Once again, there are no missing words. I left the words out — Fooloso4

If there are no missing words, how did you leave them out?

The words are in the Greek original and in proper translations like Sedley & Long.

How can you possibly ignore both the Greek original and other translations if you're serious about an objective analysis?

Why should I give you my translation - which you will obviously reject - when Sedley & Long's and other translations serve the purpose?

I provided the Greek original with the missing words:

ἐπείπερ ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ, "since the soul is immortal".

You are providing nothing apart from an incomplete translation. And, again, why did you choose this particular translation when in other translations the passage is more complete, more faithful to the Greek original and more balanced?

Could it not be the case that the exhortation to ‘repeat such things to himself’ is so as not to loose sight of the importance of the ‘care of the soul’? I find that a much more cohesive explanation, than the idea that Socrates (and Plato) are covertly signalling doubt about the immortality of the soul. — Wayfarer

Absolutely. This is also suggested by Simmias' habit of forgetting things.

I can understand that @Fooloso4 is an atheist and all that, but his "interpretation" is simply an unacceptable farce.

Then why the need for myth? Again, all of this is discussed. — Fooloso4

Not "discussed", more like misinterpreted.

Plato is using mythos and logos but nowhere does he suggest that one should be reduced to the other.

Socrates’ account of Hades is simply given to complete his interlocutors’ understanding of the issue and to contrast it with Aeschylus’ Telephus:

“So it turns out that the journey is not as Aeschylus’ Telephus says. He says that a straightforward “path” leads to Hades, whereas it seems to me to be neither straightforward nor single …” 108a

Very clear and it requires no reading into whatsoever, unless you want to put a spin on it.

But in the end all they have is opinion and belief. They do not have knowledge of the fate of the soul. — Fooloso4

They do have an account of the fate of the soul which Cebes agrees with and even Socrates says that it may not be exactly like that but it's worth insisting that either the described situation or something similar is true.

Nowhere does he reject the account. He concludes with the remark:

"Now as for you, Simmias, Cebes and you others, you will each make the journey [to Hades] some time hereafter" 115a

Why would Socrates conclude with that remark if he didn't believe in his own account?

It is from the Grube translation:http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-09-15.2713280635/file — Fooloso4

So, why are you using the Grube translation that is obviously faulty?

The Greek original is VERY CLEAR:

μὲν οὖν ταῦτα διισχυρίσασθαι οὕτως ἔχειν ὡς ἐγὼ διελήλυθα, οὐ πρέπει νοῦν ἔχοντι ἀνδρί: ὅτι μέντοι ἢ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄττα περὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις, ἐπείπερ ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ φαίνεται οὖσα, τοῦτο καὶ πρέπειν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄξιον κινδυνεῦσαι οἰομένῳ οὕτως ἔχειν—καλὸς γὰρ ὁ κίνδυνος—καὶ χρὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπᾴδειν ἑαυτῷ, διὸ δὴ ἔγωγε καὶ πάλαι μηκύνω τὸν μῦθον. ἀλλὰ τούτων δὴ ἕνεκα θαρρεῖν χρὴ περὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῇ

The Sedley & Long translation which I am using and other translations have the correct version. Why are you choosing the incorrect one if you are so "objective" as you claim to be?

I do come with an appreciation of the idea of the Forms, but, once again, with certain critical reservations. I know that Aristotle, was critical of the idea, because he could not see how they could be measured. I do think that Jung's ideas about archetypes is useful for considering the whole area of thought. You say that he was coming from a psychoanalytic approach, and, of course, that is true, but you must bear in mind that he had such an in depth knowledge of ideas, especially of aspects of Western and Eastern religion. He was a writer who went far beyond psychology, and into the realm of philosophical discussions. — Jack Cummins

Yes, Jung introduced some interesting concepts like synchronicity and also the use of techniques like “mandalas” as tools for re-focusing or re-centering and re-connecting the mind which I find very interesting, as well as dream analysis and interpretation. Incidentally, such techniques can also be found in Platonism and in Ancient Greek religion in general (as well as in Christianity and other Western traditions).

If I’m not mistaken, I think he says somewhere that each person must follow the path prescribed by the spiritual tradition of his or her own culture, which I tend to agree with and I think that’s what I’ve been doing or trying to do myself.

Jung was prepared to look into paranormal experiences for which reason I much prefer Jung to Freud, for example. But as you say, Jung was extraordinarily well-read and you need to be nearly as well-read and learned as him to fully understand his teachings in all their complexity. His published writings are about twenty volumes and a good few are still unpublished.

But I’ve got nothing against Jung. I’m just saying that, personally, I find Plotinus and other Platonists easier to assimilate and put into practice than Jung. For me, Plotinus would be the core of spiritual teachings and practice and Jung something to be explored as an intellectual support for Plotinus in the case of those who feel the need or have the time for it. But this is just my personal opinion.

Whether or not the soul has been shown to be immortal is a basic question of my essay. — Fooloso4

That's precisely why it doesn't seem right to leave out statements like "since the soul is shown to be immortal" from the translation unless you have a good reason or explanation for it, which you don't seem to have.

Why does the statement "the soul is shown to be immortal" bother you so much as to exclude it from the translation? Freudian slip, perhaps? And it isn't for the first time that you "misread" the text.

Socrates has already shown at 72a - 73a why it is logical to believe in the immortality of soul and rebirth.

Socrates says:
"We agree in this way too that living people have come to be from the dead no less than dead people from the living" 72a

Cebes agrees:
"... and in my opinion what you're saying is completely true" 72d

To which Socrates responds:
"I think that is exactly how it is" 72d

Simmias continues to doubt:
"But Cebes, what are the proofs for this?" 73a

etc.

Obviously, Socrates has no hard proof, but he has presented convincing arguments which are accepted by Cebes while Simmias is still doubting. And even Simmias in the end is nearly fully convinced.

On the whole, what the dialogue is showing is that the philosopher should accept a belief only after rationally examining and analyzing it. That's the only way to acquire knowledge instead of relying on opinion or belief. But some will never be totally convinced. That is all. There is absolutely no need to read too much into the text.

Here's another translation:

“Now it would not be fitting for a man of sense to maintain that all this is just as I have described it, but that this or something like it is true concerning our souls and their abodes, since the soul is shown to be immortal, I think he may properly and worthily venture to believe; for the venture is well worth while"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=plat.+phaedo+114d


μὲν οὖν ταῦτα διισχυρίσασθαι οὕτως ἔχειν ὡς ἐγὼ διελήλυθα, οὐ πρέπει νοῦν ἔχοντι ἀνδρί: ὅτι μέντοι ἢ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄττα περὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις, ἐπείπερ ἀθάνατόν γε ἡ ψυχὴ φαίνεται οὖσα, τοῦτο καὶ πρέπειν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄξιον κινδυνεῦσαι οἰομένῳ οὕτως ἔχειν—καλὸς γὰρ ὁ κίνδυνος—καὶ χρὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπᾴδειν ἑαυτῷ, διὸ δὴ ἔγωγε καὶ πάλαι μηκύνω τὸν μῦθον. ἀλλὰ τούτων δὴ ἕνεκα θαρρεῖν χρὴ περὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῇ

So it would seem that modern psychotherapy has more in common with Stoicism than Christianity and yet the values that permeate western culture are largely based on Christianity even for those who don't believe in God. — Ross Campbell

One objection to that statement is that since most people believe in God, there can be no harm following a system that believes in God, like Christianity.

Christianity does have a code of moral conduct for normal people. Psychotherapy is largely for people with psychological issues. That's why it's called therapy.

So, it depends on whether you want a spiritual and moral guide to living or a clinical therapy method.

No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief—for the risk is a noble one—that this, or something like this, is true about our souls and their dwelling places … (114d) — Fooloso4

I think you are using the wrong translation.

Socrates says:
“… when death attacks the human being, the mortal part of him dies, it seems, whereas the immortal part departs intact and undestroyed, and is gone, having retreated from death […] And so, more surely than anything, Cebes, soul is immortal and imperishable, and all our souls really will exist in Hades” 106e -107a

Cebes replies :
“For my part, Socrates, I’ve nothing else to say against this, nor can I doubt the arguments in any way”. 107a

Simmias agrees, but still has some doubts:
“… I’m compelled still to keep some doubt in my mind about what has been said” 107b

Socrates has the final word:
“As it is, however, since the soul is evidently immortal, it could have no means of safety or of escaping evils, other than becoming both as good and as wise as possible”

Concerning the myth he tells of Hades, Socrates says:
“… since the soul turns out to be immortal, I think that for someone who believes this to be so it is both fitting and worth the risk – for fair is the risk – to insist that either what I have said or something like it is true concerning our souls and their dwelling places” 114d

For some strange reason you keep leaving out "However, since the soul turns out to be immortal".

Conclusion: Socrates does not doubt the immortality of the soul or its journey to Hades.

“No sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them, but I think it is fitting for a man to risk the belief ...” — Fooloso4

Nonsense. You're using a fake translation.

Socrates says:
“… when death attacks the human being, the mortal part of him dies, it seems, whereas the immortal part departs intact and undestroyed, and is gone, having retreated from death […] And so, more surely than anything, Cebes, soul is immortal and imperishable, and all our souls really will exist in Hades” 106e -107a

Cebes replies :
“For my part, Socrates, I’ve nothing else to say against this, nor can I doubt the arguments in any way”. 107a

Simmias agrees, but still has some doubts:
“… I’m compelled still to keep some doubt in my mind about what has been said” 107b

Socrates has the final word:
“As it is, however, since the soul is evidently immortal, it could have no means of safety or of escaping evils, other than becoming both as good and as wise as possible”

Concerning the myth he tells of Hades, Socrates says:
“… since the soul turns out to be immortal, I think that for someone who believes this to be so it is both fitting and worth the risk – for fair is the risk – to insist that either what I have said or something like it is true concerning our souls and their dwelling places” 114d

Conclusion: Socrates does not doubt the immortality of the soul or its journey to Hades.

I just think that you are mistaken to suggest that Rockefeller's empire was the prime mover of the CIA at its inception. He used his network of influence to have a place there, but that's it. It's all just networks of influence. — thewonder

As I said before, if we ignore the evidence, deny the facts, and read the wrong books, we won’t get anywhere.

On the other hand, if we want to get to the bottom of a conspiracy theory, or any theory, we ask our teacher at uni or go to the library and look at solid academic publications that are properly researched and sourced.

For the period in question, start with Rulers of America by Rochester to familiarize yourself with the historical background and with the Rockefellers' modus operandi.

Men Who Govern: a biographical profile of Federal political executives, by D. T. Stanley of Brookings Institution shows that the vast majority of people in the US Administration come from a business background or are lawyers representing business interests.

Also read history professors specializing in political history:

T. Paterson, “The Economic Cold War”.

G. Kolko, The Roots of American Foreign Policy, and many others.

I think the rational approach would be to start with the facts. And one of the most fundamental, established and undeniable facts is that there are close links between government and business in most if not all countries on this planet.

It may be argued that no one forces governments to hire business people, and that they do it because it makes it easier to promote economic policies in the business community and through the business community in the wider society.

However, the fact remains that once those business people and lawyers representing business interests have been hired and are sitting in the cabinet or wider administration, they literally make domestic and foreign policy.

As an example, Felix Frankfurter and Grenville Clark advised F. D. Roosevelt to hire Henry L. Stimson as Secretary of War.

Stimson was a member of Standard Oil representatives Root & Clark and had been hired as Secretary of State by Hoover in 1931 before going back to law. In 1940 he was hired by Roosevelt and in turn he hired friends and associates like Robert P. Patterson, John J. McCloy, Robert A. Lovett, Harvey H. Bundy.

Frankfurter: Harvard Law School, former assistant to Stimson.
Clark: Frankfurter's classmate at Harvard, partner and co-founder Root & Clark.

Patterson: Harvard law, partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.
McCloy: Harvard law, Rockefeller lawyer, Milbank, Tweed & Hope.
Lovett: Harvard law and business admin, partner Brown Brothers Harriman.
Bundy: Harvard law, partner Putnam, Putnam & Bell.

Stimson and his team ran the War Department all through the war. They became the key architects of American national security policy during the Cold War. They were the managers and technicians of that policy and they built the structures through which that policy was implemented, the intellectual concepts, the rhetoric, the alliances, the military and intelligence networks, etc.

Similarly, James V. Forestall, of Dillon, Read & Co., Secretary of the Navy and the first Secretary of Defence, recruited his own team of Dillon, Read colleagues and associates.

Edit. Dillon, Read were stoke brokers with close links to the petroleum industry and acting for the Rockefellers

Stimson, Forestall, Dean Acheson, William Clayton, Averell Harriman, and many other business representatives were literally making government policy in line with the agenda of the business community. The people in the street who vote for a particular president or party are never consulted on policy which is left in the hands of self-interested groups. This renders voting pretty much pointless because no matter what party or president is in charge, the country is taken in the direction pointed by wealth and power.

Maybe those who deny the facts do so because there are too many crazy conspiracy theories around. But from your statements it looks like some people accept all kinds of nonsensical stories but reject the facts acknowledged by historians and corroborated by the evidence. This makes the whole issue even more puzzling.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss and marginalize any dissent from official opinion.

The CIA didn't invent the phrase, but they promoted it in order to smear critics of the Warren report. — fishfry

Thanks for the links. I really appreciate that.

The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has been the focus of a number of conspiracy theories together with associated organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, and the Rockefeller Group.

The fundamental fact is that the Rockefeller family had an extensive banking and oil empire which they ran with the help of lawyers, foundations, think tanks, business lobby groups, and political collaborators.

Espionage, economic policy and international relations have always formed the core of Rockefeller efforts to acquire power and exert influence both domestically and internationally.

For a general understanding of how the Rockefellers ran their banking and oil empire I would recommend Rulers of America: A Study of Financial Capital by Anna Rochester. It makes highly instructive reading.

It is clear from the available, generally accepted evidence that the CIA was conceived by Rockefeller people, headed by Rockefeller people, and funded by the Rockefellers.

William “Wild Bill” Donovan, the “founding father of the CIA” was a long-time employee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

In 1941 Donovan organized US intelligence operations into COI (Coordination of Information) and asked Rockefeller lawyer Allen Dulles to head it. The COI HQ was at room 3603 at the Rockefeller Center.

In 1947 the CIA was officially created from COI and other intelligence elements.

In 1952 Dulles was officially appointed as head of the CIA.

William J. Donovan – Wikipedia

The CIA was a Rockefeller operation from start to finish. That’s why it has always represented the interests of the oil, pharmaceutical, and chemical industry.

In addition to creating and heading the CIA, Rockefeller people also were sitting in the US Administration as advisers and policy makers in matters concerning the CIA and other areas of interest to the Rockefellers.

As admitted by Allen Dulles’ law firm Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), which still represents Rockefeller interests:

"During World War II and its political aftermath, S&C lawyers such as noted partners John Foster Dulles and Arthur Dean played important individual roles in helping shape domestic policy and international affairs"

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

S&C represented banking and industrial interests from the start, such as J P Morgan, Ford, and Rockefeller. As the Rockefeller Group gradually replaced and largely took over Morgan and Ford interests, S&C became a Rockefeller firm for all practical purposes and it continues to represent Rockefeller interests to the present.

Rockefeller people created the CIA, headed the CIA and were sitting in the US Administration as advisers and policy makers in matters concerning the CIA.

It is indisputable that the Rockefellers used top lawyers to run their banking and oil empire as well as to influence domestic policy and international affairs.

Lawyers representing Rockefeller interests also included:

Henry L Stimson (of Standard Oil representatives Root & Clark), Secretary of War.

John J McCloy (of the Rockefeller law firm Milbank, Tweed & Hope) Stimson’s Assistant Secretary, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, president of the World Bank, and US High Commissioner for Germany.

Business associates also played key roles in areas of interest to the Rockefeller Group:

William H Draper Jr. (of the Rockefeller-associated investment bank Dillon, Read), head of the Economics Division of the US Military Government in Germany.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of incontrovertible evidence.

So, we can see why people would be inclined to accept a “conspiracy theory” based on incontrovertible facts. What is less clear is what motivates others to deny not only the theory but the established facts themselves. In many cases, even mentioning the fact that the CIA was founded by a powerful business group can trigger a negative reaction of vehement (and totally unfounded) denial.

I assume recognizing intelligence must be evolutionarily necessary? — TiredThinker

There may be other factors involved but the ability to recognize intelligence could be an evolutionary process. We possibly unconsciously detect intelligence or lack of it in the same way we detect emotion, etc. on the basis of eye movement, facial expression, body language, etc.

No problem at all. I've got lots of things to do myself, so take as much time as you want. No rush whatsoever.

I think the material universe is seen to be structured and to function in an ordered way. Even animals and plants exist and/or act according to certain rules or laws. When humans organize themselves as a community or society they generally follow a similar ordered structure that may be said to reflect the laws of the universe. As most people believe in a higher power behind the universe, it isn't unreasonable to say that law and order in human society is a manifestation or extension of the Law of God on earth. Taking the code of moral conduct prescribed by most religions to be the command of God has a psychological and moral function in that it inculcates in us the fact that those laws have a higher source that is above us as individuals and therefore are not to be transgressed.

We find that most religions have this concept of divine righteousness or justice: Ancient Egyptian (maat), Greek (dike), Roman (justitia), Jewish (tsedaqah), Hindu (dharma), etc.

I am not sure about the actual construction of metaphysics any longer. I think that when I first began thinking about philosophy, which was before I began questioning the existence of God, my own starting point for my own argument was from thinking about God. During my experience of questioning religious beliefs, I began thinking from a psychological point of view. I began to frame my own thoughts around actual supernatural entities. — Jack Cummins

I think most people tend to go through phases when they examine their own beliefs in metaphysical realities. Personally, I never reached a point of total metaphysical negation or nihilism. Any arising doubts were instinctively met with counter-arguments to the effect that even if no personal God existed, the existence of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Order, and Justice would still have to be admitted. After all, the visible universe is undeniably constructed in an ordered, logical fashion, that could be accidental but could equally suggest some form of creative intelligence behind it, etc. While my conception of God alternated between a personal and non-personal Deity or Ultimate Reality, it never became atheism as such.

Regarding Plato’s “ideas” or “forms” I think it is ironic that one of Plato’s most fundamental concepts has stirred so much controversy. Obviously, different thinkers have interpreted the Platonic “ideas” or “forms” in different ways. Jung’s archetypes can help us explore what Plato meant by “ideas”. However, Jung developed his theory of the archetypes in the context of psychoanalysis. Personally, I tend to find Plotinus closer to Plato.

What Plato was trying to show was that consciousness or mind tends to organize experience according to certain patterns. It stands to reason that if there is a higher consciousness, mind, or intelligence that creates the invisible world of spirit as well as the visible world of matter, it would do so according to similar patterns.

The problem that Platonism seeks to solve is how the absolute unity of spirit becomes the multiplicity of thought and matter.

Do abstract ideas such as “man”, “woman”, “horse”, “house”, etc. exist on a higher plane from which they are copied into the physical world? I think that put this way the question tends to complicate the issue and give rise to misunderstandings even though, on one level, it points in the right direction.

To simplify things, it would be helpful to go beyond those “forms” and focus on what they ultimately consist of, i.e., basic things like “color”, “number”, size, distance, etc. These would be the actual “forms” contemplation on which leads to direct experience of consciousness itself.

It would be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to conceptualize this any further. And nor is there any need to. Practice and direct, personal experience is the only way to reach that place of which thought can only give us an indirect hint. But once that place has been reached, even momentarily, as Plotinus is said to have done more than once in his lifetime, it becomes clear that consciousness or intelligence is what we essentially are, where we come from, and where we ultimately return to.

Whilst the bible is in part a history and probably to an extent other religious texts too but it’s making claims of the ‘truth’ of these extraordinary entities of omniscience and omnipresence which is extraordinary to think about. I am not knocking belief or faith but just intensely curious as to why it came about in the first place. — David S

I think we need to distinguish between private and public religion. Private religion is a way by which the individual attempts to explain the world and connect with what he or she believes to be a higher power.

Public religion is a different story. It may be used by the ruling class to enforce law and order and inculcate certain moral values. But there is nothing wrong with law and order or morality. On the contrary, it helps keep society together and enables it to function in ways that are beneficial to itself and its citizens. From this perspective, there is nothing wrong with belief in spiritual entities, "extraordinary" or otherwise.

The terms right and left are meaningless to me. What matters is nations are competing against each other and the powerful ones are exploiting the resources of the weak ones. — Athena

I agree. That's exactly why I've said many times before that the emergence of a political right and left hasn't brought anything good and society should return to a no-party system where governance is done by consensus instead of having alternate rule by one party or another. Hence my suggestion that governments should be run by impartial or partyless "philosopher kings" or wise rulers as proposed by Plato.

And yes, the problem is powerful countries exploiting the resources of the weak ones. China is a good example. It exploits Tibet - while also suppressing its people - and is expanding its influence and power in the Pacific, Africa, the Middle East and even Europe.

Yet no one says anything about China. Mainstream discussion seems to always revolve around Europe's colonial past.

They reject welfare while bemoaning the end of traditional values, and demanding women have equal rights. A woman with children does not have equal rights, because she does not have equal freedom to pursue her career and have family too. — Athena

Sure. But the same applies to a man who has to bring up children without their mother.

I think “equal rights” can be deceptive and is often used to deceive people. The ruled are not in the same position as the rulers. Individuals are different from each other. We all have different aptitudes and skills, different levels of intelligence or physical strength, etc.

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men. Is this what society should strive to achieve?

I never said there should be no welfare. I only pointed out that some families live on state benefits for generations, even those that do have a man or father in the house. I was referring to people who are deliberately abusing the system out of their own choice, not because circumstances force them.

They are no other? Are we a single amorphous mass of humanity like a big fat jellyfish floating on the world ocean? Maybe that's how proponents of world government want us to see ourselves. But I doubt that's the way forward.

@EricH, what would be your opinion on that?

Habermas' theory of communicative action is much more anthropological. — Pantagruel

Marxist thought seems to have spread to many other fields including anthropology, e.g. social anthropology, making it difficult in many cases to distinguish between one and the other.

It's been common practice since the time of G B Shaw to both criticize and defend Marxism along the lines of "Yes, this or that element of Marxism, e.g., economic theory is bad but its political philosophy or social philosophy is sound, etc." This seems to be Habermas' approach too. So, I wouldn't classify Habermas as too different from Marxism. More like a sub-current of Marxism.

I think, originally, it started with paranormal experiences such as visions, apparitions, premonitions, telepathy, out-of-body and near-death experiences, and the like, that led people to believe, and in some cases to be convinced, that there is a metaphysical world out there that is inhabited by spiritual entities in much the same way the material world is populated with material things or beings.

For all of the critiques there are to make of Marxists, it's not as if they never have perceptive ideas. — thewonder

They may have perceptive ideas but less perceptive practical solutions. All Marxist states have ended up in abject failure.

He asked a question, I replied, and that is that.

How is it my fault that he imagines to have seen me on another forum???

I read some Habermas ages ago, but can't remember any of it as of right now. Maybe I should look back into it? — thewonder

You can if you want, but I doubt it's worth it. To me Habermas sounds just like neo-Marxism phrased slightly differently to the usual stuff.

You really do not understand, do you — tim wood

If you don't understand, why should I?

Why should anyone else be sure? And how would they know? — tim wood

Well, if they can't be sure and they can't know, then what's the point in asking?

I commend as an exercise your working through the logic of this. If it's true, then you do not know what is — tim wood

If you don't know what is, how is it my fault?

A person's mind is the only that they have to live with at all times. You can only seek to liberate it. That's kind of a speculative theory, though. — thewonder

I don't think it's that speculative. As I said, "know thyself" is the start to any attempt to attain true knowledge and freedom. Self-knowledge is the only thing by which you can determine who or what you are, who the others are, and what the relation between yourself and the others is. Situational awareness is invariably based on self-knowledge. Without that you can't get anywhere.

There is no "who", the apparatuses are automatic -- like I said, even the actors in it are unaware of the machinations. — Caldwell

Yes, but nothing in human society is "automatic", everything is a product of human agency.

I read it and thought it evasive. — tim wood

Well, he didn't complain at the time, did he?

To me, "I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here" means HERE not THERE on whatever forum he imagines to have seen me.

And I also added:

Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am. — Apollodorus

If that isn't clear enough, I don't know what is.

I believe that this is important in our development of ideas, otherwise it may be like trying to paint pictures with brushes which have been left soaking in dirty water. — Jack Cummins

I agree. But I think that the real point of metaphysics is to simplify experience and enable human consciousness to transit from multiplicity to unity.

Speaking of ideas, how do you view Plato's "ideas" or "forms"?

Habermas calls such "steering media" - money and power for example — Pantagruel

Yes, but it isn't entirely clear who or what is ultimately responsible or what the solution might be. And, at the end of the day, it's only a theory. I for one can't see much difference between Habermas and neo-Marxism. But I could be wrong.

What is this, some kind of quiz? I think Christianity according to POC is pretty much the same as Christianity according to whites. — ToothyMaw

I'm just asking. It may sound hard to believe, but as I said, "equality" means so many things to so many people these days that the more I think about it the more confusing it seems. According to some activists "equality" means replacing men with women, whites with blacks, capitalists with communists, etc. etc.

In my opinion, "replacement" doesn't quite sound like the same as "equality". Hence my query.

Besides, there seems to be no one else on this thread.

By races you mean the traditional classification into Caucasian/White, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black and Australoid, or?

I haven't read @Apollodorus post about this. But if he could post it here, that can help. — Caldwell

I tend to be of the opinion that in order to render social control inoperative it would be necessary to identify what the apparatuses are through which control is exerted, how they operate, and who controls them. I haven't had the time to post anything on this yet. But I shall endeavor to do so at the earliest opportunity provided that there is genuine interest in it.

And yeah, I just mean the cultures of any POC. — ToothyMaw

Cultures but not religions?

Perhaps, philosophy can be a form of helping us to become more consciously aware, because it involves critical discourse and looking behind the surfaces of day to day experiences. — Jack Cummins

I think that's the basic idea. Everyday life forces us to become engrossed in the material world, physical needs, and related concerns, and this leaves very little room for higher forms of awareness or experience. But we're more than just physical bodies. We've got an intellectual and spiritual side that mustn't be neglected. Philosophy tends to restore some balance as, I believe, do dreams and also certain spiritual techniques such as meditation and contemplation. So, traditional philosophy such as Platonism does have a spiritual dimension that can have much to offer if we learn how to use it correctly.

I would. There is nothing wrong with black culture imo, and I wouldn't want to see it disappear. — ToothyMaw

I don't think there is anything wrong with it either. By the way, by "black culture" do you mean African culture, Afro American culture, or?

And what do you mean by "I would"?

the basic idea is to figure out how probable is it that a person x is the culprit given the evidence. Sounds very Bayesian too me. — TheMadFool

I think that comes close to what I had in mind. How about using "Bayesian" in the description? Maybe "Bayesian conspiracy analysis"? It might sound a bit odd in the beginning but people have demonstrated an ability to get used to weirder names.