What do you think?
Rate this book
Platonism and Naturalism: The Possibility of Philosophy
In his third and concluding volume, Lloyd P. Gerson presents an innovative account of Platonism, the central tradition in the history of philosophy, in conjunction with Naturalism, the "anti-Platonism" in antiquity and contemporary philosophy.
Gerson contends that Platonism identifies philosophy with a distinct subject matter, namely, the intelligible world and seeks to show that the Naturalist rejection of Platonism entails the elimination of a distinct subject matter for philosophy. Thus, the possibility of philosophy depends on the truth of Platonism. From Aristotle to Plotinus to Proclus, Gerson clearly links the construction of the Platonic system well beyond simply Plato's dialogues, providing strong evidence of the vast impact of Platonism on philosophy throughout history. Platonism and Naturalism concludes that attempts to seek a rapprochement between Platonism and Naturalism are unstable and likely indefensible.
Gerson contends that Platonism identifies philosophy with a distinct subject matter, namely, the intelligible world and seeks to show that the Naturalist rejection of Platonism entails the elimination of a distinct subject matter for philosophy. Thus, the possibility of philosophy depends on the truth of Platonism. From Aristotle to Plotinus to Proclus, Gerson clearly links the construction of the Platonic system well beyond simply Plato's dialogues, providing strong evidence of the vast impact of Platonism on philosophy throughout history. Platonism and Naturalism concludes that attempts to seek a rapprochement between Platonism and Naturalism are unstable and likely indefensible.
497 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 15, 2020
16 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
About the author
Lloyd P. Gerson
29 books23 followersLloyd Gerson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 29, 2024
A meticulously researched study of the historic clash between Platonic metaphysics and all brands of Naturalism, "Platonism and Naturalism: The Possibility of Philosophy" is a magisterial and probably paradigm-shifting study. Gerson makes the following claims about Plato and platonism (which I learned in philosophy courses and books not to believe):
Plato had a system; Plato's dialogues advance this system; the dialogues' hypothetical order is irrelevant and artificial; the heart of Plato's system is metaphysics; Aristotle was a Platonist; the differences between Aristotle and his teacher are not irreconcilable as 20th century scholarship insisted; Aristotle's comments regarding Plato's system are true; the other oral traditions and later fragments about Plato's metaphysical system are probably both accurate and historical; Plotinus and Proclus were not boldly original but ingeniously supportive of the original project of Plato; "Neo-Platonism" is a term which only popped up in the 18th century and is neither accurate nor helpful; one cannot "dabble" in Platonism as it has a single, metaphysical horizon that is either accepted or not; the Naturalism of Anaxagoras or the Naturalism of a 21st century Darwinian materialist consists of the exact same (lack of) metaphysical cogency or consistency; and finally, philosophy is Platonism.
It's the last part that Gerson actually begins and ends with. Quoting Rorty's assertion that philosophy is Platonism and should therefore be discarded, Gerson turns the tables and agrees with him in a way. Where Naturalists/Materialists may argue (like Stephen Hawking) that philosophy is not necessary in a universe where mechanistic laws can eventually be explained and is therefore "dead," Gerson argues that the opposite is actually true; only philosophy (Platonism) can actually give an "explanation" of anything because only philosophy (Platonist metaphysics) can provide meaning. Basically, the only way to understand philosophy is as Platonism, plus the accumulations of centuries of adjustments, clashes, and conflicts. The major development, as Gerson argues, is that beginning with the modern period, Platonism (philosophy) began giving more and more concessions to naturalism. Where we have ended up is with diluted, prudential, relativistic, anthropocentric ethics and a total lack of metaphysics. There's no over-arching story in the modern period, and the fighting is all happening as if Platonism no longer affected us or no longer mattered.
This book is a difficult read at times, but it is filled with refreshing insights, bold ideas, and satisfying rebuttals of countless modern scholars.
Plato had a system; Plato's dialogues advance this system; the dialogues' hypothetical order is irrelevant and artificial; the heart of Plato's system is metaphysics; Aristotle was a Platonist; the differences between Aristotle and his teacher are not irreconcilable as 20th century scholarship insisted; Aristotle's comments regarding Plato's system are true; the other oral traditions and later fragments about Plato's metaphysical system are probably both accurate and historical; Plotinus and Proclus were not boldly original but ingeniously supportive of the original project of Plato; "Neo-Platonism" is a term which only popped up in the 18th century and is neither accurate nor helpful; one cannot "dabble" in Platonism as it has a single, metaphysical horizon that is either accepted or not; the Naturalism of Anaxagoras or the Naturalism of a 21st century Darwinian materialist consists of the exact same (lack of) metaphysical cogency or consistency; and finally, philosophy is Platonism.
It's the last part that Gerson actually begins and ends with. Quoting Rorty's assertion that philosophy is Platonism and should therefore be discarded, Gerson turns the tables and agrees with him in a way. Where Naturalists/Materialists may argue (like Stephen Hawking) that philosophy is not necessary in a universe where mechanistic laws can eventually be explained and is therefore "dead," Gerson argues that the opposite is actually true; only philosophy (Platonism) can actually give an "explanation" of anything because only philosophy (Platonist metaphysics) can provide meaning. Basically, the only way to understand philosophy is as Platonism, plus the accumulations of centuries of adjustments, clashes, and conflicts. The major development, as Gerson argues, is that beginning with the modern period, Platonism (philosophy) began giving more and more concessions to naturalism. Where we have ended up is with diluted, prudential, relativistic, anthropocentric ethics and a total lack of metaphysics. There's no over-arching story in the modern period, and the fighting is all happening as if Platonism no longer affected us or no longer mattered.
This book is a difficult read at times, but it is filled with refreshing insights, bold ideas, and satisfying rebuttals of countless modern scholars.
August 1, 2025
Truly like drinking through a fire hose. This will be an evergreen source of knowledge to which I’ll be able to return to time and time again. I know there was a lot I missed on my first read, and looking forward to taking notes and cross referencing it with other works of Platonism.
The point of this book is not a straight forward argument for Platonism per se, although he does give several good arguments for the five pillars of Platonism. Rather, here’s what Gerson accomplishes:
1) Explain the system of Platonic philosophy.
2) Argue that this is what most people meant by philosophy (or first philosophy) until the 17th/18th century.
3) Explain Naturalism and it’s natural antagonism with Platonism (and thus philosophy)
4) Explain the role of the Idea of the Good (or the unhypothetical principle of all) and its indispensable role in Platonism.
5) Create a dilemma between Naturalism and Platonism. You can have one or the other, but not a comprise (Ex: Stoicism, empiricism, etc.)
Along the way, he provides some excellent exegesis of some classical philosophical sources (Ex: Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Plotinus). He also does an excellent job of explaining why some arguments against naturalism are not compelling. I caught myself generating counter arguments to the naturalists included in the texts, only for those arguments to be refuted by Gerson.
Overall, definitely a worthwhile read (and reread).
The point of this book is not a straight forward argument for Platonism per se, although he does give several good arguments for the five pillars of Platonism. Rather, here’s what Gerson accomplishes:
1) Explain the system of Platonic philosophy.
2) Argue that this is what most people meant by philosophy (or first philosophy) until the 17th/18th century.
3) Explain Naturalism and it’s natural antagonism with Platonism (and thus philosophy)
4) Explain the role of the Idea of the Good (or the unhypothetical principle of all) and its indispensable role in Platonism.
5) Create a dilemma between Naturalism and Platonism. You can have one or the other, but not a comprise (Ex: Stoicism, empiricism, etc.)
Along the way, he provides some excellent exegesis of some classical philosophical sources (Ex: Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Plotinus). He also does an excellent job of explaining why some arguments against naturalism are not compelling. I caught myself generating counter arguments to the naturalists included in the texts, only for those arguments to be refuted by Gerson.
Overall, definitely a worthwhile read (and reread).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2020
Quite good. Quite difficult.
May 18, 2024
Great book. Great author. Enjoyed it.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews