Since Plato established that (divine) mania is the best way to gain knowledge of truth, it has to be said that people like the decadents or the Surrealists, and their descendants, were better Platonists than most Platonist philosophers, especially the systematising rationalists.
The latter take as their profession the task of systematically justifying the logical claims of Plato and the Platonist philosophers, as a purely intellectual exercise. The former practice philosophy through derangement.
The latter have long since forgotten to see philosophy as a practice. The former see philosophy as a practice, albeit an aesthetic one.
Am somewhat convinced that the philosophical basis of "Western Civilisation" is a bunch of post-Roman European intellectuals trying to appropriate the rationalistic aspects of the broad Platonist philosophical project, merge it with Aristotelianism, and bury the whole decivilising part of gnosis.
You see it in the fact that people like Plato and his descendants when they talk about beauty, goodness, truth and all that as being pre-existent Forms, from which they derive a metaphysical rational-idealist theory of objective morality, but have no interest in theia mania.
And that's a problem because Plato sees divine madness as the best form of access perceiving the divine world, which pre-exists the material cosmos, and describes four kinds of madness given by the gods. So it's taking up the rationalism of Platonism, but not its real heart.