Not only Greek but also Green. We all seem to share the same color. How did you arrange that?

BLM leader Patrice Cullors has openly endorsed the policies of Socialist leaders like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong and has described herself and other BLM organisers as “trained Marxists”.

I think she admits that in her book as well, "When They Call You A Terrorist".

Activists at BLM demonstrations have been seen carrying signs with Black Nationalist and Socialist slogans such as “Smash capitalism!” and “fight for Socialism!”

The group is financially supported by the Chinese Progressive Association:

Trained Marxist' Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Party

Maybe this is what our friend Fooloso4 was trying to cover up by denying that civic movements are used for political purposes by the far Left and foreign governments?

Are you Bolton? — frank

No, are you?

I have a brother who's two years my senior and who I grew up with. He was always resistant to new experiences and change, and is very much conservative. I'm the opposite. — praxis

Perhaps older siblings tend to be more resistant to change. This would tend to support what I was saying.

In any case, the book I'm reading has absolutely nothing in it about "Nazism", "Odinism" or "anti-semitism". What the author does in his spare time is his business. Maybe he acquired new interests after writing the book. I don't think that's a reason to ban it or try to suppress philosophical debate on a discussion forum. If anything, any such attempts can only serve to confirm the point he's making, i.e. that spurious "scientific" analysis is being used to suppress political opposition.

Are you saying that the Right wants to change the law but the Left is opposed to that change?

In other words, change is OK when the Left wants it and not OK when the Right wants it. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Being "more open to change" is one thing. Insisting on change at all costs and no matter what is quite another thing.

Not only that, but those who insist on change often are the first to resist change when it goes against their own personal agendas.

BTW if you look at the Black Lives Matter movement as an example, although it may represent a good cause, it seems that it is increasingly being used by Marxists and even by the Chinese government to destabilize the country.

Of course, the Right may be using similar tactics too but two wrongs don't make one right. This is one example of how socialism can undermine democracy.

The way I see it, women should have a right to abortion e.g. when the pregnancy is the result of a crime, such as rape, or when the woman's life is in danger.

However, the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. That's why new standards of civility and common sense must be introduced. We need to return to more moderate attitudes and values.

I've found if you ask two Buddhists about Buddhism you get 3 contradictory answers, — Daemon

3 at the very least.

But I do find the Buddhist theory of impermanence or momentariness quite interesting. Maybe @baker can tell us more.

Hang on a second. Aren't you confusing @Alexandros with @Apollodorus there?

I can't speak for others, but the point I was making was that the Left tends to use any issue, especially issues that appeal to emotion and lend themselves to mass mobilization, for its own agenda. It isn't that the issues themselves are always "socialist" or "left-wing", just that they are used for socialist purposes without those involved even realising it.

Free speech has also been tenuous. We are simply struggling to find its boundaries once again in a changing world. — Fooloso4

I agree. The world is indeed changing very fast and the boundaries of free speech appear to be getting narrower by the day - or by the minute in some cases.

But, it does seem that Augustine and Aquinas incorporated Plato and Aristotle — Jack Cummins

Correct. Greek philosophy was the most developed and respected philosophical system at the time and had been for centuries. Everybody was influenced by it, including Philo of Alexandria. That's why early iconographic representations of Jesus and St Paul show them dressed in a philosopher's robe and holding a book, exactly as Greek and Roman philosophers were. Even Buddha got a Greek philosopher's robe in Indian statues.

Well, the book has absolutely nothing about Odin or anything of the kind, from what I can see at least. And no, I'm not into "Odinism", are you?

You're definitely right about free speech, it's fast becoming a rare commodity - as well-argued by Piers Morgan in his book "Wake Up". The minute you say something deemed in any way "wrong" by any person or group you get cancelled out of existence. Very worrying and frightening development. Again, can we call this "progress"? Hardly.

Apparently, the Fabian Society, which was the main driving force behind the political left in England, believed that "socialism is a business proposition". But then so was liberalism and conservatism. It's been that way ever since. But I agree that vested interests, political or financial, do tend to cover their true intentions in a cloak of empty promises that only serve to fleece the masses.

What they seek to conserve is their own orthodoxies. As a group they cannot agree on what those are. — Fooloso4

But the same applies to the opposite camp, does it not? Marxists have changed little since Marx and there are many strands of "leftism".

First of all, many thanks to everyone for your interesting contributions.

I was just thinking that in the old days people used to fight over water, food or women. Later they fought over religion and now it seems we're fighting over "ideology". So, can we really call this "progress" or are we just fooling ourselves?

And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong?

Otherwise put, what is more important, permanence or change?

Obviously, permanence comes first as all change, even in psychological terms, can only take place against the background of permanence. In fact, we wouldn't even perceive change except with reference to some form of permanence.

So, we may say that the "Right", the camp of permanence, might be afraid of and therefore resistant to the idea of change which is perhaps a natural instinct within us.

But what about the "Left", the camp of change? What can we say about it? I doubt that we can say it is "afraid of permanence" or that it "hates permanence". It may hate the status quo, which is why it wants change, but once the change is in place I'm sure the left wants it to be permanent.

It follows that the element of permanence, of conservatism, is dominant in both camps and this seems to suggest that permanence or conservatism comes first as a fundamental predisposition of all human beings and of life in general.

In any case, my guess would be that, as @3017amen said, we need more moderates in our society. But that seems to be hard to achieve when conflicting ideologies are allowed to take over.

So, while knowledge may have been preserved, whether it was available to wider circles until much later times is questionable. — Jack Cummins

"Questionable" to whom?

At the beginning of the Christian era, Alexander’s City, Alexandria, had become the Western world’s chief centre of learning, with a world-famous library holding thousands of manuscripts and state-funded international scholars. Early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Dionysus the Great had studied philosophy there and became leaders of the influential Catechetical School of Alexandria which trained theologians and priests and whose curriculum included all the major Greek philosophers.

From Alexandria, Greek philosophy was later introduced at the Imperial University of Constantinople, the new capital of the Roman Empire, and became part of the curriculum of Byzantine higher education until the 15th century when The City as the Greeks called it, was taken by the Turks.

Of course, the higher forms of Platonism have always been available to a few initiates only. Hence the "unwritten teachings" (agrapha dogmata) of Plato, Plotinus and others. But that doesn't mean that the original texts themselves weren't available.

Am I right in assuming that you've read the book then?

I'm not sure the "poster boy for Thatcherism" analogy is quite as simple as that. If we look at the UK experience, left-of-center parties aren't currently doing very well and the Queen/Royal Family is still enjoying popular support - though the opposite may be the case in the USA.

You sound like a well-read kind of person. Could it be that deep down we're all conservatives but at the same time we wish to introduce changes we hope will be of benefit to us personally but that ultimately may turn out to achieve the opposite? This seems to be suggested by the Russian and other revolutions where the old social order is overthrown only for a new one to be imposed that is potentially even more repressive than the original one.

i guess the left today is like the teenager who wants to save the world but cannot take the garbage outside. What happens when the teenager rebels? — Alexandros

That's a very good point actually. It reminds me of the article "Marx, Revolution and the Legacy of Utopian Socialism: A Critical Outline" on wordpress. It describes how Marx who seemed to have an adaptability issue rebelled first against his father, then against religion, then against philosophy and eventually developed a "critique of everything". So, psychology does seem to have something to do with the idea of "change at all costs".

If so, then the author is correct. It looks like his thesis is endorsed by Prof Kevin MacDonald of the Department of Psychology, California State University, and others.

I don't disagree with any of that. However, the point the book seems to be making is that both the Left and the Right tend to describe each other in psychological terms, perhaps the Left more so.

"Leftist social scientists sought to show that conservative values are psychologically abnormal" p. 5

"Even the conservative Right [as opposed to the far Right] is generally described in psychological terms as 'regressive' and 'repressive'" p. 7

The term "right" seems to be acquiring a similar connotation to the way "left" was used in the past.

In any case, psychological analysis including "psychohistory" (I didn't know such a thing existed) seems to be increasingly applied to these issues. What is the explanation for this development? Despite all the talk of "unity", is society really becoming more and more pollarized?

Obviously, I've only just started reading the book but I must say it's very interesting and thought-provoking so far.

Oh, thanks for the link!

I do agree that political slogans are not psychology but they may point to deeper psychological factors. After all, everything we do is rooted in our individual psychology. Psychology is what makes us different individuals. And let's not forget that the left has its own labels for the right.

However, the way "left-handedness" is perceived seems to have deeper cultural and historical roots that seem to suggest a more fundamental difference to "right-handedness". It used to be regarded as some sort of "handicap" but nowadays some associate it with "better verbal skills" and the like.

At last, the benefits of being left-handed are confirmed - The Guardian

Christianism is heir, among other, of graeco latin high culture, plato and Aristotle. In my opinion in its summit with st thomas aquinas — Alexandros

I don't know about Aquinas but Christian philosophy certainly borrowed much from Greek philosophy.

Some - like Athena, above - seem to think that knowledge of Greek philosophy only became available to Europe "during the Renaissance". In reality, philosophical texts were preserved in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire ("Byzantium") into the Middle Ages. That's how they came to be translated into Arabic and then transmitted to Western Europe via Latin translations. But the Greeks knew them throughout this time. It was Greeks like George Gemistos Platon ("the second Plato") that inspired the reintroduction of Platonism into Italy in the 1400s.

Well, from a cursory observation, I think that views tend to crystallize in two opposite categories: one oriented towards "change" ("left") and the other oriented towards "conservation or preservation" ("right"). Does this suggest some deeper psychological differences between "left" and "right" or is there some alternative explanation?

This puts socialism in the same category of political arrangement in society as Naziism, totalitarianism, Monarchy, military despotism, martial law, and -- I am sorry to say this -- American-type capitalist democracy. — god must be atheist

I disagree with the equation "monarchy = total state control". Constitutional monarchies are no different from liberal democratic states. In fact, most of them are liberal democracies for all intents and purposes.

But you're right about media control of mass information in capitalist society. It shows how similar capitalism has become to totalitarian socialism.

Well, that seems to be part of the problem. There are many different definitions or views of socialism. Some claim that "socialism is not Marxism", however, Marxism is a form of socialism and for the most part of the history of socialism it has been the dominant form.

Given that most forms of socialism advocate some state control, we could perhaps classify them according to the degree or extent of state control advocated. Obviously, some forms of socialism advocate total state control which to most people, socialists included, is not acceptable.

This is precisely why many socialist regimes have reverted to some forms of capitalism and there is no strict socialism anywhere, even in dictatorships like China. In fact, China is more accurately described as communist-controlled state capitalism.

Some people seem to have an unwillingness or inability to see similarities between Platonism and Indian monistic philosophy.

For example, while noting some similarities, Gregorios writes that “the Plotinian concept of emanation finds no precise parallel in Indian thought” – P M Gregorios “Does Geography Condition Philosophy? On Going Beyond the Occidental-Oriental Distinction”.

As a matter of fact, the concept of the manifest as an emanation of the unmanifest is not altogether unknown to Indian philosophy. And the Plotinian concept of the One abiding in itself, proceeding out of itself in creation and reverting back to itself (mone, proodos, epistrophe) is certainly comparable to the Indian concept of emanation, abidance and withdrawal (sRshti, sthiti, samhāra) that we find especially in monistic traditions like Abhinavagupta’s Kashmiri Shaivism. Even the concept of “the One” (Greek “to Hen”, Sanskrit “Ekam”) is obviously essentially identical in both systems.

As regards differences, both systems admit five faculties of perception (sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling by touch) as powers of the soul, whereby it perceives or “takes in” features of the world such as color, etc. However, in addition to the five cognitive powers of perception, the soul in Indian philosophy also has five motor powers through which it acts on or interacts with the physical world: locomotion or moving about in space, speaking or uttering sounds, excreting, procreating and grasping or taking hold of things.

This seems to be one area to which Platonism appears to give less attention than its Indian counterparts.

Also related to perception, is the Indian theory of impermanence or momentariness (kshanikavāda) which Abhinavagupta seems to have adapted to his own system from Buddhism. Briefly, it holds that an object is perceived in a rapid sequence of very brief units of perception (kshana, moments) which are combined by the mind into a seemingly solid and more lasting image of the object.

I can’t find anything comparable in Platonism but I think that together with the five motor powers of the soul this could be added to Platonism without major difficulties. Obviously, Abhinavagupta was an untiring thinker and his system is extremely elaborate – some, including myself, would say too elaborate – but I tend to believe that Platonism may benefit from borrowing a few elements of it in so far as they are consistent with its own fundamental tenets.

"Unlimited slave labor"? Even in Rome slaves were a minority. Plus they had to be fed, etc.

To my knowledge the Roman military was funded by the imperial government through revenue from taxes, etc. Either way, the army was kept for the public good. That doesn't make it "socialism", it's just common sense for a state to have an army otherwise it won't be a state for very long. Not everything that's necessary or sensible is socialism.

And no, social security isn't socialism. There was public road building, public health care, a standing army paid by the state, etc. even in Ancient Greece and Rome. Total state control over society, that's what people object to.

All I'm saying is that it's wrong to condemn those who condemn socialism, as this presupposes that opposition to socialism shouldn't be allowed. Socialists seem to think it's their birthright to condemn others but not for others to condemn them. Says a lot about socialist psychology really. I'm not saying it's your fault.

Yes, on this we agree. It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is. — Fooloso4

I don't think condemnation is the problem. In a democratic system, opposition should be allowed.

I think the problem is that even socialists don't know what socialism really is until it's too late.

If we follow Plato and others who believe that learning is really to recall and remember, a process that takes place within us, then the question may be said to be more important than the answer as it stimulates the inner learning processes. But we can't really answer the question unless and until we know what is meant by "more important" - in what sense, to whom, etc.

Some see the differences and others the similarities. The list I provided was meant for those who can see the similarities. As to the others, they'll have to do their own research.

I can't disagree with that. All I'm saying is that "socialism" isn't always what believers in it think it is, as happened in the Russian revolution when many woke up to a great shock after thinking that overthrowing the imperial order would solve all their problems. If there is one lesson to learn from history is that politicians can't be trusted and this seems to be increasingly the case, for the simple reason that the world's problems are far too complex and there are too many competing interests for any politician to find the right answers. "Solutions" often give rise to new problems and politicians are often forced to take a short-term view of them which only exacerbates the already dire situation. The Covid-19 pandemic is a good example of how totally wrong things can go. It ought to be a wake-up call for all of us no matter our political persuasion.

Of course no one knows what will be in 10 or 20 years. Maybe Europe will be taken over by China and then we'll have Chinese-style communism instead of socialism. I'm only saying what's happening right now. By "taking over socialism" I meant exactly what you're saying, promoting one particular brand of it, like one that's favoured by big corporations, as opposed to others favoured by the masses. But that amounts to the same thing, in my opinion. It means that the man in the street has no say in it and is being led on by politicians.

The Church Fathers were indeed aware of Greek philosophy in general and of Platonism in particular as this was the dominant philosophical system especially in the eastern parts of the empire. The Apostle Paul, though a Jew, spoke Greek and was able to discuss philosophy with the Greek philosophers of Athens, as the Bible tells.

And, as a matter of fact, the early Church leaders were often educated, upper-class citizens who had the ability and the means to organize congregations and provide venues for meetings, etc.

Ordinary, or uneducated, Christians were a different matter. They didn't need philosophy to understand the higher teachings of Christianity as faith in Christ and his word was enough for them. However, even uneducated mystics may have chosen to learn from the educated ones if they desired to communicate their experience or discuss it in a more refined language.

Unfortunately, we don't know much about them, we tend to hear more about prominent Christians, church leaders, martyrs, etc.

In any case, silent prayer in solitude or making a "temple of God within one's heart", all of which amounts to concentration and interiorization of consciousness both in Platonism and Christianity, would have been understood by all, irrespective of intellectual or spiritual ability.

In other words, there were different levels of religious experience just as in Graeco-Roman religion. While the majority were happy with rituals, singing hymns, participating in religious festivals, etc. a minority would have looked for something else, such as philosophy.

It isn’t me you should be upset with, it’s the big corporations and corrupt politicians.

I haven’t got anything against socialism. But true socialism doesn’t exist anymore. After Marx and Engels closed down their Socialist International, socialism was taken over by England’s Fabian Society and Labour Party who have dominated the international socialist movement ever since in collaboration with big industrial and financial corporations.

Do some research and see for yourself:

Fabian Freeway: Highway to Socialism in the U. S. A.

The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy

That’s why the Labour Party has lost elections since 2010. People are beginning to wake up and see through the Fabians, the European Union and other socialist projects. There is a big awakening in Europe, Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, all of them are beginning to wake up. Even Scandinavian countries and soon Germany. Trust me, I've seen what's happening.

Funny enough, unionists didn't want to hear anything about Marx and Engels' socialist plans. And farmers and artisans even less. Marx and Engels themselves point this out in their Communist Manifesto.

If you want to familiarize yourself with the subject you could start with P M Gregorios, "Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy", Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern, Vol 9 and others.

Also have a look at the couple of dozen points of similarity I provided in the list above.