Incidentally, your point about the non-existence of the body and the soul, properly speaking, for Plato brings to mind our friend Hartenberg’s reading of Descartes, which he expresses in the comments here.

http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=2044

Functionally, it’s the same: ‘substance’ is only properly predicated of God, not of either the body or the soul. I still don’t know what to make of it.

matt

Sorry, I meant for or against Plato. I really could go either way, which serves my contrarian heart well.

But I agree, maybe evangelicals should just define ourselves at the anti-Plato people, and then we’ll all just get along!

David, I think your reference to Girard now disqualifies you from using ‘everything’ with reference to that which you are ignorant of. Better stick to the original suggestion. : )

Matt

Kick away. . . Frank Turk says it will help me earn my salvation.

BTW – since I’m off to a roaring start talking about people I’m ignorant of, why stop now? Is anyone here familiar with Rene Girard and his work on the scapegoat? Given John Mark’s comment about the unifying character of kicking Plato around I think JMR and Plato are perfect Girardian scapegoats. But then again, it’s me saying that . . .

But we love you . . .

Just a guy ignorant of Platonic sociobiology, bacteriology, and soteriology,

John Mark

Are you kidding? Kicking Plato around is the one thing that unites the Evangelical left and right.

Saying you like Plato is the only way I know to make everyone at an Evangelical academic party get mad.

At least this time the critic will have read him! I look forward to the opportunity to think about my favorite philosopher!

In any case, I am abuzz to know the Platonic anthropology that will unite the Phaedo and Timaeus . . . woo! hoo!

We should start by noting that technically Plato did not believe in the existence of either the body or soul in his sense of “existence” and so was not a dualist. “Platonic dualism” is a very refined term and only applies within the framework of a cosmos that is “becoming.”

This mistake (which I am sure nobody here would make) has caused many an Evangelical to attack the neo-Platonists while thinking they are attacking Plato. (See Schaeffer, Francis.)

I propose that as your new tagline. It’s what all the kids aspire to!

David K.,

Oooh, this should be good. It’s been a few years since John Mark’s Platonism has been on the hot seat. : )

My question is, which side should I take in the coming throw down? Oh, the dilemmas.

matt

Safe to say that Plato ‘hated the body’ is one of those over simplifications that live on in seminaries everywhere. Plato did not think bodies ‘evil’ . . . if you take his philosophy as a whole and don’t just get stuck in Phaedo!”

There is much more to Plato than this, as I’m sure you must know, John Mark. Plato’s anthropology is incompatible with a biblical anthropology. The body-soul dualism is certainly a big part of this, but also the inability to distinguish clearly between Creator and creation. Moreover, Plato’s philosophy represents nothing less than a soteriology at variance with that of Christianity. I will post on this at some point, because I think too many people miss this, mostly because they neglect to look for the distinctive Platonic redemptive narrative that conditions his philosophy. Stay tuned.

Whether Wesley or the good doctor Plato are being unduly maligned, the church is still full of this “the body is nothing” baloney. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to hear of churches still railing about the deemin likker (HT: Philosopher Turk), with the same churches practically full to bursting with overweight, indolent bodies subsisting on the American four food groups (salt, sugar, fat and caffeine). We of all people, who are His people because the God who made our bodies was with us in a body, and dwells in our bodies even now, should know better than to think that as long as our enormous, underused and abused bodies are covered from neck to knee, we’re all good.

And don’t even get me started on the pastors and parents who don’t consider whether the fact that Jesus was fully man, right down to his “man parts”, might bring significant comfort and joy to their fifteen year old sons as they try to sort out why God gave them those parts and what they’re for.

Sorry if that’s a little rant-ish. But I didn’t want your great point lost if the general consensus was that Wesley and Plato were going to be let off the hook about it.

First, “veiled in flesh the Godhead see” should be understand in parallel with “hail incarnate deity,” which says the same thing in terms that I doubt anyone would find objectionable.

Second, Wesley, an Anglican, may have had in mind the chalice veil used to cover the bread and wine until it is unveiled in the liturgy of the altar.

First, Marcus Borg made the same complaint (in the God We Never Knew), so not to imply any guilt by association, but hey…

Yes.

Nobody blames you.

I certainly don’t, because as a Western Rite Orthodox Christian I am a member of a group so confusing that we hardly believe in our own existence . . . and so admire people with strong beliefs . . . even when they are false.

Insert cheerful emoticon here.

John Mark