Transcendental imagery
It is not particularly surprising that this philosophical discourse about religion and nature should involve transcendental imagery. Just to discuss a metaphysic, the physical realm has to be thought of in an integral/differential way, and once considerations of "God" are introduced, the integral patterns of nature become themselves evidence of a transcendental hierarchy of reality. By saying there is some being behind reality, the levels of reality become more evident, and then logic is used as a ladder to "climb up" the tiers of truth. Truth is transcendental in this book because there are levels of one's perception of reality ranging from the concrete to the abstract and then beyond.
Loyalty
Within the conversations, the characters accidentally betray through imagery another incidental issue: Loyalty. The philosophers who are willing to disagree with the religious opinion of their community risk heresy and being ostracized or killed (history bears witness; Socrates's fate certain attests to this). So there is a question of what a person will be loyal to. Should they celebrate loyalty to the group's beliefs, even though they are obviously illogical and easily dismantled? Young Pamphilus also betrays his experience of loyalty by siding with Cleanthes instead of confronting the unknown chaos that stands just behind an admission that perhaps his teacher is not actually correct. If he has no teacher, what will happen to his mind? Philo knows the answer because he has loyalty only to logically verifiable truth.
Reason and skepticism
To the other members of the discussion, Philo seems like an absolutely disagreeable philosopher, but to his own perception, he experiences his belief system as true reason. To him, absolute obedience to reason means an abandonment of religious belief. To others, such an abandonment makes him look like a skeptical madman, but clearly, they are both true. He is so skeptical about mistakes and assumptions that his skeptical approach yields philosophy that is incredibly spare and strangely devoid of belief.
Trustworthiness
Philo is more trustworthy than his peers because to agree with Philo, one has to trust very little. Philo exposes his skepticism to the group early on and elaborates his theory sufficiently. To trust a religious person is a greater risk, academically speaking, because by accepting ideas and conclusions derived from belief instead of from logically verified argument, one divorces themselves from absolute certainty. To Philo, trustworthiness is only a measure of logical assumption. The more someone assumes, the less likely it is that they are actually correct.
