How does the modern notion of 'empiricism' stack up against the Platonist and Neoplatonist concept of mind and understanding above sense and opinion?

Question

That is to say, the interpretation of visual-auditory-tactile-kinesthetic (VATK) perception (the empiric)--usually translated, in modern gestalt theory, as form or shape--should take a more holistic approach. By extrapolation, this--form or shape--emphasized by Plato, but meant as--"that which is above sense and opinion (deriving from the empiric)"--marks an 'upper-story' in a more comprehensive understanding of our world. F.A. Schaeffer may have written much on this subject. In other words, the Platonists and the Neo-Platonists emphasized 'a spirituality of mind and understanding' over and against, as an example, the modern Western approach to philosophy which is exclusively rationalistic, materialistic (atheistic) in its appeal to sense and opinion. Witness Wittgenstein's argument on eliminating all "God talk," whether philosophic (professional) or popular (the common folk). Any epistemology (enforced through the educational establishment) focusing so exclusively upon this 'lower-story' of the empiric (empiricism proper) seems far beyond bias or misinformation and embarks on something totally uncharacteristic of humankind--a kind of 'Marxism' of the mind.

Answer 1

I can only enumerate.

Take "not" and "or" for example. Empiricists believe they express mental states.

"Not" expresses rejection. When one looks for cheese in the larder, but finds nothing, he may say, "there is no cheese in the larder."

"Or" expresses hesitation. When one comes to a crossroad and does not know which way to go, he may say to himself, "should I go this way or that way?"