-Poverty in a democracy is better than so-called happiness under a tyranny, because freedom is always better than slavery.

Now, why, I ask again, did these ideas bother Plato so much?

Because if they were accepted, instead of an aristocracy, the state would be run by a democracy. These Democritean ideas essentially capture the core principles of democracy, putting them in direct conflict with the aristocratic way of ruling that Plato championed—and in total opposition to the slave-holding social order that Plato clearly had no problem with.

A little more on the aristocracy...
We know by now that Plato was a representative of the aristocracy.
The aristocracy considered itself the best (from the Greek *aristo*—meaning the best) and the wisest.

As such, the aristocracy—claiming to be the most intelligent—would impose its views upon the people (*demos*).

Let's not forget that besides being an aristocrat, Plato was also a metaphysician. That much is clear to everyone.

Therefore, the structure of the state, in the segments that concern it, would be metaphysical in nature.

And metaphysics is basically everything that science is not.

And don't forget, Plato famously put a sign on his Academy stating that anyone who didn't know mathematics wasn't allowed to enter.

By doing that, Plato was implying that he actually utilized science in his interpretations.
As for what Plato thought about science specifically...

and several other matters, I'll write that another time!!

Since mistyfox812 has written a massive amount of text and posts here just to reply to my previous answers, I am kindly requesting that they stop writing anything further.>>
DON'T INTERRUPT ME BEFORE I FINISH MY POINT.

Just bear with me for a second, alright? Providing a decent, high-quality answer actually takes a bit of damn time.

John Walker74 said:I’d honestly just give up on this whole debate (the one we started under Faith, a viral mental illness?) if I couldn't reach out and grab you right here by what you wrote.
I really don't want people thinking your post is some kind of holy scripture. Because, newsflash, it isn't.

Look, I'm not "grabbing" you. I made it super clear from the jump that I was citing authors and using quotes so it wouldn't seem like a personal attack. I'm debating the ideas, not the person.

John Walker74 said:Since mistyfox812 has written a massive amount of text and replies to my previous points, please—for the love of god—stop writing more—>
UNTIL I FINISH MY EXPLANATION.

Just hang on a second. A decent response takes a little extra time.

Then I'll step back and stop reacting to all the wrong stuff you've put out here. But since you don't even think your own response is high quality—and honestly, neither do I—I'm actually looking forward to seeing something a bit more serious.

Essenca said:Why didn't you mention that Plato thought... well, that a woman's soul is more material and tied to her body, while a man's soul is more perfect?
Women and slaves would hardly have any say in the decisions regarding Plato's ideal state. It’s basically total disenfranchisement.
...Let's try to do a quick comparison between Democritus and Plato in at least one area.
...Bear with me. A quality answer takes a little longer.

While Essenca is busy cooking up a 'quality answer,' I'll just knock out a few—not all of them, obviously, maybe later—of the many inaccuracies in that response 'on the fly.'
The most hilarious inaccuracy has to be this whole thing about Democritus being a feminist and Plato being a woman-hater. Of course, just like everything else here, that stems from her flawed way of splitting people into two camps: the progressive/democratic/scientific types... (we're just missing 'leftists' at this point) versus the reactionary/agitators/metaphysicians.
I actually have to thank Essenca because she nudged me to read through the complete Democritus fragments in Diels' 'Pre-Socratics.' I took note of all the ones dealing with women, women's rights, and female nature (well, at least the ones generally considered authentic). They aren't exactly 'progressive' or 'feminist.'

110. A woman should not practice speaking, for it is terrible.
111. For a man, having a woman in power would be the ultimate disgrace.
214. A brave man is one who is stronger not only than his enemies, but also than his desires. Some, in fact, rule cities, yet remain slaves to women.
267. By nature, ruling is appropriate for the stronger.
273. A woman is much more cunning than a man when it comes to evil deeds.

So, it isn't just that women should be totally excluded from political life; they were even kept out of education. Honestly, Democritus is just fully embracing the status quo of the Greek city-states back then. In no Greek democracy did women participate in politics. The definition of a human as a 'political animal' just doesn't include women (just like it doesn't include slaves).

Only one philosopher thought this setup was unnatural, and he included women in his ideal state as being completely equal to men in political life (granted, in his view, they might be less capable in certain things, but still totally equal). So, contrary to the reality of the city-states and contrary to other philosophers (like Democritus), Plato advocates for the full education of women—exactly like men—and for their participation in political action as 'guardians,' essentially the best of the best, within the state.
All these quotes come from 'The Republic.'
'Many women are better in many ways than many men...'
'Thus, one woman is capable of being a guardian and another is not. Or did we not choose guardians among men in the same way? Therefore, the nature of both woman and man is equal for guarding the state, except that one may be weaker or stronger.'
'We must therefore choose such women for such men, to live with them and guard alongside them, since they are capable of precisely that and are similar to them by nature. And shouldn't those with the same natures be given the same tasks?'
'We acknowledge that it is not against nature to give women a guardian's education. We haven't used the law to mandate something impossible or mere wishful thinking when we set laws according to nature; on the contrary, today's opposite situation seems to be what is truly unnatural.'
'What's more, for a woman to become a good guardian won't require a different education for men and a different one for women, since education deals with an identical nature anyway.'
In short: 'both guardians and guardianesses are to perform all duties together.'

Essence said:In his Laws, Plato basically goes after all those materialist philosophers—you know, the ones who went against the metaphysicians, including Democritus—and calls them atheists. He paints them as devils who corrupt the youth, spread immoral ideas, and totally undermine social order and both divine and state authority.
...
Plato even suggested banning Democritus's works. To him, Democritus was just a massive thorn in his side.

So, looking at this "quality response," I’m waiting for a quote or at least a specific reference showing where Plato actually says that.
Look, I’ve read Laws before (though it’s been a few years since my last deep dive), and I don't remember anything about Plato mentioning Democritus there. So I grabbed my copy, checked the index, and nope—nothing about Democritus.
In Diels' 'Pre-Socratics,' you see all sorts of different philosophers and what they said about Democritus. Diels is super thorough about citing whenever Plato or Aristotle mentioned any of the Pre-Socratics. Since Diels doesn't list a single thing from Plato regarding Democritus, it really looks like Plato didn't write a single word about him in his entire body of work. (...that whole "thorn in his side" thing 🙄 ). Maybe I'm wrong—I can't exactly recite every single word Plato ever wrote off the top of my head—but I'm pretty sure Essence will drop the exact location of where he says this, right? Because surely she wouldn't just make stuff up?
If Essence wasn't personally hanging out in Athens hearing Plato suggest banning Democritus's books, and if she can't point to the exact spot where he wrote it, then there's really only one conclusion: Essence is just talking nonsense.

My dear N&N, please forgive me for taking such a massive amount of time to get back to you. I’ve been absolutely buried under work, so reaching out sooner just wasn't an option. Look, some of us actually have real lives and responsibilities to deal with outside of endlessly posting on Reddit, don't we? If I had actually caught your last post, I definitely would have responded much earlier. And honestly, it isn't even because you claimed John Walker74 was just babbling nonsense. You went way beyond that—you called me a sheep, an idiot, and said I didn't have a clue what I was talking about... But really, what else can you expect from a self-proclaimed follower of Plato? To people like you, women are inherently inferior, less capable, and constantly in need of being managed by a "real man." I don't even hold those insults against you; it’s not about what is being said, it’s about who is saying it. When you're being insulted by someone you consider to be absolutely Nobody, does it even matter? I don't just forgive you; I actually feel bad that I didn't jump in sooner, because I could have actually helped you out. See, you, this supposed great expert on Plato, are probably still digging through Platonic texts right now, desperately hunting for where Plato might have mentioned Democritus. As if I ever said anything of the sort! All I actually said was this:

John Walker74:
In his *Laws*, Plato didn't just disagree with the materialists—he absolutely went for the jugular, casting them out and cursing the whole lot of them. He targeted those thinkers who stood in direct opposition to the metaphysicians, including guys like Democritus, labeling them nothing more than godless atheists. To him, they were straight-up devils responsible for corrupting the youth, peddling immoral ideas, and systematically undermining the very foundations of social order and the divine authority of the state. Can you even imagine being that hated? He saw them as a fundamental threat to everything that keeps a civilization from collapsing into chaos.

Look, I never actually said that Plato explicitly mentioned Democritus, so let's get that straight right off the bat. All I ever claimed was that he bolstered the ideas found in materialist philosophy without naming any specific individual in my main point. Since some people here—looking at you—seem to have a bit less experience with this stuff, I simply tucked the greatest of the materialist philosophers, Plato’s own contemporary Democritus, into parentheses as a helpful example.

And you responded with this:
Nobody and nothing:
So, I actually went back and dug through my copies of the Laws—it’s been a few years since I last cracked one open, mind you—and I honestly don't recall seeing anything written by Plato regarding Democritus in there. To be absolutely sure, I finally grabbed the book, flipped through to the end to check the references, and wouldn't you know it? There isn't even a single mention of Democritus listed.
In Dallas, specifically within those "Pre-Socratic" collections, you see this massive lineup of various philosophers all weighing in with their own takes on Democritus. It’s funny because Dallas constantly makes sure to include every single time Plato or Aristotle had something to say about any of those Pre-Socratics. But here’s the kicker: since there isn't a single scrap of evidence in Dallas regarding Plato’s thoughts on Democritus, doesn't it just seem like Plato never actually wrote a single word about him in his entire body of work?

Honestly, you are a total joke. How can you be this clueless about basic facts that anyone with even a shred of common sense should know? If you had spent even five minutes actually looking into ancient philosophy, you’d realize that during Plato's era, there was another massive figure working right alongside him—someone many people actually considered even more significant than Plato himself, given the sheer scale of his work. We are talking about Democritus, whose entire philosophical framework was the polar opposite of everything Plato stood for. Even a child could tell you that while Plato never explicitly names him in his writings, he constantly goes out of his way to address and dismantle the ideas of those materialist thinkers. Instead of wasting everyone's time searching for things that don't exist, why don't you try asking yourself a much more intelligent question: how is it that the great Plato, who was bold enough to call out just about every living and dead philosopher he ever encountered, managed to avoid mentioning Democritus even once?

Look, I honestly don't believe you've actually sat down and read Plato's *Laws*, because if you had, you would have realized exactly what I’m getting at halfway through. There is this specific section where Plato goes absolutely scorched earth on the godless—and he isn't even targeting barbarians or just some random, uneducated mob; no, he's coming straight for those self-important philosophers who strut around thinking they're the smartest people in the room while claiming nature exists entirely independent of God. His arguments against them are about as convincing as that ontological proof from your buddy Anselm. After tearing them down, he lays out these incredibly harsh punishments for anyone who mocks the divine or lives without faith, and if they dare to repeat the offense? It's the death penalty. I'm not going to bore you by retelling the whole thing since you probably wouldn't find it interesting anyway, but I'd tell you that this part of the book serves as perfect inspiration for any aspiring inquisitors out there. I'm not going to sit here and quote passages at you either, because I’d much rather you actually go and read the full works of Plato yourself. If you do, then maybe this entire back-and-forth will actually serve some kind of purpose.

John Walker74:
“Plato actually suggested banning the works of Democritus. To him, Democritus was nothing more than a constant thorn in his side.”

Nobody and Nothing:
“(...a 'thorn in his side' ) Maybe I’m wrong—I don't exactly have every single word Plato ever wrote memorized—but there's no doubt that John Walker74 will give us the exact passage where Plato says this, because surely she wouldn't just make it up, right?
If John Walker74 wasn't personally hanging out in ancient Athens hearing Plato suggest a ban on Democritus's work, and if she doesn't provide the specific location where Plato wrote this, then we can only conclude that John Walker74 is just talking nonsense.”

We've already established that Plato never mentions Democritus directly, and since you clearly haven't read a single page of Plato, why am I even surprised that you're rolling your eyes at my claim that Democritus was a thorn in his side and that Plato attempted to ban his writings? If you're searching through Plato's texts looking for a line that explicitly states this, you're just wasting your breath. Does any censor in history actually want to go on public record about their censorship decisions? Look, I wasn't physically present in Athens, but the spirit of the philosopher Aristoxenus whispered to me that Plato wanted to burn every scrap of Democritus's writings he could get his hands on (and if you don't believe me, go check Diogenes Laertius's *Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers*). He was actually stopped by two of his Pythagorean friends. They advised him to back off because copies of Democritus's books were already widely distributed. In the end, he gave up, but that's exactly why he never mentioned Democritus directly in his works, even in sections where he was clearly confronting Democritus's philosophy head-on.

nobody and nothing:
“The most hilarious of those inaccuracies is the whole bit about Democritus being a feminist and Plato being a misogynist.”

Honestly, it’s just laughable; you were probably totally wasted or high while you were typing this out. I already explained to you quite clearly that Plato couldn't stand Democritus because of his materialist views—specifically his atomic theory—because he denied the gods, and because he believed the soul vanished when a person died, and frankly, he likely despised him for his ideas on democracy too. Plato held nothing but contempt for democracy, much like he did for Democritus. I didn't mention a single word regarding Democritus's attitude toward women, because how on earth can anyone judge his stances based on two or three sentences ripped out of God knows which ancient manuscript? Furthermore, I never claimed Plato was a misogynist, but I did state what is undeniably known from Plato's own works—that he considered women less capable than men and their souls less perfect than the male soul. But fine, since you're so eager to attack, let's compare them on that front then.

nobody and nothing:
“I have to thank John Walker74 because he pushed me to read the complete fragments of Democritus from Diels 'Pre-Socratic'. I've noted all those pertaining to women, women's rights, and female nature (only those generally considered authentic). It's hard to call them exactly ‘progressive’ or ‘feminist.’

110. A woman should not practice speech, for it is terrible.
111. For a man, having a woman in power would be the ultimate disgrace.
214. Truly, the brave man is he who is stronger not only than his enemies but also than his pleasures. Some, it seems, rule cities, yet remain slaves to women.
267. By nature, ruling is appropriate for the stronger.
273. A woman is far more cunning than a man when it comes to evil thoughts.”

Well, aren't you just a saint. There you go, you've actually nudged me into reading the entirety of Democritus—or rather, everything that's left of him. I'm sure it wasn't too much heavy lifting for you, because looking at what survived, one has to assume that Plato and his followers actually succeeded in their mission to pull Democritus's works up by the roots. According to Diogenes Laertius Democritus wrote 70 works, none of which survived, unlike Plato's massive body of work which has remained virtually untouched for 2,500 years. Here is a list of some of Democritus's more important works, organized by category.

1. PHYSICS (25 books): "Macrocosm", "Microcosm", "Cosmography", "On the Planets", "On nature", "On the Nature of Man", "On the Mind", "On Senses", "On Flavors", "On Colors", "On the Different States", "On Successions of States", "Determining Forces", "On images", "On the Rules of Logic", "On disputed points", "Celestial Causes" (celestial mechanics), "Causes relating to air" (aerostatics), "Causes relating to the plane" (statics), "Origins of fire and of fiery states" (heat and thermodynamics), "Origin of sounds" (acoustics), "Origin of seeds and plants and fruits" (biology), "Origins of animals a, b, c" (zoology), "Origins of divers things" (miscellany), "On minerals" (mineralogy).

2. MATHEMATICS (5 books): "On a difference of opinion or on the contact between a circle and a sphere", "On geometry", "Geometry", "Numbers", "On irrational lines and solids".

3. ASTRONOMY - GEOGRAPHY (8 books): "Planispheres", "The Great Year", "On water clocks", "Description of the heavens", "Description of the firmament", "Radiation", "Geography", "Circuit of the ocean".

4. TECHNICAL SCIENCES (6 books): "Prognostics", "On the seasonable and the unseasonable", "On agriculture", "On drawing", "Tactics", "On the art of war".

5. PHARMACEUTICALS (1 book): "On medicaments", a treatise on nostrums and remedies, including a preparation to ensure the birth of "fair children": a mixture of fir seeds, balsam, saffron, honey, milk and wine.

To your immense joy, almost nothing remains of that massive collection, so you, armed with nothing but a felt-tip pen, managed to settle the score with Democritus in half an hour. You've reduced this great philosopher, mathematician, physicist, astronomer, and so on, to five mere sentences and five unforgivable, mortal sins. Let's take a moment to analyze them:

Just nobody and nothing.
"111. To be under the rule of a woman would be the ultimate disgrace for a man." (fragment, Democritus)
I couldn't agree more—honestly, isn't it just absurd to even consider? It would be an absolute disgrace for a woman to be under the thumb of a man, much like how it would be a complete mockery of nature if she were treated as his mere property, a point that Plato made with absolute, unmistakable clarity.

Is there anything more infuriating than staring at a void where actual substance ought to be? It’s just nothingness—absolutely nothing—and honestly, I can't decide if the emptiness itself is the problem or if it's the sheer audacity of presenting such a vacuum as if it actually meant something. Why do we even bother looking when there's clearly nothing there to find?
Is it really any wonder that we see such chaos in our world today when we ignore the fundamental truth expressed by Democritus? He once noted that, by its very nature, rule belongs to the strong, and honestly, looking at how things operate from Wall Street down to the local precinct, you have to ask yourself if anyone is actually trying to argue otherwise. Isn't it just the way of things that those with the most leverage end up calling the shots while everyone else just tries to keep their heads down? It’s a blunt, unapologetic observation, but does it not ring true whenever you look at the sheer imbalance of power in American society? We like to pretend everything is perfectly level, but isn't it obvious that strength—whether it's financial, political, or physical—is what ultimately dictates the direction of the ship?
Sure, we all know that nature operates on the law of the jungle where the strongest survive, but does anyone here actually even mention women?

Is there actually anything worth saying here? It feels like we’re just shouting into a void, talking about absolutely nothing at all. Honestly, what is even the point of this?
True courage isn't just about being able to take down an enemy in a fight; it’s about having the backbone to stand up to your own impulses and cravings, too. Honestly, isn't it pathetic how some guys act like they're running the show in cities like New York or Chicago, when in reality, they're nothing more than slaves to their own lusts?
It’s pretty obvious that Democritus had zero interest in playing the role of a servant to women. And honestly, can you really blame him? Why on earth would anyone want to deal with that?

Is there anything more infuriating than staring into the void of absolute nothingness? I mean, really, what is even the point of talking when you're just met with total silence or, worse, a complete lack of substance? It’s like shouting into a canyon in the middle of nowhere and realizing there isn't even an echo to hit you back. Why do we even bother engaging if the response is just zero, zilch, nada? It’s exhausting, honestly.
Democritus once noted that a woman’s mind is far more cunning and deceptive than a man's, and honestly, looking at the chaos of the world today, you have to wonder if he wasn't onto something profound? It’s one of those fragments that sticks in your teeth because it feels like it touches on some ancient, uncomfortable truth about how much more calculated and strategic certain people can be when they want to get their way. Is it just nature, or is it something deeper buried in the way we interact? You can't help but feel like there's a layer of complexity there that most men are too oblivious to even notice until it's far too late.
Honestly, us women have always felt that men are just way more calculated when it comes to their malicious intentions, so I guess we’re finally even.

Is there anything more exhausting than dealing with someone who contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation? I mean, really, what is the point of even showing up if you’re just going to be a complete void of substance? It’s like talking to a brick wall that somehow manages to be even more infuriating because it lacks any semblance of an actual opinion. Why do we even bother engaging when people act like they have zero presence in the world?
A woman shouldn't bother practicing her rhetoric, because honestly, it’s just a disaster waiting to happen. (fragment, Democritus)
So, you basically boiled an entire book down to a single sentence? You’ve taken a man’s whole life—a guy who spent every waking moment working, writing, and philosophizing until he hit 109—and reduced his entire existence to one sketchy, questionable line. Is that what we're doing now? This is reductionism in its purest, most obnoxious form. Based on nothing more than that one solitary sentence, you actually have the nerve to conclude the following:

It’s just absolutely nothing. Just total, utter emptiness.
So, what you’re telling me is that women shouldn't just be shut out of the political arena entirely, but they should be stripped of any influence over how children are raised too? Is that really where we're headed?

Your logic is pretty damn strong if you think you can take down a bull just by pulling one single sentence out of thin air and stripping away all its context. Honestly, looking at that sentence in isolation, I don’t see any kind of political maneuvering, let alone some kind of moral upbringing or social conditioning. If we actually bother to look at the various ways this famous line shows up, things start to look a lot different, don't they? Let's examine a few different versions where this claim pops up:

A woman shouldn't be letting her tongue run wild, because honestly, that’s just asking for trouble.So, they used the word "Zunge" here, which in German basically refers to the physical tongue sitting in your mouth, though in a more casual sense, people use it to mean their actual spoken language. Isn't it funny how one little word can shift from anatomy to linguistics just like that?

Is it even remotely possible to find a shred of common sense left in this world? I was reading some old text today that suggested a woman shouldn't engage in debate, and honestly, the sheer absurdity of it makes my blood boil. How can anyone—any sane, rational person—look at the complexity of our modern society and suggest that half the population should just sit there in silence while everyone else decides their fate? It’s absolutely dreadful, isn't it? To think that intellectual rigor or the ability to construct a logical argument should be restricted based on gender is nothing short of an insult to human intelligence itself. Why would we ever want to stifle the very thing that drives progress and keeps us from falling into total chaos? It’s a ridiculous notion, and frankly, it’s infuriating.
You know, people always get tripped up on this one, but "argument" isn't just some dry, logical point you make in a debate; it can also mean a full-blown, heated argument or a straight-up shouting match. Why is it that we try to overcomplicate these things? It’s a versatile word, and if you don't grasp that nuance, you're going to be lost when the conversation actually gets intense.

Honestly, isn't there just something inherently unsettling about a woman who actually understands the mechanics of logic? It’s a terrifying prospect, isn't it? When you encounter someone who can dissect an argument with surgical precision instead of just reacting emotionally, it completely disrupts the status quo. Why is it that we find such intellectual competence so threatening? There’s a certain kind of dread that settles in when you realize you can't manipulate the conversation because she’s already three steps ahead, mapping out every logical fallacy you try to throw her way. It’s enough to make anyone sweat.
Maybe Democritus was just terrified of getting into an argument with a woman who actually knew what she was talking about.

I don't care what Democritus actually intended to convey with that specific sentence, because if you take a moment to look at the core principles of democracy and the natural philosophy he championed, there is absolutely no way he was advocating for the discrimination of women. Honestly, how could anyone argue otherwise when you consider Epicurus, his most devoted follower, who later opened up his philosophical school to women, slaves, and outcasts as complete equals? It was unheard of! Anyone could walk through those doors regardless of their status, and since they didn't charge tuition, people simply contributed to the school voluntarily based on what they could afford. It was a total scandal—an absolute sacrilege by the standards of that era—because back then, women were systematically oppressed, slaves had zero rights, and suddenly, they were all diving headfirst into philosophy? That was a discipline strictly reserved for the high-and-mighty elite, the kind of exclusive crowd you’d find gathering at Plato's Academy. I mean, seriously, can you even imagine what the social standing of women was like back then? What on earth are we even talking about when we bring up Epicurus's school? It’s like people want to pretend there’s some organized, structured way to find peace, as if you can just walk into a classroom and learn how to stop caring about the chaos of the world. Is it really that simple? They sat around preaching this idea of tranquility, acting like they had figured out the ultimate cheat code for life, but does anyone actually believe that withdrawing from society is a sustainable way to exist? You can't just opt out of reality and expect the world to stop spinning. If you really want to understand what we're talking about, there’s no better way to see it than through the example of Hetere. LeontioneBy following Epicurus's teachings, she eventually carved out her own path as a renowned writer and philosopher, which allowed her to hold her own in heated debates against the heavy hitters from the Lyceum—you know, Aristotle's old school. Even Theophrastus, who was stepping into Aristotle's shoes as his successor, didn't treat her like an outsider; instead, he spoke to her with genuine respect, clearly recognizing her massive talent for both literature and philosophy.

I know they say you shouldn't judge a teacher by their students, but isn't it worth noting that Aristotle ended up being almost a carbon copy of Plato when it came to his views on women and slaves? It’s actually pretty wild how closely their stances aligned on such fundamental issues. For him, slaves were nothing more than talking livestock—literally just tools with a voice—and he actually argued that an ox was more valuable than a slave because, at least an ox can pull a plow better without complaining. And don't even get me started on his take on women; he believed the female soul was so fundamentally inferior that a woman should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to make her own decisions. Naturally, this meant that both women and slaves were completely stripped of any semblance of political rights. Is it really any surprise that the student followed so closely in the master's footsteps?

Alright, let's just roll with it and assume Democritus was a total chauvinist who couldn't stand women, acting like the quintessential patriarchal relic full of nothing but outdated prejudices. But honestly, do we really want to pretend that men today are any different when it comes to that kind of mindset? Are we actually going to sit here and act like the modern guy isn't carrying around those same ancient biases under a more polished veneer?
So, I just saw this recent poll about what Americans actually want in their next president, and honestly, it’s pretty eye-opening, isn't it? It turns out that a massive majority of people are looking for someone who embodies that old-school, stern, wise, and dead-serious persona—basically, they're craving a true patriarchal head of the household to lead the nation. Is it really that surprising that, after all the chaos we've seen, people are just desperate for some kind of traditional, commanding authority figure to step up and take charge?

Look, claiming that Democritus wanted to strip women of their dignity, deny them an education, or systematically trample on their rights based on one single sentence? Honestly, isn't that a bit of a massive stretch on your part? Especially when we're talking about a man who is remembered in history as the "Laughing Philosopher," or as some people call him, the "Cheerful Philosopher." They even used to mockingly call him the Scoffer. He was the absolute polar opposite of that eternally serious, rigid, and self-important Plato. Democritus earned that nickname because of his lighthearted philosophy and the fact that he would openly laugh at all the human stupidity and superstition whenever he spoke in public. Plus, unlike Plato, who was always hungry for power, Democritus constantly ran away from it, even though people offered him incredibly tempting positions because of his vast knowledge. He’d much rather spend his time wandering, exploring, and writing. None of this points toward some kind of autocratic personality or a tyrant looking to impose his own laws on everyone else.

Regardless of what Democritus's actual relationship with women was, something else is far more important. Most of Democritus's works were destroyed very early on, so surely, if that one sentence is even his, he couldn't have caused much lasting harm to our civilization. What matters way more is the ethics and morality of Plato and Aristotle; they continued to live on through their writings in a happy symbiosis with the Church, and they undoubtedly exerted a massive influence on the status of women throughout history with their views. So, let's take a look at this "ideal and just state" of Plato's, which was championed by the king—the philosopher among philosophers. It is finally time to say, "The Emperor has no clothes," since the subject of this thread is actually Plato—misconceptions and clarifications. Fortunately, Plato's works are well-preserved, so we won't have to play guessing games over a single solitary sentence.

nobody and nothing:
“Only one philosopher considered this state of affairs unnatural, and in his ideal state, included women as being entirely equal to men in political life (though, in his view, they were often less capable, but still entirely equal... Plato advocates for the full education of women—just as much as men—and for their participation in political action as 'guardians,' that is, those who are the best among them in the state.”

Truly interesting. Do you also believe, like Plato, that we are less capable in everything?
(All subsequent quotes in English are from The Republic...)...but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.

nobody and nothing:
'Many women are in many things better than many men...' (from The Republic)
How generous of that Plato. There, he even admits we are better at certain tasks than men. And then he immediately points out that we are better at the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves. I’m absolutely losing my mind with joy.
You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general
inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many
things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true.
...Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves.

It's a shame you stopped with the quotes; you were off to such a lovely start. If you had just gone a little lower, you might have used this quote, for instance.
The Law, I said, which is the sequel of this and of all that
has preceded, is to the following effect,--'that the wives of our
guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common,
and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.'

Did you somehow overlook this quote, or have you truly read nothing of Plato? Or perhaps you agree with him? Or are you just plain rude, so you omit and obscure the facts? If you had even an ounce of morality in you, you would read Plato's Republic with white gloves on. His stance toward women, children, and the family is just so filthy and disgusting. Everything is subordinated to the state; the individual is nothing. Women and children are communal property; parents aren't allowed to know which child is theirs, nor are children allowed to know who their parents are. Thank you so much for such a state, such equality, and such education. Here, let me give you a few more quotes, just so you can see how wonderful this state you're defending really is.

You, I said, who are their legislator, having selected the men,
will now select the women and give them to them;--they must be
as far as possible of like natures with them; and they must live
in common houses and meet at common meals, None of them will have
anything specially his or her own; they will be together, and will
be brought up together, and will associate at gymnastic exercises.
And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have
intercourse with each other--necessity is not too strong a word,
I think?
Does this even need a comment? The legislator selects the men and the women, everyone lives together, everyone shares everything and owns no private property, they exercise together and mate together. It seems that communism and those leftist ideas you keep trying to pin on me suit you very well.

And how can marriages be made most beneficial?--that is a question
which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting,
and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you,
do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?
What does marriage have to do with breeding hunting dogs? We shall see soon enough...

And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds
would greatly deteriorate?
Of course, dogs and birds will produce increasingly inferior offspring if their breeding isn't controlled.

Good heavens! My dear friend, I asked, what incredible level of expertise will
our leaders require if this very same logic applies to the entire human race!

And honestly, it absolutely does apply.
It’s quite obvious that the same rules governing how we breed dogs apply just as strictly to how we reproduce humans.

...it has already been established that the best
of either sex should be paired with the best as frequently as possible, while the inferior
should be paired with the inferior as rarely as one can manage;
The rule for those lucky enough to serve as the guardians of the Platonic state is actually quite simple—the finest men should mate with the finest women as often as possible, while the weakest should be paired with the weakest women as infrequently as possible.

Now, these arrangements have to be kept strictly under wraps, known only to the ruling class,
otherwise, we run the risk of our "herd"—if we’re going to call the guardians that—breaking out into full-blown rebellion.

Here, the philosopher-king seems a little uneasy. How on earth is he supposed to pull this off without the guardians catching wind of it?

...the total number of weddings is a matter that must be left entirely to the discretion of the rulers, whose primary goal will be to maintain a steady population average.
It’s straightforward: the government should be granted the absolute authority to decide how many weddings occur and exactly who gets to marry whom.

We’ll essentially have to cook up some clever sort of lottery system where the less
capable individuals draw lots whenever we bring them together,
so they’ll end up blaming their own bad luck instead of pointing fingers at the government.
To achieve this, they’d need to invent some kind of rigged lottery to pick the couples, making sure the deck is always stacked in their favor.

And I suspect our more courageous and capable youths, in addition to receiving their other
distinctions and perks, might be granted much easier access
to women; their bravery would be the justification, and such
fathers should be encouraged to father as many sons as they can.
The tougher and more capable guys should be able to bed plenty of women and produce as many sons as possible.

The designated officials will take the children of the high-quality parents to
the nursery or the fold, where they will be handed over to specific nurses
living in a separate district; however, any offspring from the inferior classes,
or even from the superior ones if they happen to be born with defects, will be tucked away
in some secret, unknown location, just as they ought to be.
The appropriate bureaucrats will take charge of the offspring and hand them over to nurses for safekeeping; meanwhile, the children of the inferior, or even the superior ones who happen to be born with disabilities, will be disposed of in some mysterious, hidden place.

Plato goes on to demand that if a mother is breastfeeding, every precaution must be taken to ensure she doesn't recognize her own child; he even sets strict boundaries for when conception is allowed to happen. Everything is regulated down to the tiniest detail, leaving absolutely nothing to chance. Honestly, I don't have the energy to keep quoting him; this is more than enough to make the point. Just one last excerpt to show that these rigid rules weren't just about controlling reproduction, but that every single aspect of life was subjected to this same draconian oversight.

(From The Law):The most fundamental principle is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without a leader. Furthermore, no one's mind should be trained to act on their own initiative at all—not out of passion, and certainly not just for fun. Whether in times of war or during the intervals of peace, they must keep their eyes fixed on their leader and follow them without question. Even in the most trivial matters, they must remain under command. For instance, getting up, moving, washing, or eating... they should only do so if they have been instructed to. Simply put, through constant habit, they should train their souls to never even dream of acting independently, until they become fundamentally incapable of doing so.

So this is what that supposedly "just" American state looks like—this utopia where equality between men and women is meant to flourish? I have to hand it to you, though; you aren’t wrong about one thing: men and women are perfectly equal in their complete lack of rights, both being crushed under the exact same rigid, inhuman set of rules. You seem so head over heels for this social order that you might as well declare Plato the founding father of feminism. Honestly, it would be just as valid to call him the father of communism given his obsession with abolishing private property. But that would be a joke, wouldn't it, considering his state was strictly partitioned into an elite aristocracy and the oppressed masses who spent their lives grinding away for them?

The label that fits Plato's ideal state most accurately is totalitarianism. Every single hallmark of a totalitarian regime is present: the brutal class stratification where the fate of the entire nation is tethered solely to the interests of the ruling class, the constant surveillance and vetting of those in power, the draconian regulations controlling reproduction and education, the censorship of all intellectual pursuits, the relentless propaganda, and the use of lies and violence whenever they serve the interests of the state. It’s all there.

Fortunately for us, nobody ever actually managed to pull off these "progressive" Platonic ideas, not even Plato himself, despite how hard he tried on several occasions. However, Adolf Hitler was certainly on the right track to implement at least one of his many "progressive and feminist" notions—that ancient Platonic concept regarding the selective breeding of the human race:

"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind." Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10

translation:
“The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind.”

Adolf didn't just stop at theory, though; he took it to the extreme. We all know exactly how his experiment with his own people ended. Only pure-blooded Germans were permitted to marry, while "defective" men and women were sterilized or murdered, often over something as trivial as a minor illness; "defective" newborns would simply "vanish into mysterious places," to use a Platonic euphemism. Young Aryans were indoctrinated with Nazi ideology from the moment they could walk, and young German women were taught that their bodies were no longer their own, but belonged to the state, with their primary purpose being to produce children—all in the name of maintaining a pure Aryan race.

Now, I am certainly not blaming Plato for the crimes of Hitler, but it is almost certain that his *Republic* served as a blueprint and a way for many Nazi leaders to justify their actions to their own consciences.

My dear N&N, I hope you realize that Democritus' version of "feminism" is nothing compared to Plato's brand of it. Democritus argued that the universe is infinite. Some people argue that human stupidity is infinite. While I can't say for sure if the universe is truly endless, I am absolutely certain about your stupidity.

👋

Essence said:The system that fits Plato's ideal state most accurately is actually totalitarianism. You can see all the hallmarks right there—a rigid class hierarchy where the fate of the nation is tied entirely to the ruling elite, constant surveillance and vetting of those in power, strict regulations over education and resources, heavy censorship of intellectual life, state-sponsored propaganda, systemic lying, and even violence if it serves the government's interests. It’s all right there in the blueprint.

👍

John Walker74 has this super clear way of looking at things. He basically splits people and everything they do or say into just two simple categories. Simple as that.
It’s like, you’ve got one side that’s all about progress—you know, the Democrats, the materialists, the science nerds, the feminists... and then on the flip side, you've got the total opposites. The ones stuck in metaphysics, the religious crowd, the anti-science types, the whole totalitarian vibe. It's such a massive divide.
From her point of view, it’s way too easy to pigeonhole people. Like, you take one or two things someone says about anything at all, and boom—you’ve got them filed away in group A or group B. Suddenly, you think you’ve totally figured them out and know everything there is to know. It's such a lazy way to look at things.
She doesn't even bother with actual arguments because, honestly, everything is just "obvious" to her. Her whole playbook is just stuff like, "Even a kid would know that," or "It’s common sense," or "Everyone knows this already." That's it. That's her entire logic. It’s always some version of, "Oh, we see right through you!" or my personal favorite, how she puts it: "Well, what else could you expect from someone following Plato?"
She basically crammed Plato and Democritus into her own naive little theory. Like, she probably heard Democritus talked about atoms and was just like, "Oh, atoms! That means science, progress, and democracy!" And then she hears about Plato’s "world of ideas" and immediately jumps to, "Aha, another world! That means religion, anti-science, and totalitarianism..." It's honestly kind of wild.
Honestly, this whole thing is just wrong. It’s got nothing to do with Plato or Democritus. The world is way more complicated than some simple dualistic scheme—especially when you start talking about the world of thought.

It’s so obvious she’s just forcing her own broken worldview onto everyone—especially when it comes to Democritus and Plato. You can totally see it right here:

John Walker74 said:"A woman shouldn't practice her tongue, because it's just terrible." (fragment, Democritus)
So, basically, you just tossed the whole book aside after reading a single sentence. Seriously? You’re taking an entire lifetime of hard work—someone who spent 109 years grinding, writing, and philosophizing—and boiling it all down to one sketchy little claim. That is reductionism in its purest form. You’re really basing everything on just that one line? So, based on that one sentence, here is what you've concluded:

mistyfox812:
So, like, it’s not even just about keeping women out of politics... it's that they should be totally cut out of raising kids, too.

Man, you're really swinging for the fences with that logic if you think you can kill a bull with just one sentence ripped straight out of context. Seriously. I don't see any political maneuvering in that line, let alone some kind of moral lesson. Let's look at a few different ways that famous quote actually shows up:

The Woman shouldn't be out there practicing her tongue, honestly. It’d just be a mess.So, they used the word "tongue" here. In German, that usually just means the physical thing in your mouth, but people also use it more loosely to mean someone's actual way of speaking.

"A woman shouldn't be out there trying to argue. It’s just... honestly? It's awful."
"Argument" can mean like, a solid point you're making, but honestly? It also totally just means a massive blowout or a heated argument.

Honestly? A woman who actually knows her way around logic... that’s a terrifying thought.
Maybe Democritus was just terrified of getting into an argument with a smart woman.

Look, I don't care what Democritus was actually trying to get at with that one line—knowing his whole vibe with democracy and natural philosophy, there’s just no way he was out here rooting for discriminating against women. Honestly... claiming he wanted to strip women of their rights, deny them an education, and systematically crush them? That feels like a massive reach on your part. Just saying.

So, look, it wasn't even about what Democritus actually said regarding this topic. It was more like they were just guessing based on his "natural philosophy," which honestly has zero to do with the point. Because of course, for John Walker74, the equation is always just materialist equals democritus. Simple as that.
It’s super obvious to me that saying "The Woman should not practice tongue" is basically just a fancy way of kicking women out of school and politics entirely. I mean, look at how things worked back in ancient Athens—political life was built entirely on public speaking. If you were a young guy being educated in Athens, your whole world revolved around mastering rhetoric. So, yeah, my take is totally spot on for anyone who actually knows how political life and education functioned in the ancient American democratic tradition.
John Walker74 is totally calling me out, saying I’m jumping to conclusions based on just one single fragment. But honestly? Her whole argument that Democritus was some kind of pro-democracy philosopher rests on that exact same lone fragment. Like, seriously?

Look, I really believe this: being broke in a democracy is way better than being "happy" under some tyrant. Honestly? Freedom wins every single time over being a slave. Period.

So, there's exactly one. All those other ones John Walker74 mentioned—and honestly, none of the other surviving fragments even touch on political systems—don't have anything to do with democracy. They're strictly about ethical principles.
Oh, sure, why even bother with arguments? It's simple math at this point: materialist equals democrat. Case closed.
Honestly, you only need to look at those two fragments—the one about women and the one about democracy—to see the whole picture. If Democritus was actually backing the democratic setup they had back then, he was doing it without any women involved in the process. I mean, even that specific fragment just shows he thought democracy was a better deal than living under a tyrant. That doesn't mean he thought it was the absolute best way to run things.
Look, I wasn't trying to give some massive, all-encompassing breakdown of Democritus. I was just diving into one specific thing he wrote about. So, all these accusations that I'm "reducing" him to just one idea? Honestly, they're totally baseless.

I gotta circle back to this whole thing about the supposed connection between Democritus and Plato. Look, Plato never actually wrote anything about Democritus. Period. But then you’ve got John Walker74 over here acting like "everyone knows" the deal... Like, excuse me? How does *everyone* know? (Seriously, can we talk about how sketchy Diogenes Laertius's accounts are for a second?) If you follow that paranoid logic where people say, "Oh, we know exactly what they're up to," then shouldn't the fact that Plato stayed silent about Democritus actually prove he wasn't obsessed with him? I mean, come on. It makes zero sense.
Look, the whole term "materialist philosophers" didn't even exist back in Plato's day. Seriously, nobody was out there arguing against some "materialist philosophers" because they weren't even a thing yet. This whole debate is just something John Walker74 cooked up in his own head. It’s basically just him taking his own weird theories and trying to force them onto things that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Total projection, honestly.
So, like, Plato is always clashing with the Sophists, right? But honestly, calling them "materialist philosophers" is just wrong. The whole reason he’s constantly at war with them isn't about matter—it's because they were all about that epistemological and ethical relativism. These guys were basically just mercenaries teaching people how to spin any argument to win, all because they believed there was no such thing as an absolute truth anyway. Just for the paycheck. Also, for the record, Democritus definitely doesn't belong in that group.
Honestly, thinking that Democritus's writings vanished just because Plato's followers went on a smear campaign to destroy them? That’s just plain silly. It’s not that they were being erased; it's just that there weren't enough people around actually bothering to copy them down. People only spent their time transcribing the stuff they actually found interesting.

Man, I still have one more topic left on my list that I haven't even touched yet: Plato and the aristocratic state. And look, it’s not like I’m holding back the "absolute truth" to cover my tracks—I know John Walker74 is out there waiting to call me out on that—it’s just that I haven't actually written anything about it yet. Everything I've posted so far was just focusing on that specific section regarding women. Why haven't I tackled the whole thing? Honestly, because it felt pretty obvious that there wasn't much to say about, say, Platonism and science. You could throw some empty filler at the idea of Platonism and Christianity, sure, but the whole Democritus and Plato thing is already settled. So, yeah, I just decided to save this stuff about aristocracy for last.
So, before I even dive into anything regarding Plato's politics, I really need to pull a few thoughts together first.

This whole thread actually kicked off because of three totally wrong takes on Plato that John Walker74 dropped over on another topic:
Honestly, I really feel like Plato's philosophy is basically just Christianity in disguise.
So, basically, Plato's whole philosophy is like the total opposite of Democritus's. It’s that classic showdown where you’ve got metaphysics going head-to-head against this strictly materialist, science-heavy way of looking at the world. Total clash of vibes.
Honestly? I think Plato's whole philosophy is just totally unscientific.

All three theses are totally wrong—I've already proven that. John Walker74 didn't even try to defend them (well, maybe she poked at the second one a little), she just jumped straight into critiquing Plato's political philosophy instead. In her naive, split-world view, if someone claimed Plato's political philosophy was totalitarian, I guess that would somehow "prove" all three of those other points too. Typical.

I just knocked down another one of those old arguments—specifically the one about how women were viewed and their role in society back then. It’s pretty obvious that Democritus totally bought into the status quo of the time, treating women as subordinates. Honestly, if you look at the landscape of ancient philosophy, Plato was basically the only guy standing up for women, arguing they should have the same access to education and political power as men. Sure, he did claim their abilities were somewhat limited, suggesting fewer women would actually step up to use those rights, but that doesn't change the core principle. It’s like looking at Congress today—just because there are fewer women sitting in seats than men doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't guarantee them equal rights to vote and run for office. Besides, even John Walker74 admits that under Plato's view, men and women were essentially "equal in their lack of rights"—so, yeah, they were equals (but we can get into the whole "lack of rights" thing later).

So, about Plato's Republic—and let's not forget that other top-tier state he wrote about in the Laws—plus we still need to circle back to aristocracy and democracy one more time. I honestly just want to hang tight and wait for a response on those topics first. Let's wrap those up before we finally dive into that one last thing left on the list.

Besides that short-sighted nonsense everyone keeps bringing up—and yeah, I’m talking about those claims about "students" of Aristotle and Epicurus, which honestly aren't even worth my breath—the only thing that could possibly back up this imaginary conflict is this:

John Walker74 said:I’ve never actually been to Athens, but I swear I can just feel the spirit of Aristoxenus whispering in my ear that Plato really wanted to torch every single one of Democritus's writings he could get his hands on. Seriously, if you don't believe me, go check out Diogenes Laertius's *Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers*. It’s all in there! Apparently, two of his Pythagorean buddies stepped in and talked him out of it. They basically told him, "Hey, chill out," because copies of Democritus's work were already floating around everywhere anyway.

So, basically, this whole thing that John Walker74 is trying to pull—acting like he’s dropping some massive "everyone knows this" truth bomb—really just boils down to one tiny thing: Diogenes Laertius claims Aristoxenus said Plato wanted to burn all of Democritus's books. That's it. That's the whole deal.
Wait, maybe that isn't actually a small thing? Still, it’s better than nothing—especially if the witnesses can't be trusted.
Are they?
So, first off, let's talk about Diogenes Laertius. His whole thing is basically just compiling a massive pile of other books written about famous philosophers. Honestly? He didn't exactly show much critical thinking when he was picking who to quote. Like, take Democritus—he claims the guy had these crazy prophetic powers, and he attributes all sorts of wild, unlikely stuff to other philosophers too. Every major philosopher he mentions lived to be like a hundred years old, and he gives them all these miraculous feats. But, I guess his real value is that he actually cites his sources. So, if he’s quoting someone reliable, we can probably trust what he’s saying.
Can we even trust Aristoxenus here? I mean, the guy wasn't even one of Plato's direct students, so he’s basically just hearing this story through the grapevine. Like, who did he actually hear all this stuff about Plato from?
Check out these snippets from Jamblichus (found in Diels, page 427 and following).
So, check this out—Aristoxenus actually writes in his stuff about the Pythagorean life that he heard this firsthand. He was listening to some Sicilian tyrant named Dionysius recount stories back when the guy had been kicked out of power and was just hanging out in Corinth, teaching people how to read and write. It’s wild. Aristoxenus basically says: Dionysius used to tell us all these things, you know, since he’d been ousted from the throne and ended up in Corinth. And it was actually the younger Dionysius who passed these tales down to him—like that whole story about Phintias and Damon, and the stuff involving Plato and Archytas.
So, basically, Dionysius—that Sicilian tyrant who got kicked out of power—was the one telling Aristoxenus all about Plato. But honestly? What could that guy actually know about Plato? I mean, he knew plenty, sure, but let’s look at the facts: Dionysius was the exact same tyrant who first invited Plato to teach him philosophy, only to lock him up for years and eventually try to sell him into slavery. After all that, Plato definitely wasn't exactly singing his praises. So, me believing that Dionysius became some kind of reliable witness for Plato's story once he lost his throne? Yeah, I'm not buying it. Total stretch.

Honestly, it's just pure hearsay. Like, you won't find a single word from Plato about Democritus. And Aristotle? He never once mentions any kind of relationship between him and Plato regarding Democritus—even though he wrote about both of them separately. It’s honestly wild how even the dumbest, most malicious gossip can still carry weight after two thousand years.
I mean, seriously? To actually buy into such a stupid, nasty rumor based on just one super sketchy witness... you’d have to already have a whole preconceived scheme running in your head just to make that gossip fit.

This is honestly just too cute:

John Walker74 said:Especially when you're talking about the guy history remembers as the "Laughing Philosopher"—or just the "Cheerful Philosopher," depending on who you ask. Some people even called him the Mockingbird. He was basically the total opposite of Plato, who was always so incredibly serious, stiff, and stuck-up. Democritus earned that nickname because his whole philosophy was just so upbeat, plus he’d literally just burst out laughing in public at all the nonsense and superstitions people cling to.

Man, if they’d spent years grabbing coffee with any of them, things would be totally different. What a load of nonsense.

mistyfox812:
John Walker74 has this incredibly blunt way of looking at everything. He basically strips the world down to its bare bones and sorts people and their entire existence—every single thought and action they take—into two strictly defined categories.
It always seems to come down to this endless, exhausting tug-of-war, doesn't it? On one side, you’ve got the progressives—the ones riding the wave of democracy, materialism, hard science, and feminism—and then, on the other, you have this complete reactionary counter-movement made up of metaphysicians, religious zealots, anti-science types, and anyone chasing totalitarian control. Is it even possible to find any middle ground when the two sides are fundamentally built on such polar opposite foundations?
John Walker74:
Of course I have a clear-eyed view of how things work and can easily tell the difference between progressive ideas and those that are just dragging us backward, but I’m certainly not going to let you sit there and dictate the criteria to me when your own standards aren't exactly through the roof, are they? And honestly, what exactly are we dealing with here when it comes to your own perspective—is it just vaguely unclear, or is it completely and utterly muddled?

mistyfox812:
She doesn't even bother with actual arguments because she treats everything like it’s just common sense. It’s always the same tired routine with her—"even a child would know that," "it's basic knowledge," or "everyone knows this already"—as if those condescending little jabs actually count as reasoning. How is anyone supposed to have a real conversation when her entire strategy is just implying that if you don't already agree with her, you're simply too ignorant to understand?
John Walker74:
Look, I already said that anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy knows Democritus was a contemporary of Plato, and honestly, it’s common knowledge that Plato never once mentions him in his writings, even though he manages to touch on almost every other minor philosopher out there. I’m not exactly going to brag about being ignorant regarding such a massive oversight, but it really rubs me the wrong way that Plato completely ignores a thinker whom so many people considered his equal. Of course, someone as narrow-minded as you wouldn't notice that, since you're too busy believing that Plato's idealism is the absolute truth to care about any other philosopher who dares to hold a different perspective.

mistyfox812:
She’s managed to cram both Plato and Democritus into that hopelessly naive little scheme of hers. I mean, seriously, where does she even get this stuff? She probably overheard a snippet about how Democritus deals with atoms and immediately jumped to some ridiculous conclusion like, "Oh, atoms! That means science, progress, and democracy!" And then, because she likely caught wind of Plato’s "world of ideas," she twists it into something else entirely, deciding that "an alternative world" must automatically equate to religion, anti-science, and totalitarianism. How can anyone be so spectacularly wrong?
John Walker74-
Are you actually arguing against what I’ve written, or are you just fighting some imaginary version of me that exists only in your head? Get a grip. It is blindingly obvious that I know significantly more about Democritus's contributions to science than you ever will, especially since I went out of my way to provide you with a full list of his works just so you could see the sheer scope of his intellect. As for why I believe Plato's Republic is nothing short of totalitarian, I laid it all out using direct quotes from the text itself, so please, don't even bother trying to defend those monstrous ideas—you're just wasting your breath. You glided over the facts I presented from Plato's Republic so effortlessly that it honestly feels like I’m writing to you in invisible ink. Why don't you have the guts to just admit that, on this issue, Plato is nothing more than a complete loser?

mistyfox812:
Look, I’m not even talking about what Democritus actually said regarding this specific topic; I’m looking at his broader "natural philosophy," which honestly has nothing to do with this subject at all. But of course, because for John Walker74, the equation always boils down to "materialist equals democrat."
John Walker74
Look, you’d be better off just writing out both my responses and yours in one go, because right now you’re basically just having a one-man conversation with yourself like Plato in those endless dialogues of his. Seriously, "Yes, mistyfox812," "Certainly, mistyfox812," "I totally agree with mistyfox812"—it's ridiculous. You end up blathering some nonsense and then immediately pinning it on me. And let's get one thing straight: being a materialist doesn't dictate whether someone is a democrat or an autocrat; that specific philosophical stance doesn't strictly determine a person's ethics. That said, there's no denying that for Democritus, his views on nature almost certainly shaped his ethical outlook. We can see that clearly by looking at the thinkers who carried his torch and piecing together what little remains of his actual work. Honestly, you barely have a grip on this subject, and since you've started off on such a shaky footing, I doubt you're ever going to wrap your head around it. It's a real shame, really.

mistyfox812:
Let’s get back to the reliability of Diogenes Laertius’s accounts, because honestly, I feel like we haven't fully interrogated the mess he left us. Is there any reason to actually trust the way he pieces together these lives, or are we just swallowing his word because it’s convenient? When you look at how he compiles these anecdotes, doesn't it feel like he's more interested in the drama of the story than the actual historical accuracy of the man? It makes you wonder if we're reading history or just an ancient version of a tabloid rag, where the goal is to make the philosopher look legendary rather than making sure the facts actually line up.
The idea that Democritus's writings vanished simply because Plato's followers went on some crusade to destroy them is, quite frankly, total nonsense. It’s a ridiculous notion, isn't it? The reality is much more mundane and far less conspiratorial: they weren't preserved because there just wasn't enough interest to keep the scribes busy. People only bothered to copy what they actually found interesting or useful at the time, and clearly, his work didn't make the cut.
John Walker74-
Honestly, there is just no point in trying to have a rational conversation with you. You spent the whole time demanding a specific quote to prove that Democritus was a thorn in Plato's side, acting like you’d never even heard of the concept before. But then, as soon as you finally tracked down the quote and realized it actually supported my point, you suddenly pivoted to screaming about how unreliable the source is simply because it doesn't serve your agenda. Now, you're leaning on this "question of credibility" as if it's some kind of silver bullet, but tell me this: if we start tossing out sources every time they don't fit your narrative, why on earth should anyone believe a single word written by Diels or any other historian or biographer?
Could those perhaps be firsthand accounts?

I wrote quite ironically that when you look at what remains of Democritus, one might think Plato's followers actually succeeded in wiping out his works—and you took that literally, even though I clearly stated that Plato backed away from such a thing after being talked out of it by his friends. Do I really need to draw this out for you, since you obviously have no idea how to read?

Then you end up spouting absolute nonsense, claiming that Democritus's manuscripts weren't preserved simply because there weren't enough people transcribing them. Apparently, they just chose to copy whatever caught their interest. My, what refined taste those scribes had! Out of roughly seventy manuscripts by Democritus, not a single one was deemed worthy. Give me a break. "Ugh, atoms," "ugh, physics," "ugh, mathematics." And Epicurus fared even worse, despite having an oeuvre that rivals Aristotle's. From over three hundred works covering physics, justice, love, and the gods, nothing appealed to those copyists. It’s one thing that they refused to transcribe his work, but they went as far as attaching an entirely different philosophy to him—one he never even advocated for. If you look up the term "Epicurean" in any dictionary, it defines them as gluttons or people seeking physical indulgence, which is a far cry from the type of hedonism Epicurus actually preached. What a tiny, pathetic little liar you are, and a blind, religious fanatic at that. Why don't you just tell people openly that these works were systematically destroyed and erased by the state and the church? The answer is simple: it doesn't look good to publicly side with those who burn and destroy books.

It is far from true that the ideas presented in those works weren't popular. Nietzsche didn't write without reason that every honest spirit in the Roman Empire was an Epicurean. The Church Fathers realized exactly where the real philosophical resistance to their spreading faith would come from, recognizing that their religion was merely a raw myth cobbled together from various old-world myths, inherently inferior to the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Therefore, they reached for Plato, whose ideas would play a pivotal role in the development of Christian theology. That is precisely what I meant when I said Plato is Christianity, yet you took it literally. Plato was the perfect choice because, much like any successful religion, he possessed the absolute truth, he was so full of moralizing, so essentially Christian, as Nietzsche would put it.

What an absurdity, that the ideas of Democritus and Epicurus survived thanks to the Roman poet Lucretius, who, in his poem On the Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura), described the essence of their philosophy. A few copies of this poem are all that remained of their work during the Middle Ages. Yet, it was enough to ignite the spark that would eventually give birth to modern atomic science.

mistyfox812:
Because let’s be honest, there was absolutely nothing worth saying when it came to the intersection of something like Platonism and actual science, and frankly, John Walker74 had zero ground to stand on there.
John Walker74:
And who exactly am I supposed to talk to about this? You? The guy who struts around acting like he’s some big-shot physics expert, when even I—someone who doesn't have a single degree in the field—can see right through those ridiculous posts of yours?😂

mistyfox812:
It’s a well-established fact that modern physics has essentially become nothing more than mathematical physics—a massive departure from the old-school Aristotelian approach we used to rely on. This whole shift toward treating math as the ultimate language of reality was actually driven by those Renaissance Neoplatonists, with Kepler being one of the most prominent figures to push that agenda forward.
John Walker74:
So, let me get this straight. If I’m following your logic correctly, we have Plato to thank yet again for basically paving the way for modern physics? Is that how it works? Do you just wake up every single morning, stare at his portrait, and offer up a little prayer of thanks for everything he’s bestowed upon us? And then, of course, we have to pin the blame on wicked old Aristotle because, apparently, nothing of actual substance happened in the world of physics for two thousand years—not even the development of a proper scientific method—simply because his brand of physics was the reigning authority until now.

As far as I can tell, Plato’s works have been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries, haven't they? It’s not like his influence just vanished into thin air; he actually established the Academy, held significant political sway, and produced a massive lineage of philosophers who all cut their teeth in his school. Even the Church ended up adopting his writings into its core studies, much like how physics—along with pretty much every other major science—has been shaped by the heavy hitters of classical thought. Is it any wonder his ideas still carry so much weight today? It’s honestly mind-blowing when you really sit down and think about it—nothing has actually shifted an inch in almost two thousand years. Are we seriously still circling the exact same drain? It feels like we're just running in place, pretending there's progress while the fundamental core of everything remains stubbornly frozen in time.So here we go again—after two whole millennia of waiting around, we’re supposed to act like Plato somehow paved the way for Kepler, and that this is somehow his massive, groundbreaking contribution to the field of physics? Give me a break. Is that really what we're calling it now? It took two thousand years just to get a spark of something useful, which basically means that when it comes to actual physics, Plato didn't contribute a single damn thing.

By the thirteenth century, Aristotle had become the Church's absolute darling, arguably even more influential than Plato himself, and for a few hundred years, his views on physics were treated like gospel, but let’s be honest—after all that buildup, the end result was nothing but a massive, steaming pile of nothing.

Plato, Aristotle, and even our friend mistyfox812 just don't get the core essence of physics. They seem to think modern physics is some kind of purely mathematical abstraction, but they couldn't be more wrong—it isn't just math, it's something else entirely. Mathematical and experimental physics—it’s one of those fields that really forces you to confront how much we actually know versus how much we just assume we know, doesn't it? You have the pure, elegant abstractions of mathematics on one side, and then you have the messy, unpredictable reality of experimental physics hitting you right in the face. It’s a constant tug-of-war between the perfect equations we scribble down in our notebooks and the actual, chaotic behavior of the universe when you try to measure it. How can anyone truly claim to understand the fundamental laws of nature if they aren't constantly wrestling with both sides of this coin? One without the other is practically useless; math without experiment is just beautiful guesswork, and experiment without math is just collecting data points without any clue what they actually mean.Mathematics is absolutely worthless if you aren't backing it up with actual experimentation. Think about it—science didn't truly undergo its massive revolution until Galileo stepped up and decided to ground physics in precise measurement and hands-on testing, rather than just obsessing over formal logic and abstract metaphysics. Why would anyone still cling to pure theory when real-world data tells a completely different story?

Let’s look at a totally basic example to show how ridiculous this all is. Aristotle claimed that a heavy object falls faster than a light one of the same shape. Well, thank God there are rocks everywhere, so you could practically make a simple experiment out of them anytime you feel like it. You could write endless pages of philosophical debates based on Aristotle's claim, and some people would even go as far as questioning whether Aristotle was actually wrong. Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people were born after Aristotle, and hundreds upon hundreds of scholars spent their lives breaking their heads over this exact problem, yet not a single soul in the following two thousand years bothered to just pick up a slightly larger rock in their left hand, a slightly smaller one in their right, and drop them both in front of them to see what happens. Even when the brilliant Galileo finally figured it out toward the end of the 16th century by dropping two stones of different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa—where he was working as a math professor—to prove they fall at the exact same speed, there were still witnesses claiming they would rather believe Aristotle than trust their own eyes. Honestly, Aristotle's authority among Galileo's fellow professors was so massive that it actually cost poor Galileo his job, leaving him unable to continue teaching in Pisa. Can you believe that?

Because they completely ignored the importance of actual experimentation, Plato and Aristotle left behind a massive ocean of errors that managed to stay unchallenged for two thousand years. And now, here comes mistyfox812, ready to toss experimental physics out the window all over again just to reduce the entire field to nothing more than mathematical physics. As if matter isn't made of anything real, but is instead just a collection of spreadsheets filled with numbers?

mistyfox812:
Look, this whole "particle is also a wave" thing is driving me up the wall. It’s so easy to just shrug your shoulders and dismiss it, isn't it? People just wave their hands and say, "So what?" But if you actually take a second to wrap your head around the implications, it becomes blindingly obvious that something simply cannot be both a particle and a wave at the exact same time. Think about it logically: two particles can't just pass right through one another, yet two waves can do that all day long. Waves can interfere with each other, but particles? They don't do that. Waves undergo diffraction, while particles don't. You get the idea. And let's be clear, nobody is actually claiming that light or an electron is simultaneously a wave AND a particle. What they're saying is that in certain experiments, light—or an electron—behaves more like a wave, and in others, it behaves more like a particle. Therefore, this concept is nothing like those little Democritus pebbles we were taught about in school.
John Walker74:
Look, you seriously need to go back and get that physics degree of yours updated.
So, according to your logic, a particle acts like a wave on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, then switches to being a particle on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and by Sunday, it’s just sitting there contemplating its existence? Please. That kind of outdated thinking was left in the dust ages ago. You’re totally out of the loop, man. Physicists were actually trying to build one unified theory that works consistently seven days a week, and they succeeded with something you clearly haven't even heard of called quantum physics. Particles are still particles, they just have this wave probability function attached to them now, which basically describes the likelihood of finding a specific particle in a specific spot within a certain area.

mistyfox812:
The vacuum is actually just massive "zero point" energy. It's constantly generating these "virtual particles"—what would Democritus even say to that?
John Walker74-
Whether they're virtual or not, it doesn't matter as long as we can measure them and they aren't breaking the principles Democritus laid down ages ago—specifically the law of conservation of energy, which nobody has ever managed to prove wrong. Physics laws change all the time and they'll keep changing, but that oldest principle established by Democritus hasn't been debunked yet. And that’s precisely his claim: that nothing can come from nothing. You think you’ve overturned that with your ridiculous claims, but even here, Democritus is outsmarting you.🙂

mistyfox812:
Emptiness exists even less than those Democritus particles.
John Walker74-
I just saw a report on CNN saying that the latest physics experiments confirmed that the only true emptiness exists inside your head.

mistyfox812:
First off, Relativity threw the idea of unchanging matter (atoms) out the window: not only can "particles" transform into one another—meaning none of them are truly "elementary"—but they can also vanish completely, effectively annihilating themselves. They turn into something non-material, like light, for example.
John Walker74:
...like light, for example, which is itself material and made up of tiny little Democritus spheres called photons, which possess energy, possess momentum, which we can actually measure, and which are, obviously, material, real and tangible. It's clear you don't know anything.

mistyfox812:
Actually, particles are just a collection of properties that we express numerically. These properties have absolutely nothing to do with anything we can see, hear, touch, or taste. We can only conceive of them through thought.
John Walker74-
Honestly, Heisenberg would be turning in his grave if he saw how you're interpreting his matrix mechanics. All you care about is the fact that he was also a fan of Plato's, regardless of the fact that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is just another theory that will force you to update that degree of yours. Every time you read the name Plato, you cling to it like a moth to a flame. You lose all sense of direction and lose any capacity for critical thinking regarding such people, choosing instead to Platonic-idealize them all. Because of that, you fail to see some of Plato's totalitarian ideas that are eerily similar to Hitler's, just as Heisenberg unnecessarily idealized Plato and ended up working on Hitler's atomic bomb project, dragging his undeniable scientific reputation through the mud.

So, you'd better watch out with Plato, because he's a top-tier con artist.
He managed to fool plenty of brilliant minds, so why wouldn't he get you too?

John Walker74 said in previous posts:
Especially when dealing with a man who went down in history nicknamed "The Laughing Philosopher," or what some call "The Merry Philosopher." Some even called him the Mockingbird. He was the complete opposite of the eternally serious, stiff, and self-important Plato. Democritus earned that nickname because of his cheerful philosophy and because he would loudly laugh at all human stupidity and superstition during public appearances.

mistyfox812:
Not if he had spent years grabbing coffee with every single one of them. What nonsense.
John Walker74:
If I had the choice, I’d definitely rather grab a coffee with Democritus than with Plato. You’re more than welcome to go grab coffee with Plato, but I’d strongly suggest you keep your back to the wall (You really ought to read Plato's Symposium😂, unless you're planning on being ungrateful to Plato for all the sheer joy he’s provided us through his work.

Yeah, I'm with you there, mistyfox812.

Absolutely.

Arrogant ignorance is everywhere, honestly, but John Walker74 has basically shattered every ceiling ever set on this forum. I’m serious—she doesn't just philosophize better than Plato, she actually knows physics way better than Pauli or Heisenberg.
Since everything else she wrote is pretty much total nonsense—and I've already debunked most of it—I’m only gonna address this one part. It’s not even about her personally; it’s just because this is such a widespread misconception (which is exactly what we’re here to fix).

John Walker74 said:Modern physics isn't just mathematical physics, it's mathematical-experimental physics. Math without experiments is useless. The scientific revolution really kicked off when Galileo grounded physics in precise measurement and experimentation instead of relying on formal logic and metaphysics.

Take a super basic example. Aristotle claimed that a heavy object falls faster than a light one of the same shape. Thank God stones are everywhere, so you can set up an experiment anywhere, cheap and easy. People could write pages and pages of philosophical debates about Aristotle's claim; some would even doubt if Aristotle was actually wrong. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people were born after Aristotle, and hundreds upon hundreds of scholars racked their brains over this exact problem, yet nobody in the next two thousand years thought to just grab a slightly larger stone in the left hand, a smaller one in the right, and drop them both in front of them to see what happens. Even when the genius Galileo finally figured it out at the end of the 16th century by dropping two different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa—where he was a math professor—there were witnesses who insisted they'd rather believe Aristotle than their own eyes. Aristotle’s authority among Galileo's fellow professors was so massive that it actually cost poor Galileo his job, and he couldn't keep teaching in Pisa.

As anyone who has actually tried to replicate that experiment knows, those two stones aren't going to fall at the same time.
They’d fall simultaneously in a vacuum, but not in the air. Galileo didn't have a vacuum.
What does this mean? Galileo had to use abstraction to realize they would fall together in a vacuum. Because he didn't have a vacuum; he had air.
This conclusion by Galileo is a result of his thinking regarding the principle of inertia, which he was the first to formulate. It states: an object with no net force acting on it continues to move at a constant velocity. Did he figure that out through an experiment? Nobody has ever actually seen an object with absolutely no force acting on it.
An experiment shows that something is true, but you don't get to the actual underlying truth just by doing the experiment. A dummy can collect thousands of empirical data points and still fail to understand a single thing.
The idea that physical knowledge moves from experiment to laws is wrong; it’s actually the other way around. Like Einstein said, "only theory determines what should be measured in the first place."

Modern physics is indeed based on both experiment and math—the reason I only mentioned math was purely because of the context I was writing in, specifically regarding Platonism and science.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
Because that 'particle' is also a wave. It’s easy to just shrug and act like it doesn't matter, right? Like, 'so what?' But if you actually try to wrap your head around it, it's obvious there's a massive problem—something can't be both a wave and a particle at the exact same time. Two particles can't just pass through each other, but two waves totally can. Waves interfere, particles don't. Waves diffract, particles don't. And honestly, nobody is claiming light or an electron is SIMULTANEOUSLY a wave and a particle. It's more like: light (or an electron) acts more like a wave in some experiments and more like a particle in others. So, it’s nothing like those little Democritus-style tiny marbles people imagine.
Essence:
Man... you seriously need to go update that physics degree of yours.
So, in your world, a particle acts like a wave on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, then switches to acting like a particle on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and then spends Sunday deciding what it wants to be? Look, that kind of thinking is ancient history in the science world. You're totally out of the loop, man. Physicists wanted one unified theory that works seven days a week. That’s how we got quantum physics—a theory you clearly haven't heard of. Particles are still particles, they just have this wave probability function attached to them now, which basically tells us the odds of finding a specific particle in a certain spot.

That whole "particles stay particles" thing doesn't actually mean anything.
Feynman actually suggested calling them "wavicles" just so people wouldn't associate these "particles" with little physical spheres. It has zero to do with what we usually call a particle, just like quarks have nothing to do with Joyce or quantum chromodynamics having anything to do with actual colors.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
The vacuum is actually just massive 'zero point' energy. Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence constantly in there (would Democritus even get that?)[/B]
Essence:
Virtual or not, it’s fine as long as we can measure them and they don't break the principles Democritus laid down ages ago—like the law of conservation of energy, which nobody has ever managed to prove wrong yet. Physics laws change all the time and they always will, but that oldest rule from Democritus? Nobody has knocked that one down yet. He claimed you can't get something from nothing, and even though you think you've debunked him with this silly claim, Democritus is still outsmarting you here.🙂

Democritus didn't lay down the law of conservation of energy. That was formulated in the 19th century. Nice try, but you're off by about two and a half millennia.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
Empty space exists even less than Democritus's particles.
Essence:
They just reported on The New York Times that the latest physics experiments confirmed that empty space actually exists inside your head.

🙄

Essence said:mistyfox812:
First off, Relativity totally wrecked the idea that matter is permanent. Like, "particles" aren't even set in stone—they can swap identities, meaning nothing is truly "elementary." Plus, they can just straight-up vanish, or *a-nihil-ate*. They turn into stuff that isn't even physical anymore, like light.
Essence:
...like light, which is actually material and made up of tiny little Democritus spheres called photons. They have energy, they have momentum, we can measure them, and they are obviously physical, real and actual. You clearly don't know anything.

Usually, people think "physical" means having mass. But photons aren't little spheres (I mean, if they were spheres, why wouldn't they be pyramids or cubes 🙄?). And spheres definitely can't interfere with each other.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
Particles are really just a collection of properties we express through numbers. These traits have zero connection to anything we can see, hear, touch, or taste. We can only conceptualize them.
Essence-
Honestly, Heisenberg would be rolling in his grave if he saw how you're twisting his matrix mechanics. All you care about is that he was also a fan of Plato. It doesn't matter that Heisenberg’s own matrix mechanics is just another theory that’s gonna force you to redo your entire degree. Every time you see the word Plato, you fly toward it like a moth to a flame. You lose all sense of direction and stop being critical, just idealizing everyone like it's some Platonic dream. You completely miss the totalitarian vibes in Plato's ideas—which are eerily similar to Hitler's—just like how Heisenberg needlessly idolized Plato and ended up working on Hitler's atomic bomb project, basically staining his massive scientific reputation.

Oh sure, now Heisenberg is a conspiracy theorist too. I guess Essence is gonna expose all of them.