The Big Bang seems based on the material principle of inference, so I was trying to seek materially based inferences (the explosion and bouncy castle scenarios) of the possible causes for the BB, but couldn't quite come up with a reasonable understanding in both cases. — Corvus

Maybe a small step forward can be made by admitting that the "Big Bang" was not really a big bang but is only called so. We may then arrive at some sort of definition or understanding through elimination of what the "Big Bang" is not.

Not everything in Platonism needs to have an equivalent in Dharmic religions. However, there are parallels. For example the Indian concept of consciousness generating cognition by means of nama and rupa is not very different from the Platonic concept of name (onoma) and form (eidos).

The question as to who borrowed from whom is irrelevant.

And no, it doesn't prove anything. The only valid proof is personal experience and this may well be subjective and distinct from other people's. This doesn't necessarily mean it's just imagination.

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.
What a bizarre claim!! — baker

Why is that so bizarre?

The problem appears to be the same as with some other religious martyrs.
If someone is so sure that things are exactly as they should be and that nothing happens without God's will -- then what exactly is going on?? — baker

Good point. However, some seem to believe that he was an anti-religious martyr, something like a "militant atheist" under a theocratic system.

Personally, I do not think this is supported by the careful examination of the evidence. The charge against Socrates was (1) politically motivated and (2) it was not that he was an atheist but that he disrespected the Athenian Gods and introduced "new deities".

This is consistent with the mainstream scholarly view that Plato introduces a new theology based on cosmic Gods such as the Sun as a substitute for the traditional Olympic Gods (Zeus, Hera, et al.), as admitted even by anti-Platonists like Strauss.

Viewing him as a martyr makes sense of his trial and death sentence. — baker

Sure. The question remains, though, what exactly is he hiding? And if he is hiding things, how can we rely on what he is saying?

There are numerous instances in the dialogues where he appears to be praying, or is supposed to attend the worship of some deity or other. Is he pretending or being ironic in all cases?

I went down yesterday to the Peiraeus with Glaucon, the son of Ariston, to pay my devotions to the Goddess, and also because I wished to see how they would conduct the festival since this was its inauguration (Rep. 327a)

Any historian can tell you that there was very strong French opposition to German participation in anything, let alone economic unification.

In Sept 1949, according to Schuman’s chief of staff, Bernard Clappier, Acheson put a gun to Schuman’s head:

In September 1949, at one of the periodic meetings of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany (Dean Acheson, Ernest Bevin and Robert Schuman), Acheson put a gun to Schuman’s head, asking him to outline a common policy for West Germany at the next Foreign Ministers’ meeting with the implication that, if Schuman did not, the US would have to define a policy with or without the French

- B. Clappier, ‘Bernard Clappier Temoigne,’ in H. Rieben, L’Europe: une longue marche, 1985, p. 22 (Published by Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe.)

Schuman turned to Monnet for help – who drafted his plan under American instruction – and produced the “Schuman Plan” at the next Foreign Ministers Meeting (May 1950) as ordered by Acheson.

Sept 13 1949, McCloy to Acheson:

With respect to German participation in international organizations, this problem will no doubt arise early in the Political Affairs Committee, where the French may be the most difficult obstacle. Therefore, any information on Schuman’s attitude would be useful to us

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Sept. 13

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson to Schuman:

These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) - CVCE Website

November 15, 1949, Secret negotiations between the Occupation Powers and Adenauer:

The American, British, and French high commissioners this morning had three hours of secret negotiations with Chancellor Konrad Adenauer; negotiations ordered by the conference of foreign ministers in Paris which eventually will reveal West Germany's new place in the European community of nations.

Secretary of State Acheson Lays Out American Foreign Policy in Berlin

Nov 20 1951, Foreign Secretary Eden to Parliament:

We have also the fact that all through these years gradually we have drawn Germany—this greater part of Germany—into the Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany into the Schuman Plan, and into every sort and kind of contact—political, economic, literary, cultural of every sort and kind.

Foreign Affairs: 20 Nov 1951: House of Commons debates

If the ECSC project was voluntary, then:

Why was there a need for the Americans to make decisions for the Germans?
Why was there a need for the Americans to put pressure on France?
Why was there a need for England and America to draw Germany into the Schuman Plan?
Why was Monnet put in charge of Marshall Plan implementation in France?
Why was Monnet’s Plan called 'Schuman Plan' if it wasn’t Schuman’s Plan?
Why was Monnet appointed president of ECSC’s High Authority?
Why did Monnet found the Action Committee for the United States of Europe?
Why did the French National Assembly refuse to ratify the Treaty of Paris?

Monnet was a private person, he was not elected by anyone to federalize Europe. He was a banker and close friend of McCloy, as was Adenauer who was also related to McCloy. He held meetings with bankers ahead of getting together with politicians (see Monnet, Memoirs; K. Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy and the Making of the American Establishment, etc.).

Read official biographies, autobiographies, and original state documents, and you will see that the whole project was a top-down operation imposed on Germany, France, and other countries by vested interests, and that in many cases simply by-passed democratic process.

I think culture is heading for a post-secular future, where the bleak materialism of the modern period is simply one cultural form, and an impoverished one at that. — Wayfarer

That may be a bit too optimistic. I think it will depend on which culture becomes dominant in the end. Advanced science cannot exist without substantial financial investment. It has, until now, chiefly benefited from the support it has received from Western capitalist society. But the world is changing very fast and as the West is rapidly declining demographically and economically, and rival systems like those of China and Islamic states are on the rise, science may soon find itself under the control of non-Western totalitarian regimes ....

He is certainly not avoiding persecution by not going into exile, which would have been a way of avoiding it. But can we say Socrates is not hiding something? — Leghorn

That's the big question. If he is hiding something, what exactly is it that he is hiding?

And, if he is not afraid of prosecution, why hide anything?

That would have looked like a scene in Harry Potter. :) — Corvus

How many Slytherins to stir a cauldron? :grin:

:ok: :smile:

it may have been a whimper rather than a bang to misquote TS Elliot. — Tom Storm

That is what I thought.

And if it wasn't a "bang", then maybe it wasn't "big" either?

So why was it condensed at first place? What was the nature of the condensed matter? — Corvus

Not only that, but why did it suddenly decide to expand all over the place in all directions all at once and without making a sound or saying something? That's acting suspiciously, no? :wink:

Big Bang is a misleading appellation. — Tom Storm

Does that mean there is an intention to mislead? Or is it unintentional?

"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"

This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants — khaled

Not really, though. No one advocates eating all animals and plants. Some may be poisonous or otherwise unsuitable for human consumption, anyway.

Besides, eating is a necessity. Shooting anyone doesn't seem to be.

The universe is analogies, all the way down — Fine Doubter

I don't disagree with that. :smile:

I presume that, if I undertook the same training and viewed the same research, then I would probably arrive at the same conclusion. — Wayfarer

That is entirely possible, but there is still an "if" there.

Personally, I have no special interest in Big Bang as it has no practical bearing on my everyday life and I tend to place more emphasis on who it is that knows rather than on what is known.

Other than that, you are probably right :smile:

There is voluminous evidence, but if you’d rather believe some anon poster on an internet forum then that probably won’t make any difference. — Wayfarer

Well, we all are anon posters on an internet forum. And I didn't say I believe anyone.

But @HardWorker may have a point in that it does involve a degree of belief. Most of us have no access to that voluminous evidence, or no time or inclination to examine it.

So, arguably, we accept the theory on faith and trust.

That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame. — TheMadFool

True. But it shows that veganism can be bad for the environment and the animals (and humans) inhabiting it.

Oddly, those who need no evidence to be convinced that god created the world seek evidence here. — Banno

Actually, my position is that we should have some evidence before we take anything for fact.

However, according to @HardWorker, Big Bang is just a belief:

its just that some people believe that's how the universe got started. — HardWorker

Plus, if no one heard it and there was no sound, then it wasn't a "bang".

Unless Hoyle meant something else ....

And besides space is a vacuum so you can't hear anything. — HardWorker

Interesting. So, if no evidence and no witnesses, then perhaps it never happened?

Is there any hard proof that there was a Big Bang in the first place?

And if there was one, how come no one heard it? :wink:

I want the discussion, if one unfolds, to be on veganism and/or the tit-for-tat principle - — TheMadFool

Well, lefties always insists on "equality" so ....

But I'm not entirely sure about the pain-based argument for veganism. Do eggs experience pain when eaten by humans?

The other thing is that plant cultivation like soy beans can be detrimental for the environment:

Huge tracts of the forests in South America have been lost at the hands of the expanding soya industry. People protecting the forest, including Indigenous Peoples and local activists, have been intimidated, attacked and even killed.

Palm-oil cultivation is another craze that destroys natural habitats.

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/soya/

And does the whole world need to do what Greta says?

But I guess this will not fix the big dilemma of their inclusion in society and works. — javi2541997

I'm afraid you are right there. Old prejudices die hard.

I think the situation is also reflected in the fact that they refer to themselves by one name and others call them by other names.

But if “Gypsy” in the Romani language is “Rom” then this could be derived from Greek “Romios”. Drop the Greek suffix -ios and you get “Rom”.

Greeks and other Southeast Europeans like the Romanians were part of the original Roman Empire and called themselves “Romans”.

When the Roman Empire was divided into East and West in the 4th century, Emperor Constantine made Constantinople the new capital (New Rome, Nea Romi in Greek) of the Eastern Roman Empire.

The West was overrun by Germanic tribes, but the East part continued under Greek rule till 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Turks.

Throughout this time, Greeks and other Greek-speaking populations in Greece and in what is now Turkey called themselves “Romans” (Romioi), and were known as “Romans” to Arabs (al-Rum) and Turks (Rumlar). Some still call themselves that even now.

When Gypsies entered Europe via Greek-speaking areas, they probably adopted the appellation of “Romans” exactly as Greeks, Romanians, and others did before them. To call yourself “Roman” was a matter of prestige in those days.

If Byzantine Greek Romios became Arabic Rumi (plural Rum) and Turkish Rum (plural Rumlar), then it could easily have become Rom in the Gypsy language.

But locals probably saw them as aliens and called them “Egyptians” or some other Greek-origin name, which explains the difference.

Rûm – Wikipedia

I don't know if Spanish Gypsies call themselves "Roma" instead of "gitanos", but apparently they call their language "calo" or "cale".

Calo language - Wikipedia

There seem to be two Greek-origin etymologies.

Spanish “gitano” from egiptano (“Egyptian”), from Ancient Greek Αἴγυπτος (Aíguptos).

gitano – Wiktionary

The Duden German Dictionary says that the origin of “Zigeuner” is unknown:

“spätmittelhochdeutsch ze-, zigīner, Herkunft ungeklärt”

Duden | Zigeuner | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

But I wouldn’t be surprised if it had a Byzantine Greek origin, perhaps via Italian “zingano” or Polish/Slavic “cygan”.

"Dissimilated form of earlier zingano, most likely from a Greek term meaning "untouchable". Compare the modern Greek designations Τσιγγάνοι (Tsingánoi), Αθίγγανοι (Athínganoi), τσιγγάνος (tsingános).[1][2][3] Cognate to German Zigeuner."

zingaro - Wiktionary

"Cygan, from Proto-Slavic *ciganinъ, from Byzantine Greek Αθίγγανος (Athínganos)."

cygan - Wiktionary

As Gypsies entered Europe via Greek-speaking areas like Turkey and Greece in the Middle Ages, a Byzantine Greek origin seems the most likely.

Edit. Incidentally, the word "Roma" itself may be of Byzantine Greek origin as at the time Gypsies arrived in Greece, all Greek speakers and Greeks themselves, called themselves "Romioi", i.e. "Romans" as they still viewed themselves as citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I think it would make sense for Gypsies to be called "Gypsies" by others, but to call themselves "Romioi" or "Roma".

Thanks.

I think that to some, Spanish culture is having churros for breakfast, paella for lunch and tapas for dinner. Followed by rice pudding (not a great fan myself) or tarta de almendras (much better). Having a feria or a party every other day. Singing “en la calle”. Being as loud as possible. And talking so fast that no estranjero ever has a clue of what you are talking about unless you say it in slow and broken English :grin:

Another thing I have noticed is that Spaniards in general like to be Spanish and something else at the same time, which is why you hear them saying things like “I am Spanish and Andalusian”. Some get carried away and may even come up with something like “somos moros”!

But how “moros” were the moros? The Mauretanians were a Berber population and, apparently, DNA studies have discovered a close ancestral link between Berbers and the Saami of Scandinavia. Could @ssu be one of your distant cousins? :smile:

Saami and Berbers: An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link - NIH

And of course the Berbers were colonized by Romans, Vandals, and Greeks ....

But I agree that the Basques are an interesting case. I can’t say that they look much different from other Spaniards. I think you can detect some Iberian and Celtic features plus elements of some other populations. But in terms of language and culture it’s very intriguing. How did they manage to preserve a language that is totally different from other European languages, or from any other language?

Well, this is why people quit philosophy, no? — baker

People can leave their jobs, wives or husbands, or move to another city or country. There is nothing different about quitting philosophy.

However, I think it is worthwhile taking into consideration that only some of Plato’s dialogues end in aporia, not all of them. In fact, most of them do not.

Besides, Platonism has been extraordinarily successful. From Antiquity to Late Middle Ages and beyond, it was the philosophical system.

Of course, people do not need to agree with everything that Platonism says. But if they find Platonism unsatisfactory, I think it would depend on which aspect of it they disagree with. In my experience, it often boils down to some misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

But there is still an issue of power. Defining what is real for another person is an act of power.
It's not possible to do away with issues of power in interpersonal interactions of any kind, not even in philosophy. — baker

Power is a problem only when it is misused. This is why it is important for all philosophers, beginners and experienced, to place themselves in the proper power context vis-a-vis one another.

This is why, traditionally, the cultivation of virtues is a preparatory stage to philosophy proper.

For Plato, knowledge acquired through reason (episteme) is higher than belief (doxa), and knowledge acquired through personal experience (gnosis) is higher than knowledge acquired through reason.

However, right belief (orthe doxa) can serve as right guidance (orthe hegesia) that takes us to higher forms of knowledge (Meno 97b).

Unfortunately, even in Plato's time there were false philosophy teachers (Sophists) whom Plato warns against in his dialogues.

Why some seem to find the right teachers and others don't, is an interesting question. On Plato's scheme of spiritual evolution, it may be the case that some are (1) not sufficiently evolved or ready and/or (2) not discerning enough to find the right path.

But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't make an effort. By definition, the Platonic philosopher is one who loves knowledge and wisdom and actively seeks after it. And as the saying goes, "seek and you shall find" .... :smile:

Note how our notion of truth probably entails some kind of relating to others, however "thinking for ourselves" we might otherwise believe ourselves to be. — baker

I think that those who feel that Plato's philosophy "goes nowhere" either misunderstand philosophy or fail in their efforts for some other reasons.

According to Plato, we already have knowledge of higher realities acquired in past lives.

We learn philosophical teachings from more knowledgeable and experienced people.

We intuitively know which philosophical teachings are correct, and when properly put into practice, they awaken our innate knowledge of higher realities.

When the soul contemplates metaphysical realities, it may be temporarily separated from the material world, but it is increasingly in communion with the metaphysical realities that are like itself (Phaedo 79d).

The more the soul advances on the Platonic Way Upward and its knowledge and consciousness expand, the more it is in unity with other souls, until oneness or union (henosis) with the One has been achieved.

You are at it again, aren't you?

Cicero’s Laws that Strauss refers to as being “in summer where they seek the shade,” mentions Socrates exactly three times:

And therefore did Socrates deservedly execrate the man who first drew a distinction between the law of nature and the law of morals, for he justly conceived that this error is the source of most human vices (1.33).
—I think we should seek the boundaries which Socrates has laid down in relation to this question, and abide by them (1.56).
For I have never found water much colder than this, although I have seen a great number of rivers;—and I can hardly bear my foot in it when I wish to do what Socrates did in Plato’s Phædrus (2.6)

The Republic, which Strauss refers to as being “a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun,” mentions Socrates six times, at 1.15, 1.16, 2.3, 2.22, 2.51, 3.5.

There is no connection whatsoever between the above instances and Alcibiades’ account of Socrates praying to the Sun in summer as discussed by Strauss in his Symposium lectures.

The island scene in Laws 2.1-2, is in summer, where they seek the shade, as stated by Strauss, which is why he contrasts this with Socrates’ seeking the Sun in summer. For Socrates, the light of the Sun (who is a God) symbolizes the light of knowledge and truth as he states in Plato’s Republic:

“Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?” (Rep 508a).
“This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision.” (Rep 508b - c ).

Therefore the Sun in Plato is a deity as stated by Strauss, and so is the Good. The Sun is the supreme God in the realm of sensibles and its creator, the Good or the One, is the supreme deity in the intelligible world. This is the core of Plato's theology.

As Strauss himself admits in Introductory Remarks:

We find something which is almost explicitly called the theology in the second book of the Republic

To recap. First, Socrates cannot have any connection with Cicero, for the simple reason that he lived centuries before Cicero.

Second, Strauss does not connect Socrates’ praying to the Sun in Plato’s Symposium with Atticus and Marcus’ contemplating in summer in Cicero’s Laws. He contrasts the former with the latter as Socrates contemplates in the sun whereas Atticus and Marcus contemplate in the shade:

Contemplation in summer distinguished from winter. What could that possibly mean? That theme is known to those of you who have read Cicero’s Republic and Laws. Cicero’s Republic is a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun, and the Laws is a dialogue in summer, where they seek the shade. Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god (p. 277)

Third, even if Strauss did make some connection between Alcibiades’ account of Socrates praying to the Sun to some other scene in Plato, he torpedoes his own connection by claiming (without adducing any evidence) that Alcibiades’ story is fiction.

If you claim that (1) A is connected to B and (2) A never took place (i.e., A doesn’t exist), then you have nothing to connect to B, and therefore no connection!

But I admit that Strauss does appear to have the occasional schizoaffective or delusional episode induced, no doubt, by his compulsive Maimonidean esotericism (as do some of his disciples) ….. :grin:

Your version of Plato turns the distinctions Plato is making into a meaningless puree of theological goo. — Valentinus

Complete nonsense. Your phobia of religion seems to make you totally blind to my numerous statements to the effect that religion in Platonism is not necessary for the attainment of knowledge:

Religion is about belief (pistis) which is OK in the lower stages, but by definition, Platonism goes beyond religion or belief to the stages of reason (dianoia) and inner vision (noesis). — Apollodorus

However, if we encounter Gods or other metaphysical entities on our way to the highest, we will know this as and when it happens. So, we need not be overly concerned with the Gods. — Apollodorus

So, sorry to say this, but you are talking to your own aporetic and confused imagination ....

Have a nice day.

I must say I wrestle with this one but it doesn't keep me up at night. I inhabit the quotidian. — Tom Storm

That's probably the right idea. I've got the feeling that even Socrates wouldn't question that :wink:

Not believing you does not make me a liar. — Fooloso4

The issue is not your belief which is totally irrelevant. The issue is your statement to the effect that I “search for statements by and about Strauss so that I can argue against them.”

It was not a “belief” but an emphatic assertion, emphasized by invectives and exclamation mark. And since it turned out to be a blatant lie as I actually have Strauss’ book in front of me, that makes you a liar, does it not?

Even if it was a “belief”, it was a false belief, which illustrates how your Straussian mind operates.

You are also a liar because of the following facts:

First you claimed that Strauss is talking about Socrates as depicted by Cicero.

Then you cited some mysterious “great deal more in Strauss’ lectures on the Symposium”.

Then you cited a mysterious “connection he is making between Alcibiades’ story and Cicero”.

Then you claimed that “Strauss’ lectures were very popular”.

Then you mentioned a mysterious “theme of contemplation in summer”.

And finally, you came up with a novel definition of “discuss” that amounts to an admission that Strauss does not discuss Cicero, which of course he doesn’t. And Cicero does not discuss Socrates’ preference for praying to the Sun in summer.

So, basically, the BS is entirely yours and you are full of it, no offence intended. :smile:

I think it is a matter of balance. As Socrates puts it in the Phaedo:

I assume in each case some principle which I consider strongest, and whatever seems to me to agree with this, whether relating to cause or to anything else, I regard as true, and whatever disagrees with it, as untrue (Phaedo 100a)

Of course people should examine their beliefs, thoughts, emotions, etc., at least to some extent. As a matter of fact, we already do this, even without philosophy. But not go overboard and turn that into some kind of compulsive disorder.

At the end of the day, we can't just spend our lives doubting this or the other. Life requires that we take action and we can do that only on the basis of what we think is the best course of action. I don't see how doubt and uncertainty can serve as a basis for meaningful and active life.

Who fucking made you in charge of assigning identities instead of letting people decide for themselves who they are or what they think? — Valentinus

Well, well, your true colors are finally starting to show. Do you always get upset in unison with Foolo on the other thread? Or is it just another curious "coincidence"? Maybe you are twins, after all …. :grin:

Fact is, I never said you should be an anti-Platonist. What I said was that you seem to share the same anti-Platonist commitment as Foolo:

You share the same anti-Platonist (and anti-Christian) commitment. — Apollodorus

As I said before, you are not paying attention and you seem to be far too emotional and angry to be a true philosopher IMHO.

Anyway, what you are saying is that I can’t tell people who they are or what they think, but you can tell others who they are or what they think. What shall we call that then, hypocrisy or something else?

Finally, you can’t really expect me to answer rhetorical questions that are just obvious straw men designed to distract attention from the issue at hand, can you?

The point I was making was that you keep asking me about the need to perpetually question everything but you never seem to apply that to yourself. You apply that exclusively to others, and I think this goes against everything that Plato teaches. "Examined life" means in the first place examining your own beliefs, emotions, etc.

Well, as your statement below proves to be a lie, I'm afraid you stand exposed as a liar. And not for the first time.

Bullshit! You searched for statements by and about Strauss so that you could argue against them, found excerpts online, and quote them out of context. — Fooloso4

If you believe that Strauss discusses Cicero, then feel free to quote where he does so. But of course you cannot do that because you are making it up.

Strauss does not discuss Cicero, period. He discusses Socrates' praying to the Sun as related by Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium.

And anyway, Socrates could not have acted according to what Cicero says as he lived centuries before Cicero, another fact that seems to have escaped you! :rofl:

I think your description of "intellectualism" fits anti-Platonists very well.

Socrates, Plato, and Greeks in general, were practical, down-to-earth people. Yes, they liked thinking about and discussing things, but at the end of the day, their thoughts had a practical application.

This is why I doubt very much that Socrates was the skeptic and nihilist that anti-Platonists like to see in him.

Hmmm ... Very interesting.

As a matter of fact, when I said "alter ego" I did not mean it literally. But now that you point it out, it must be said that:

You and Foolo joined the forum at the same time.

You hold identical beliefs.

You share the same anti-Platonist (and anti-Christian) commitment.

You use identical language and arguments.

Both of you have mysteriously studied Strauss, a non-entity in the field that few people have heard of, but have never heard of top scholars like Gerson and Sedley, etc.

And you always attack Foolo’s interlocutors when he can’t extricate himself from his own nonsense ….

I think the following samples should more than suffice to show that you are talking nonsense, as usual.

p. 1 "This course will be on Plato's political philosophy"

p. 10 "... is higher than desire."

p. 20 "[acknowl-] edges this special obligation."

p.30 "[Tape change]"

p. 40 "[prin-] ciples are not human."

p. 50 "What he says is this:"

p. 60 "labor is man's bisexuality."

p. 70 "[Ro-] mans - and the younger generation"

p. 80 "in particular."

p. 90 "erotic contact,"

p. 100 "hot, bitter to sweet"

p. 110 "[com-] pelled to admit such a fantastic art as divination:"

p. 120 "[Aritoph-] anes will link up the hierarchy of erotes,"

p. 130 "able to treat many ordinary men,"

p. 140 "Aristophanes' Hephaestus doesn't address gods but mortals."

p. 150 "[[undertand-] ing of what is really going on in the Aristophanean comedies."

p. 160 "flowers signifies the beauty of his complexion,"

p. 170 "[quest-] ion: did the knights not have clean shirts with them on their trips?"

p. 180 "this is only a confirmation of what we all felt,"

p. 190 "declaration: This and this only truly ..."

p. 200 "and above all there is something connecting the two realms"

p. 210 "the basis for these gods is destroyed ..."

p. 220 "The case of eros is the subject."

p. 230 "Long after Plato the attempt was made ..."

p. 240 "[dis-] cussion of Phaedrus in the very beginning."

p. 250 "higher that another thing ..."

p. 260 "the sober."

p. 270 "So that was the first attempt."

p. 280 "basis of what we have learned from Diotima?"

p. 288 (final page and line) "If there are no further questions I terminate this session and this course."

Followed by INDEX that starts with "Achilles" and ends with "Zeus".

I think you have some serious psychological issues, not just mere deficiencies.

Cicero does not discuss Socrates' praying to the Sun.

Strauss does not discuss Cicero.

Strauss discusses Socrates' praying to the Sun as related by Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium. His whole book is about the Symposium and is called "On Plato's Symposium".

If you believe that Strauss discusses Cicero, then feel free to quote where he does so. But of course you cannot do that because you are making it up.

I have Strauss' book right in front of me. Name any page and I can quote from it any time.

What Strauss does say is this:

Cicero's Republic is a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun, and the Laws is a dialogue in summer, where they seek the shade. Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god (p. 277)

Prove that he doesn't say that if you can .... :grin:

As already stated, I can see no difference whatsoever between your statements and those of your alter ego Fooloso4.

Besides, if you were consistent about your practice of perpetually questioning things, you would start by applying it to yourself, no?

But you seem to be applying it exclusively to others.

I think Socrates would have strongly disapproved .... :grin: