Between the early and late writings of Plato there emerges a contradiction of views regarding the relationship between the divine and the material, or "sensible" world. Plato's earlier writings suggest that the sensible world is inherently evil, man must transcend his natural senses and instincts in order to achieve knowledge of God. However, passages from the Corpus Hermeticum and the Timaeus suggest an view of the world based on an intermingling between the material and the divine, for which the Soul serves as an intermediary. Georgios Gemistos Plethon recognized a significant influence of the former tendency on Christian doctrine, and sought to challenge this condemnation of the sensible world. This criticism was repeated by several prominent philosophers throughout the following centuries, most notably by Friedrich Nietzsche.

In this article, Frithjof Schuon argues against Epicurus’ formulation of the problem of evil. As Schuon explains, the world’s remoteness from God necessarily implies a degree of perversion, making the concept of a world without evil absurd. Although God is all-powerful in relation to the world, Omnipotence does not imply the ability to will the absurd. Schuon’s perspective is presented alongside those of many other prominent philosophers, including Plato, Plotinus, and St. Thomas.

Between Platonic philosophy and Christian theology there exists a contrast regarding the role of logic in understanding divine Reality. According to Platonist thought, there is nothing within the structure of divine Reality which does not conform to logical analysis. This led the Platonists to dismiss such doctrines as the Trinity as absurd. Christian theology, while not denying the validity and significance of logic, maintain that metaphysicial Reality is beyond the reach of logic, and as such can only be express in paradoxical terms.

In this two-part essay, A.K. Coomaraswamy sets out to prove "that our use of the term 'aesthetic' forbids us also to speak of art as pertaining to the 'higher things of life' or the immortal part of us; that the distinction of 'fine' from 'applied' art, and corresponding manufacture of art in studios and artless industry in factories, takes it for granted that neither the artist nor the artisan shall be a whole man.…" Using primarily Platonic and Hindu sources, he shows quite convincingly that modern arts education and production may result in an endless variety of arts for leisure, but that this situation encourages neither the understanding of traditional art, nor the production of arts that are "effective" in ennobling people with those "higher things of life."

In this two-part essay, A.K. Coomaraswamy sets out to prove "that our use of the term 'aesthetic' forbids us also to speak of art as pertaining to the 'higher things of life' or the immortal part of us; that the distinction of 'fine' from 'applied' art, and corresponding manufacture of art in studios and artless industry in factories, takes it for granted that neither the artist nor the artisan shall be a whole man.…" Using primarily Platonic and Hindu sources, he shows quite convincingly that modern arts education and production may result in an endless variety of arts for leisure, but that this situation encourages neither the understanding of traditional art, nor the production of arts that are "effective" in ennobling people with those "higher things of life."

The author discusses similarities and differences between Greco-Roman Stoicism and Hinduism. He argues that the reason for these similarities is that there may be universally valid moral truths which have been known to “men in all times and places and are not therefore exclusive to one particular society or culture”. However, Bishop is concerned mostly with making an objective comparison of the two perspectives, instead of attempting to come to a conclusion about their origins. After comparing various ideas concerning the nature of virtue, duty, honor, and greatness, Bishop makes this conclusion: “The Humanist and Hindu call us back to the original criterion of greatness which is a qualitative not quantitative one. Greatness is measured not by what has but by what one is. Being not having is the primary category”.

Mr. Robert Bolton writes to the editor on the topic of the universality of different religions; he says that the doctrines of different religions can be different without one being superior to another. Despite the fact that different religions can all be respected Mr Bolton does not mean that one can believe or use different doctrines simultaneously. He also discusses his impressions on the difference between theology and metaphysics, with the latter being more universal than the former. Finally, Mr Bolton argues of orthodoxy that “to be joined to a tradition while implicitly denying its total adequacy seems to me a false and unintelligible position, though I have long tried to see how it could be otherwise.”

Philip Sherrard responds to a letter written by Mr. Bolton regarding Sherrard’s article Man and the presence of evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine. “It is so easy to appeal to "complete principles" of "true metaphysics" [Ed: as Bolton does in his letter rebutting Sherrard’s article] while forgetting that this appeal begs an endless number of questions… I cannot answer Mr. Bolton's letter without first going into the whole question of the nature and authority of the principles of the doctrine he asserts—obviously something that cannot be done in a letter.”

R. Bolton’s letter is in response to Philip Sherrard’s article, "Man and the presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine.” Bolton strongly objects to Sherrard’s assertion that there is a conflict between Platonic ideals and Christian philosophy on several subjects, to begin with that there is a conflict between the ideas of emanation and creation. Second, Bolton disputes the claim by Sherrard that Platonism does not admit anything above intellect. Thirdly, Bolton objects to the idea that emanation and creation are equal. Bolton goes on to discuss the “irreversibility" of all relationships between the Infinite and the finite.”

Phillip Sherrard explains the differences and similarities in the Platonic and Christian views of evil. According to Plato, he says, man is created through necessity and his contact with evil is a natural part of creation as evil is immanent in matter. Christian doctrine, however, maintains that man is normally good and his fall proceeds from his freedom to choose, that evil is neither normal nor natural and that man’s salvation is the restoration to the normal state. In the light of these two doctrines of necessity versus freedom, the author examines their concepts of God’s responsibility for evil, His relationship with the soul and the role of time.

Kathleen Raine reviews the reprint of this book and the impact its translator, Thomas Taylor the Platonist (1758-1837), exerted on 19th century thought. It was Taylor, first translator of Plato into English, who supplied the texts “from which the English Romantic poets learned the Neo-Platonism metaphysics which wrought so revolutionary a transforma¬tion in the theory and practice of poetry at the end of the eighteenth century.” Both the American Transcendentalists and the Neo-Platonists for the Theosophical Society drew their inspiration from these same works. Taylor is now only known to Academia, but “he was more than a scholar, he was a philosopher in the Platonic sense of the word."

Sherrard examines the apparently contradictory theories of emanation and the Christian theory of creation. He discusses these dichotomous theories in the context of their allowance for evil to occur due to the fact that while God’s nature is perfect what he creates is not necessarily a part of His perfect nature. However, Sherrard’s argument maintains that, in both Platonic and Christian logic, the actual presence of evil is not necessarily a consequence of creation but rather creates only the possibility, which, he argues, is an entirely different matter.