School of Economic Science
Points of Note in Heidegger's Interpretation of Theta 1-3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How nice Pete - likewise


Quote:
Shall we clarify this before looking at conscience?


i'll have to say that i have returned & edited this time and time again because i got myself involved on a busy sunday night on assuming no special parts would be needed - particularly theological matters. Hence i had just stated what is below :

Would agree because i stated it as an outlook based on the words of St Anslem mostly. Didn't do it justice in the scant sentence i used / does not yet pass my own rationale so do not worry. But i think i placed it at the time pending further clarity intended to come later and possibly a bit of collaboration. But not expecting it to attract attention right away i was superficial.

All very well - then i also had :

Thank you for your other passages all of which resound rather nicely.

Quote:
I will try to let go as much as possible my own assumptions here. If you like I can post the original 'thumos' section in Book 4 of Republic and a short sketch of what is in Phaedrus.It might put some common ground between us, or at lest make clear where our thoughts differ.


Please do proceed as kindly offered as it will only reveal good matters for the considerations to the betterment & worth of the debate both implicitly to our remarks and more broadly speaking maybe

But ( this is another edit ) - we need something closer to your suggestion. Hence i looked for the matters that caused the sentence you highlighted. I have not found it yet but was hoping this online source via a Dennis Ngien paper might suffice for now. However seems we shall not find clarity ( just like that ) - because as usual this sort of debate is very very circular and will be when like of Anslem et al expect to battle such an ultimate paradox in the order of the divinity of the trinity.

And it goes around and around and around of course

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/118-02_105.pdf

Not being entirely of feint heart if i can first draw your attention to this passage :

( Please excuse the bold - am having no luck with an italics button glitch )

Anselm does not deviate from Augustine’s description of God as one substance,
and three persons (una substantia, tres personae). In his letter to John the
Monk concerning his opponent, Roscelin, he argues potently that three
persons do not mean three gods, a position which he ascribes to Roscelin.6 He takes great pains to point out that the divine substance cannot lose its simplicity; it cannot be divided into parts.


So a statement such as at the end here is typical of how complex the total trinity debate is - but also rather foreboding also when 'divine substances cannot be divided' are stated. I am not convinced that Anslem shall have meant it is relevant to the outlook we have discussed on conscience however - but thought i'd call it out.

Then here if i'm not mistaken :

His definitive position, reminiscent of the language of his Monologion preface, is clearly stated in Deincarnatione Verbi, where he writes: ‘The Latins call these three persons, the Greeks (three) substances. For just as we say that in God there is one substance and three persons, so they say one person and three substances. But they mean by “substance” what we means by “person”, so that in faith they do not differ from us in any respect.

He is saying that his taste in trinity architecture is technically the same as a typical greek version, Which is interesting isn't it - but the main core of Anslems words here remain on a different sort of definition than we supposedly are looking for.

And i do not want to make it fit for sake of but here an interesting passage :

Anselm uses Augustine’s ‘psychological’ model of the trinity—memory,
intelligence, and love—to furnish a logical explanation of how the distinction of persons accords with the unity of essence in God.35 Augustine sees in the human image merely a reflection of the divine. However Anselm goes beyond Augustine, providing instead a metaphysical account of what transpires within a ‘Supreme Spirit’ (Father).


Without inflecting too much on 'Memory' - Conscience in the sort of context we have touched is a sacred memory - a divine record.

And here :

The Supreme Spirit knows itself; the resultant self knowledge
is the Son; it also, in the dyadic form of the Father and the Son,
loves itself, and the resultant self-love is the Holy Spirit. Anselm observes a parallelism between the effect of the Supreme Spirit’s self-knowledge and the effect of its self-love.


All very well this - hard work over a paper with a different theme. Not sure what the author meant by 'Dyadic' unless there truly is a case for 'vectors' ? - perhaps there is sacred geometry in the mind of Ngien - or inter personality ?? - but anyway

- 'a parallelism between the effect of the supreme spirits self knowledge and the effect of its self love'

- might be closer to the Anslem words that i have yet to recapture which were on this topic - it isn't online. But Dyadics occur a few times ( of note ),

Whatever the truth - everyone knows the trinity debate is a miasma of opinion with very tightly packed subtle differences from one to the next - so much so that it feels like an open season on how conscience might settle into a logic that would truly suit the theory of forms.

And it would be good to have a comfortable confluence with the Trinity

Finally in this - this matter of parts as earlier inferred by Anslem can be seen with slightly more clarity. The word 'part' itself seems to be distracting everything rather as a non dualism attitude does when one is in denial from a dualistic plane such as Earth. I.E - it is all very well to speak for 'the one' - but from the incarnate position duality is physically real at the time. Word pertaining to parts seem to struggle with that predicament.

Perichoresis (from Greek, "going around", "envelopment") is a term used by some theologians to describe the relationship among the members of the Trinity. The Latin equivalent for this term is circumincessio. This concept refers for its basis to John 14–17, where Jesus is instructing the disciples concerning the meaning of his departure. His going to the Father, he says, is for their sake; so that he might come to them when the "other comforter" is given to them. Then, he says, his disciples will dwell in him, as he dwells in the Father, and the Father dwells in him, and the Father will dwell in them. This is so, according to the theory of perichoresis, because the persons of the Trinity "reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes". (Hilary of Poitiers, Concerning the Trinity 3:1).[63]

Come back Ngien your dyadic is forgiven ( i feel you meant interpersonal between two) - but surely Jesus is discussing how understand beyond the restraints of duality there. It does not mean that even his own position at the time was outside of that envelope

Perichoresis effectively excludes the idea that God has parts, but rather is a simple being. It also harmonizes well with the doctrine that the Christian's union with the Son in his humanity brings him into union with one who contains in himself, in the Apostle Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and not a part. (See also: Divinization (Christian)). Perichoresis provides an intuitive figure of what this might mean.

Not sure if this second commentary is just someone else on about duality !!

The trouble with biblical or other ancient words is that any of them could be speaking in either tensor (duality or non duality) and we might not realize such was the only message during an intense gospel - a simple differentiation. While the aforementioned positions of the Trinity when it concerns an incarnate become functions in the coordinates of a space while (that incarnate) applies it to metaphysics should she/he wish. We cannot penetrate its complete mystery out infinity and expect to absolute answer. But can arrange Trinity to a degree in space -as Anslem did. We can talk metaphysically about non divine elements i.e its space time value or position but seemingly not of such divine contents .. unless we emulate the conscience of God

We have to remember that when we search like this, the model we seek is Perfect as it would be the Original. In a good metaphysical we are dead by the time our conscience matches that originality

Thus - does Metaphysics in the instance spring from consciousness & reach out to conscience unknown to it simultaneously leading us into Trinity's ' Receptical' for glimpses of authenticity ?.

If our incarnate conscience is indeed an incomplete segment (of it) - this somewhat explains its own forgetfulness regarding our originality whilst we can sense The Originals ( of forms ) - because of Metaphysics ?

Circular logic such as occurs because of the trinity can be frustrating if we expect an ultimatum. But can also keep pointing to thing which belong in metaphysical logic. Thus tell us our reasoning is not incorrect

It may not be true either - but 'not incorrect' is a pretty decent position during inquiry and no terrible thing but all that ever occurs with metaphysics two conclusions actually :

Incorrect & Not Incorrect

There seems to be no such thing as a declaration of 'Correct' - all of those are group consciousness agreements out of the occasional 'Not Incorrect' positions that are embraced. I'm not sure what that says about the way a ( lets be slightly silly ) a 'dualistic metaphysical gravity', Might that exist if a drag can consists of a rite of passage linked to a consciousness ladder ..?

Or do we have a phenomena of illogical which is also logical here. I think not - if you want truth through metaphysics there has to be enough authentic conscience with the group consciousness ?. If so that means that a potential definition of metaphysical evidence is the same or similar enough conclusions independently reached

Maybe yet another message via the allegory of the cave might be that to be alone during metaphysics is not alone but it will sure test your resolve

Alone is one position - but does an adventure into conscience require contact with the Original through group conscience ?. If so is this the only way we can glimpse our own since the Original is actually an omnipotent mirror of all concience.? I ask since a mere conjecture by the conscious mind in request our conscience simply reveals memories of the good or not so good we gave. Most people will have a contented idea of their conscience. But metaphysical inquiry itself forces us beyond that - there is a path to be trodden in the universal fabric - not a conscious to conscience step by just recalling our incarnate memory.

Just looking at that (if it is not incorrect) - it might be a surprisingly different way to that many people had assumed. If so it may enable more persons to relate through metaphysics - but who knows


Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1094
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuri, the context here is that Socrates is testing to see if the individual has the inner impulses that reflect the outer virtues of the state, which are wisdom, courage and temperance. Thumos or spirit seems to reflect courage which when allied with temperance makes the choice of following wisdom (which in the individual is reason).

(Socrates is "I" and "he" is the interlocutor (Glaucon, I believe - one of Plato's older brothers)


“Are we to say, then, that some men sometimes though thirsty refuse to drink?”
“We are indeed,” he said, “many and often.”
“What then,” said I, “should one affirm about them?” “Is it not that there is something in the soul that bids them drink and a something that forbids, a different something that masters that which bids?”
“I think so.”
“And is it not the fact that that which inhibits such actions arises when it arises from the calculations of reason, [439d] but the impulses which draw and drag come through affections and diseases?”
“Apparently.”
“Not unreasonably,” said I, “shall we claim that they are two and different from one another, naming that in the soul whereby it reckons and reasons the rational and that with which it loves, hungers, thirsts, and feels the flutter and titillation of other desires, the irrational and appetitive—companion4 of various repletions and pleasures.”
“It would not be unreasonable but quite natural,” [439e] he said, “for us to think this.”
“These two forms, then, let us assume to have been marked off as actually existing in the soul. But now the Thumos or principle of high spirit, that with which we feel anger, is it a third, or would it be identical in nature with one of these?” “Perhaps,” he said, “with one of these, the appetitive.”
“But,” I said, “I once heard a story which I believe, that Leontius the son of Aglaion, on his way up from the Peiraeus under the outer side of the northern wall, becoming aware of dead bodies4 that lay at the place of public execution at the same time felt a desire to see them and a repugnance and aversion, and that for a time [440a] he resisted and veiled his head, but overpowered in despite of all by his desire, with wide staring eyes he rushed up to the corpses and cried, ‘There, ye wretches, take your fill of the fine spectacle!'” “I too,” he said, “have heard the story.” “Yet, surely, this anecdote,” I said, “signifies that the principle of anger sometimes fights against desires as an alien thing against an alien.”
“Yes, it does,” he said.
“And do we not,” said I, “on many other occasions observe when his desires constrain a man contrary to his reason [440b] that he reviles himself and is angry with that within which masters him and that as it were in a faction of two parties the high spirit of such a man becomes the ally of his reason? But its making common cause with the desires against the reason when reason whispers low ‘Thou must not’—that, I think, is a kind of thing you would not affirm ever to have perceived in yourself, nor, I fancy, in anybody else either.” [440c]
“No, by heaven,” he said.
“Again, when a man thinks himself to be in the wrong, is it not true that the nobler he is the less is he capable of anger though suffering hunger and cold and whatsoever else at the hands of him whom he believes to be acting justly therein, and as I say his spirit refuses to be aroused against such a one?”
“True,” he said.
“But what when a man believes himself to be wronged, does not his spirit in that case seethe and grow fierce (and also because of his suffering hunger, 440d] cold and the like) and make itself the ally of what he judges just, and in noble souls it endures and wins the victory and will not let go until either it achieves its purpose, or death ends all, or, as a dog is called back by a shepherd, it is called back by the reason within and calmed.”
“Your similitude is perfect,” he said, “and it confirms our former statements that the helpers are as it were dogs subject to the rulers who are as it were the shepherds of the city.”
“You apprehend my meaning excellently,” said I. “But do you also [440e] take note of this?”
“Of what?”
“That what we now think about the spirited element is just the opposite of our recent surmise. For then we supposed it to be a part of the appetitive, but now, far from that, we say that, in the factions of the soul, it much rather marshals itself on the side of the reason.”
“By all means,” he said.
“Is it then distinct from this too, or is it a form of the rational, so that there are not three but two kinds in the soul, the rational and the appetitive, or just as in the city there were [441a] three existing kinds that composed its structure, the moneymakers, the helpers, the counsellors, so also in the soul there exists a third kind, this principle of high spirit, which is the helper of reason by nature unless it is corrupted by evil nurture?”
“We have to assume it as a third,” he said.
“Yes,” said I, “provided it shall have been shown to be something different from the rational, as it has been shown to be other than the appetitive.”
“That is not hard to be shown,” he said; “for that much one can see in children, that they are from their very birth chock-full of rage and high spirit, but as for reason, [441b] some of them, to my thinking, never participate in it, and the majority quite late.”
“Yes, by heaven, excellently said,” I replied; “and further, one could see in animals that what you say is true. And to these instances we may add the testimony of Homer quoted above: “He smote his breast and chided thus his heart. [441c] which has reflected about the better and the worse as rebuking that which feels unreasoning anger as if it were a distinct and different thing.”
“You are entirely right,” he said.


Last edited by Peter Blumsom on Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:29 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Pete

Yes - thank you for this excellent choice which has everything of the moment - impetus, virtues - far more - very considerate of the debate predicament given by your foresight.

To judge not of the future nonetheless - is there a sense here of a chance to compile some compact architectures or modes ?. For consider if the range of human affection requires many compact models. Then if e look Socrates & Glaucon as they speak - have they used a mode by which this affair is templated ?

Thus - lets say we have Spirit from source and nothing more for now

Interacting within a triad of virtues & ofc they are :

Wisdom - Courage - Temperance - ( in the instance )

And actually from this setting we do not know the full potential as only the form of potency which was explored by ( he & i ) - was in that illustration.
Of course there will be far more - it should be infinite actually as contact with every conscience shall avail this - however.

What are you thinking ? - embark to compile other modes out of other virtues and see how many compact models paired with their individual counterparts are possible ? - see what obstacles we might encounter ?

Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1094
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuri,
I have a deadline to meet on Wednesday and will not be able to take our discourse any further until after that. What I would like to do is look at that passage a little more closely and see if we can get a deeper understanding of what thumos meant for Socrates (and us). Something that has always fascinated me about Book Four of Republic is that Plato comes to a kind of formulation of what justice might be: a kind of harmony where courage is not impulsive, blind daring but the sense of high spirit that will always seek out wisdom and follow what the soul deems as right. It occurs to me that here we have a kind of working definition of conscience, though he doesn't call it that as such.

I think there are some other passages I can seek out that might help us ascertain whether Plato is talking of conscience or not. That should open the way to exploring these things with greater fullness and clarity, if that is possible. I will also look at Timaeus and Phaedrus for we need to talk of soul before entering the body, and soul under bodily constraints. Then I believe we will have most of the tools that Plato had at his disposal, and there is every chance we can take things on from that point - but whether to any sort of conclusion it is hard to say, let alone a correct one. For that, I think we need to have, as Socrates would say, the blessings of the gods.

Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Pete

Because conclusions are unlikely and the value is more in the exploration of the dialogue that is why i suggested spheres with small models in them since in many ways they are a kind of record pre-conclusion and can be without that conclusion.

I'd happily explore those with you, - i feel there are a lot of matters not normally considered which i might - in many ways the neurology of the human beast in unchanged since Socrates, in others it is greatly different. But another set of senses which i feel befall the person so long into philosophical inquiry are unconscious & subconscious ones. After such a long time those reaches of the mind have been greatly irrigated & altered by flow after after flow of meta cognition. Imho it affects the the nervous systems and they work differently after much philosophical adventure.

Even to the point of gut neuron communication with the sympathetic nervous systems being much altered if one has greatly explore conscience.


This factor can influential in the motives of morals & ethics as i believe there comes a point when unconscious fear is as influential as the Joy which once met idealism far more frequently in the younger day.

Socrates would be highly crafted in the points along the path of rite of passage. Thus it is reasonable to assume that he will have been guided greatly by his concepts of ( lets say for argument ) 'Places' - and predicaments along these ways. Often - he was also the first to remark be ward of the ethics - he did at least once warn of creating Misanthropy.

That is an act of conscience and some anxiety about conscience i'd feel.


Perhaps there is a more high courage in the way of Socrates, it could be true to say that he was he who faced the difficult morals & ethics better than Plato. Presumably it would come in many forms right from the top to the bottom as there is the idealism on God (ofc) - there are such matters as human liberty & freedom the distribution of wealth and so on.

Socrates seemed intensely interested in an equal society. However - this is in not wanting to discuss those facets so much as to mention that i do feel that he was most likely of non aristocratic background and of great conscience should accounts of his forms of modesty be accurate ..

I prefer to believe they were and tend to allow these understanding of him when taking on consideration of his meanings.

I have always had a feeling that his interactions could be walking on eggshells because often others would not fully appreciate his own type of personal caveat and he'd find himself proceeding carefully - even with Plato.


Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1094
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Yuri,

This worries me a bit, because I have no idea what it means:
Quote:

Because conclusions are unlikely and the value is more in the exploration of the dialogue that is why i suggested spheres with small models in them since in many ways they are a kind of record pre-conclusion and can be without that conclusion.


Of course the method of dialectic itself collects and divides but though it discards what is irrelevant it strives keeps the whole constantly in mind. When this technique begins to falter Plato is always ready with a myth to extend insight. His psychology is, for me at least, unusually penetrating in this regard, possibly without parallel.

I suspect you don't want me to pursue what I spoke about in my last post, however, as I know next to nothing about neurology and its connection with philosophy I won't be of any value in a conversation about this. So unless you can clearly link the two I would rather ask you what you mean by:

Quote:
Socrates seemed intensely interested in an equal society.


Equality is a term Socrates talks about in Phaedo, for example, and also Plato himself looks closely at it in Laws. But this topic is anything other than straightforward. If you ever happen to read Laws 757 you'll understand.

The Greeks didn't always think like us on these topics. I guess it might be to do with what you said about neural pathways, although I suspect we are not born with these differences but learn them.

Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This worries me a bit, because I have no idea what it means:
Quote:

Because conclusions are unlikely and the value is more in the exploration of the dialogue that is why i suggested spheres with small models in them since in many ways they are a kind of record pre-conclusion and can be without that conclusion.


In my opinion most including Plato himself was aware that greek intellectual society was fragmented in several ways. There was a lot of pseudo intellectual activity, and the luxury afforded by the group consciousness effect during teaching to pupils was finite when measured against other characters who ran the state. A polite term he coined to radical perspectivism - by which he intended to show that there was no proof that participation in the same dialectics necessarily lead to the same rationale let alone conclusions.

Thus - i feel the point being lost could be that socrates mostly and sometmes plato et al attempted to create such micro-paradigms and nestle them within dialogues because the pseudo intellectual tyrants were not interested in metaphysics unless it justified their form of sophistry. - giving a definition to it really. Today has a modern equivalent to a process which is designed to seem at the leading edge of erudition but can be found as corrupted might be understood due to freemasonry - which is involved infinity more that its establishment wants the people to know.

In fact if we look at that point and take say A.C Grayling ( a classic pseudo intellectual bolstered by the establishment ) - that man is an ultra lightweight thinker but his real purpose is to provide the kind of artificial intellectually corrupted framework which today's version of sophistry requires. He and his friends expend much time on back markers that fraudulently launch critique after critique against the very techniques they are employing themselves. As such then sophistry today is all part of what intellectual corruption means in the same way.

Richard Dawkins his cohort does exactly the same thing - he misuses his reputation as an evolutionary biologist to fake up all kinds of meta cognitive red herrings. But actually neither of them nor the neurophilosopher associated with them ( Dennet ) - are entering into legitimate logic's being more the very the characterization which they claim exists in the zeitgeist they claim to object to. So once anyone sets off with a purpose which does not resemble the the description it was given, then it is reasonably to wonder if reason has become just a tool for a profiting intellectual scam itself

For instance neither Grayling or Dawkins are Atheists both are Agnostics by trade and by signature logic which proves they are. However - their scheme would not have worked unless he had posed as as an Atheist one since it had to be able to escape its own irrationality long enough to make its financial profits.

They were able to sustain it until their opponents noticed that each of then used Agnostic Logics to escape difficult critique. Hence - once their customers who had become Nu Athiest fanatics realized they had been intellectually scammed the enterprise duly began to fold, the sales dried up and their publishers declined further contracts with them. It had been selling millions of books because the follows believed that Dawkins had proved a God could not exist - that was the selling point. After a few years it became clear that he was saying ( by the stealth Agnosticism ) - A God could Exist since it was technically impossible to empirically prove otherwise

Fiendish & clever intellectual racket not seen since the days of ancient greece. Without the WWW Dawkins & Co would have got nowhere with this, but the web suplied supplied the weak & vulnerable buyers globally and very economically. Socrates mentions this sort of factor about vulnerability - but the state was the internet then.

There is a reasonable suspicion therefore that no small amount of energy was expended and obstacles created purely because the athenian school was constantly treading on such eggshells - but the advantage we have is that at least Socrates valued reason first.

The allegory of the cave was a kind of sphere of Fate, so was the theory of forms and they are good examples of works which were seen as politically correct and great of metaphysical integrity. But they dealt with forms that would not challenge the political rationale, whilst the majority Socratic Metaphysics would . By comparison, ideas seen by politicians not to confluence were ones that tended to describe forces which were interpreted as demi-god style alternatives. What these really meant to the political establishment was a dangerous nuisance since not only did they change the force, but they also came loaded with ethical and moral responsibilities which were not conducive to the demi-god myths. The state had taught itself to exploit certain versions which metaphysics needed obsolete and this factor lead to the ultimate fall from grace, not any medieval cause.

It also killed of Socrates as we know.

So Socrates was to understand at least two forms of group consciousness such as the type positively experienced between tutor and pupil, -and this other political group consciousness based on corruption. That corporeal tax or law on the metaphysical wanted and got charges of Heresy - refereed to progress as crime and socrates simply was not like a Grayling Entity is of the now

Hardly a delectable basis on which to be certain of conclusions then or now - and yes - the blessings of the gods are needed. But what is a 'blessing of a 'God'?. hat can also mean a concept with a force exists within a human collective before the providential aid in fabric of the universe can speak -Humans can simply act like attacker memes to the truth if they wish. There is no absolute certainty that any kind of establishment ( even this forum one ) can be relied upon to search for efficacy - someone could have structural societal or personal oriented belief pre-conditions which render that impossible.

That is the reason why i will only work in modes that cause compact agreements on logic. That way they are all compatible and when arranged together to constitute 1 reasonable reliable firm logic. It is then harder for a bad group daimon to disagree based on its owm illogica since each one was agreed individually therefore should consist of a good long logic.

That is how Socrates did it ( hello ? ) - but since a binary of his logic looked harmless but was actually a threat to corrupt society when fully assembled into a matrix - when placed end to end upon itself in either substantive chains or 1 whole. When his state realized this they desecrated his hallowed grounds Plato manage much like this also, but it seems of his work was a few masterpieces in that fashion followed by pussy footing around with politically correct theory state architectures. That pleased the establishment, often the theory was impeccable in every respect also. But just as often was disrespectful to pure reason & metaphysics because it seems like he allowed structural logics which were not derived from virtue metaphysics

Virtue ethics are no easy task and there if instead there is a kind of objective idealism oscillation backwards and forwards. If a group alludes to listening to individual daimons but has mutated its shared consciousness to a ministry of political daimons it might not be virtuous - ( pre-conclusion without conclusion ).

Objective idealism oscillation ? - wasted metaphysical energy should a group daimon not be possessed of virtue.


This happened to Socrates - whether Plato was merely appalled by the fate Socrates encountered or actually understood it is another matter. We might have to ask if Plato relinquished much of what Socrates would not - just to avoid friction with such a group daimon. Surely Socrates own toe in the water of sophistry was an attempt to placate or possibly unify a problem that he knew was great. Plato didn't seem to perceive an enemy to virtues to any critical level against virtue logic but did seem to have a conscience which pulled him greatly back if not completely and great works like TTOF'S could have been so since he knew it was fully operable in unhygienic political conditions or any other.
.

Therefore Today - it is all very well to explicitly trust the theories of state but if we will not consider implicit weaknesses the entire result may not make proper sense. If that were true then more micro recreation of the state out there now perhaps is the most likely outcome.

Pre-Conclusions thus could be essential, but it does not mean an establishment will like it when all of them are locked together - personally i find it lamentable if any establishment uses reason to cause strings of conclusion integrity that it cannot accept as 1 whole due to an abomination in a separate Daimon - and that has been done already in Ancient Greece.

Perhaps the like of The Theory of Forms as viewed today requires non corrupted Neurophilosophy - that (if any) would be my conclusion. Particularly as pressure from the state to provide what it wanted Plato to give could have caused cognitive dissonance in he and many others.

It didn't in Socrates and a few others in exile - and a message of some kind is clear.

Quote:
The Greeks didn't always think like us on these topics. I guess it might be to do with what you said about neural pathways, although I suspect we are not born with these differences but learn them.


True - and i feel Plato's diplomatic 'radical perspectivism' might have been a version of what would become Festingers cognitive dissonance in that way. In other ways our neurology likely has changed but it might be painstaking to reasonably show how by a neurophilosophical process. We certainly would not be helping ourselves by being too 'politically correct' to consider if ( say ) X passage in a dialogue was stated so it case the Y point ( in question ) - merely resulted in causing someones dissonance instead of invoking their essence.

If so - in the piece with Glaucon we are on, - i sense this potential strain on Socrates at points and Socrates will have been well aware of the effect regardless of its name or label in those days.

There could also have been a paranoid symmetric where Socrates concern was the influence of the state on his pupils thus a strong desire to counteract it. While simultaneously the state was paranoid about the opposite effect from Socrates.

In fact that is fairly well accepted - but likely is layer dissonant also because paranoid consciousness seemed to be ( in fact ) - mutating - even if socrates is attempting to reconfigure his work into a version the state shall find acceptable but is not compromised in a pure metaphyscal sense.

I feel he could have been looking for that but they killed him as an enemy of state regardless - we ought to be looking for it now as the entire state of affairs is the same. Nothing has progressed in metaphysics since they killed Socrates, all of it since was designed for States - there hasn't been any virtue logic which has influenced states, - it has merely remained existential not existent.

There is a difference


Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1094
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Yuri,
I want to speak about Plato and Socrates, their momentous and inspiring ideas, not the shortcomings of the inferior minds that existed around them. Certainly ancient Athens was a place of many factions, as Plato himself points out in his Seventh Letter, but why waste our time on them?

So please help me with examples. What, for example, do you mean by micro models? Do you mean such devices as The Divided Line, the Cave Allegory etc. which occur throughout the Dialogues?

I can't see a way forward unless we move closer to the texts themselves, and discuss them in detail. But perhaps that does not interest you. If that is so, I'm not really your man.

Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Dear Yuri,
I want to speak about Plato and Socrates, their momentous and inspiring ideas, not the shortcomings of the inferior minds that existed around them. Certainly ancient Athens was a place of many factions, as Plato himself points out in his Seventh Letter, but why waste our time on them?


Hi Pete - well - i'd be among the last to be desirous of that myself, although i fear that Athens was all eyes & ears and the greats could never be completely sure who they were talking to. We cannot deny that the state will have caused inhibitions and this reasonably will have influenced the shape of the dialogues - the models themselves are something else.

How does one trace the good essence which lead to such models if we do not observe what a magnificent thinker like Socrates avoided in order to have helped instill Plato? In order to have helped cause these pristine models ? The disrupted essences he avoids is often as relevant as what the harmonic essence he provoked. ?

The universe really does not care who achieves rite of passage to understand its forms - it sets up obstacles where very few people have the resource to understand what they are. If that was not so we'd might be nothing, or be spirit beings furnished with universal truths but discussing the metaphysical potentials of incarnate life instead - as if a mystery.

Quote:
So please help me with examples. What, for example, do you mean by micro models? Do you mean such devices as The Divided Line, the Cave Allegory etc. which occur throughout the Dialogues?


In reality the production of allegories was a way to gain agreement in steps. In that way several could each be attached to themselves in order to constitute 1 continuous logic. By that process one can tell many things - from if they cause understanding thus deserve status or if the influential who shall allow them or not allow them are sincere or insincere.

A bitter sweet spin off but that is what truth attracts faster than the speed of light - agents of destructive interest - it shall be so whenever a universal truth would occur. A model that reveals a bit if the universe is like a magnet to its destructors because intellectual corruption is atheist - for a bob or two or even free the atheist mind hates with a vengeance anything which might be a universal truth.

Each small axiom should join the next and remain true if they were taken as true in the individual sense. If that is not happening ( Socrates was killed because it wasn't allowed ) - then what is the use of truth that a state will destroy ? The surviving evidence is dialogues and models for these reasons - socrates & plato ensured the survival of some ideas by placing them in a type that was not merely elegant but was not seen as threatening in isolation.

Thus - first the socratic mind the the platonic built all ideas to attach to all other ideas in order to be 1 long idea which could be visited with complete integration at any point along its path of logic. But you seem to want me to perceive that you have a problem with this concept or maybe it really is a case of really not grasping it - it makes no difference to myself to judge that so will not.

They only so far because of state interference - i don't do state interference and very often it come in the guise of not talking about that interference because actually logic works in sequences as described and is always under attack from interference - it is perpetual - and is always human in origin essence will always be closely followed by interceptors.

Thumos is a man made word where among its qualities strength courage & resource to overcome such interference & interception. With that iron will one might propagate models to before a politically motivated person attempts to cause the true to become false or kill someone over it

In those days a philosopher could bring forth the most brilliant piece of metaphysics but if the greek establishment saw it as a threat they would burn the books and kill the philosopher. There will always be humans who will allow themselves to be memes in the quest for the destruction of metaphysics even today since there is always a different purpose in mind for it among establishments.

I'd doubt if we saw close to half of what we could have done from ancient greece

Quote:
I'm not really your man.


I haven't got a problem with that, maybe there are agenda issues on both sides but not any problems on what the outcome will be. If i have verdicts they also have a continuity not affected by a place in the modelling that hasn't worked whilst looking back i'd know where they all are

Your approach to these matters has a lot of break-up at regular intervals though Pete - why is that ?

Quote:

I can't see a way forward unless we move closer to the texts themselves, and discuss them in detail


Semi detail do you mean ? - that these open dialogues were not said somewhat from an occult perspective in order to duck & dive a murderous establishment which used contrived crime laws against metaphysical philosophers


We could proceed in semi detail while declining to mention those obstacles - i'll just place a caveat emptor on suspect phrases but not mention them to yourself ?. Nostalgia can be a powerful group consciousness micro model capable of enough inertia to ensure that anyone's legend threshold never changes. I'd have to ask though if this study *mainly values interprets which are in fact old beliefs ? Or Nostalgia ? or forgive for it could seem rude - a nostalgia based form cognitive dissonance ?. I am curious as to what can make a man perceive to reduce a quality corespondent such to the level only fit waste paper bin so often friend ?.
* You haven't rejected everything

You will not accept a cognitive explanation, it probably isn't - and i'm not going to argue it obviously - so lets move on now.

This remains - ithere is a mismatch between conscientiousness which is very high, and actions where there is almost a dummy being ejected from a cradle at regular intervals. Yet you say these philosophers are not seen as infallible

Not a problem but seemingly half a desire to interact half a desire to refrain while if we are not careful we just become indicative of seeking predetermined responses or working with a checklist of answers due a group situational awareness structure that imposes those answers to set tasks.


Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1094
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuri, there are no School of Economic Science guidelines here except the general one of attempting to be as fair as possible. But we all agree on that surely.

Quote:
So is this a study where interprets are only valued if they are old beliefs?

Is it possible for two people to discuss an interpretation of something 'democratically' without laying that something out for all to see? But as Heidegger said, even translations are interpretations, which means that if we were dissatisfied with the translation we would have recourse to the Greek. And, as it happens, an excellent way of laying bare the mores of the present can be seen in how we interpret the past. However, things become less clear if we leave it at interpretations of interpretations.

Therefore, I say, the touchstone of a Plato forum is the text. All I wanted was one little example of a micro paradigm from Plato himself. Then I would have continued our discourse with relish.
Thank you for your interest.
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 41
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Peter

Sorry to cause such a bump in the pause - id re-engage when time allows

Hope you are well

Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved