of the thought of Plato is imminent. Plato's thinking entered through Philo very early into the Hellenic interpretation, and above all through Augustine into the neoplatonic Christian understanding and interpretation, and it has remained there ever since, throughout the most diverse variations. Even those who believe they are free from Christian representations and understand Plato in terms of humanism and classicism—hence presumably as "pagan"—still think in a Christian way precisely insofar as the pagan is simply the counter-Christian. Only in terms of a Christian appraisal are the Greeks "pagans." But even completely apart from the distinction between Christian and pagan, Plato's philosophy is always thought of as Platonic in the sense of a Platonism. What could our objection be to this practice of thinking Plato "Platonically"? Is it not the only appropriate way, or at any rate more "correct" than interpreting Plato's philosophy with the help of the philosophy of Kant or Hegel? Nevertheless, the attempt to interpret Plato with the help of some sort of Platonism is certain perdition. For it is like trying to "explain" the fresh leaf of the tree by means of the foliage fallen on the ground.
c) The question of the "here" and "there." Politeia, X, 614b2, and the questionableness of this "reference" to the myth.
Plato distinguishes between ἐνθάδε and ἐχεῖ we say prudently: the here and the there, and we are right to leave aside the notions of "heaven," "hell," "limbo," "purgatory." But this is by no means sufficient, for the "there" of the Greeks is not only different in form and content but also "exists" in general in a different mode: namely, as a mode of the Greek experience of Being. As long as we do not reflect on this in an essentially fitting way, even the ἐχεῖ, the "there," of the Greeks will be a closed book. We will find ourselves helpless before the so-called underworld, "Hades," and the "shades" dwelling "there." We will then concoct some sort of "ghost psychology" and not raise first the simple question why are there shades there? Is the shadowy character of Being in Hades connected with the essence of the Greek experience of beings and their unconcealedness? Now assuming we do not remain bound to the particular and do not inquire as historiographers of religion, then which figures dwell in the Greek "beyond" in place of "angels" and "devils"? But even if we are prepared to acknowledge that in the beyond as experienced by the Greeks not only are beings different, but also, prior to that, Being itself, and even if we have some inkling that the Greek distinction between what is here and what is there rests on an other experience of Being, yet we still cannot escape the most impelling question: how can a thinker of Plato's rank claim to know anything at all about the "there"?