It does what it says on the tin.
The Medici's invented Plato, to promote Democracy, which they could control using money/bribery/intimidation/blackmail.
As far as 'inventing Plato', there was a guy by the name of Georgius Gemistus, later named Plethon (Plethon = Plato). It seems he either wrote or translated someone else's work and that became known as 'Plato's work':
"1360 – 1452/1454, later called Plethon, was one of the most renowned philosophers of the late Byzantine era.[4] He was a chief pioneer of the revival of Greek scholarship in Western Europe.[5] As revealed in his last literary work, the Nomoi or Book of Laws, which he only circulated among close friends, he rejected Christianity in favour of a return to the worship of ancient Hellenic Gods as well as ancient wisdom based on Zoroaster and the Magi.[6]
He re-introduced Plato's ideas to Western Europe during the 1438–1439 Council of Florence, a failed attempt to reconcile the East-West schism. Here, it was believed until recently, Plethon met and influenced Cosimo de' Medici to found a new Platonic Academy, which, under Marsilio Ficino, would proceed to translate into Latin all Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other Neoplatonist works. "
As for Cosimo De Medici:
"Cosimo's power over Florence stemmed from his wealth, which he used to control the votes of office holders in the municipal councils, most importantly the Signoria of Florence. As Florence was proud of its "democracy", he pretended to have little political ambition and did not often hold public office. Enea Piccolomini, Bishop of Siena and later Pope Pius II, said of him:
"Political questions are settled in [Cosimo's] house. The man he chooses holds office... He it is who decides peace and war... He is king in all but name"
"The arrival of notable Byzantine figures from the Eastern Roman Empire, including Emperor John VIII Palaiologos himself, started a boom in interest for Greek culture and arts in the city"
view the rest of the comments →
[–] TrialsAndTribulation ago
More persuasive than your unsourced post.
[–] TheSeer [S] ago
Unsourced? I AM the source. Are you challenged or something? It is all quotes from Wikipedia, but obviously they won't challenge the official narrative to the extent that I have.
"Unlike nearly all of his philosophical contemporaries, Plato's entire work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years"
I mean, really. None of his contemporaries work survives, because that is a REALLY long time ago, but Plato's does. Meanwhile, what they actually mean is, his work was lost to the West until Pleton 'translated' it all into Latin, in the 1400s.
[–] TrialsAndTribulation ago
No, you are not the source. You are an aggregator, and not a particularly good one. You have assembled numerous pieces of information from other places, which often, but not always lead to primary sources. The older or more contemporary to the subject is often the most definitive. Now, if you could provide these primary sources, rather than secondary or tertiary sources Wikipedia usually accepts as credible documentation, you could make a case for your thesis. As it is now, you're proposing some idea that COULD be credible but will never because you have no basis in fact, i.e., primary sources. I'm certainly not one to rely on argumentation by authority, but I'm also not one to accept an absolutely undocumented, unsourced, and obviously contemporary reinterpretation based on no evidence whatsoever.
It's just bad scholarship, dude.