Yes, the idea of suffering and the idea of making an end to suffering can be found in many religions, ideologies, etc., but these systems differ greatly in the relative importance they ascribe to the problem of suffering. To the best of my knowledge, no other system but Buddhism gives such prominence to suffering (although Jainism is close). — baker

Suffering is certainly central to Christianity. The goal of Christianity is salvation from suffering and death, which is also the goal of Platonism and Buddhism.

Life is painful due to ignorance and sin (i.e., wrong conduct). This is what motivates all three traditions to engage in ethical conduct and seek higher knowledge.

I don’t think scholars need to personally practice any of these systems in order to identify parallels between their intellectual frameworks.

If you happen to live in Eastern Europe it is probably correct to say that non-European systems there are not in general highly regarded. But in the West the reverse is often the case, especially in large cities across the English-speaking world.

I’m assuming that Eastern Europe was also spared the West’s counterculture movement of the 60’s and 70’s, at least to some extent. The movement had been instigated after WW2 by CIA operations like the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), purportedly "to combat communism", but the most notable result was that it turned whole generations against Western culture, and the trend has remained strong ever since ....

Congress for Cultural Freedom - Wikipedia

I would have argued vehemently against that 30 years ago but I'm now starting to see some truth in it. But the Church was in a lot of ways the author of its own misfortune in this regard. When you study the role of religion in European history it was often incredibly bloody and vicious. Sure there were episodes of comparative enlightenment and calm, but the religious wars, inquisitions and crusades were phenomenally bloody. And the inner meaning of the philosophy was hardly self-evident. — Wayfarer

True. But to be fair, it must be said that the Church was not just a religious organization. It was heir, political, administrative, military, economic and cultural, to the Roman Empire.

The Empire had been largely Christianized, but the Western part saw itself overrun by one wave of Germanic tribes after another. The East itself had to fend off Germanic, Slavic, Bulgar, and other invaders and was almost completely overrun in the process, with Pagan Slavs penetrating deep into the Greek peninsula. The East later came under constant attack from Arabs, Vikings, and Turks who all dreamed of making Constantinople their capital. The Greeks managed to repel the Vikings, but losing Syria and Egypt to the Muslim Arabs and Anatolia to the Turks was a disaster from which the East never recovered.

The loss of these territories was also a blow to Christian spirituality, as pilgrims from all over the Empire had been visiting monasteries, hermits, saints, and holy places in Egypt and elsewhere.

Arguably, the Church was forced to operate in extraordinary circumstances, with nothing less than its own survival, and the survival of European civilization, at stake. It was literally a struggle for survival where dissent, potentially leading to fragmentation, disintegration, and annihilation, was a very real danger.

If the role of religion in European history was often incredibly bloody and vicious, it is because history itself was bloody and vicious. And not only in Europe. It is easy to construct India as a nation of enlightened sages devoted to prayer, meditation, and the study of scripture. In reality, India has always been a jumble of hundreds of different kingdoms speaking hundreds of different languages and following hundreds of different religious cults, that were often in conflict and at war with one another. And the same goes for the Muslim world.

Despite all this, the works of Plato and Aristotle were faithfully preserved (that's why we are able to read them now) and Classical philosophy was taught without interruption, under the umbrella of the Church. In fact, from the early centuries of the Christian era, Classical philosophy was seen as a step to higher Christian education. The result was that the wisdom of Ancient Greece continued to be available to those who took an interest in it, at least in the East.

There is no denying that excesses did happen, but they are just one facet of a complex story. Every civilization or culture has its low points and its high points. If we ignore this fact, we can fall into the trap of opting for the wholesale denial and rejection of Western civilization and it is doubtful that going down that path can lead to much good.

For many centuries, Platonism was regarded as a spiritual path, not just mere philosophy, and Christianity itself, often under Hellenistic influence, developed its own spirituality. Christian monasticism that emerged as early as the 300’s A.D. was a spiritual movement with spiritual practices that were in no way inferior to those of Buddhism or Hinduism.

The belief that earthly existence is painful; observance of abstinence and strict dietary rules; moral and spiritual purification through control or eradication of negative emotions and impulses, and cultivation of opposite inclinations; the attainment of detachment and impassibility (apatheia); meditation and contemplation, etc., are found in Western (Greek, Christian) and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist) traditions alike.

As pointed out by McEvilley, modern prejudice about Greek culture has led to a number of erroneous beliefs such as that introspection is inherently alien to Greek thought and that anything that sounds inward-looking in Hellenistic schools must be the result of “eastern” influence! Needless to say, business-minded and nationalist Indians have sought to emphasize such Western misconceptions about Western culture in order to sell their own tradition as “superior”. Spirituality in India has long become a multi-billion dollar business with some “gurus” being as wealthy as the maharajahs of earlier times.

It is part of human nature to think the grass is greener on the other side, and when this is exploited for commercial or political ends, it can result in distorted perceptions of one’s own culture. If we are using the Crusades to reject Western culture and deny its spiritual aspects, then we can equally use aspects of Indian culture (caste discrimination, untouchability, child exploitation, child marriage, female infanticide, violence against women, religious intolerance and violence, barbaric penal code, etc.) to reject Indian religion and spirituality many times over.

Incidentally, it is interesting to see that the same critics who see nothing good in Western culture, are quick to find examples to their liking (“Celtic spirituality”, “Druidism”, “Witchcraft”, etc.) when it suits their agenda.

Ignorance of Western forms of spirituality may have been excusable in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, when Westerners believed in a “new age” as a means to put the past behind them, and there was a quasi-religious need to follow the hippie trail to the East - which also coincided with the rise of Hindu nationalism and the emergence of anti-Western narratives in South Asia. However, with the possibilities offered by the latest information technologies, I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions. Certainly, when claims of “eastern superiority” come into the picture, a good dose of caution seems indicated.

If we think about it, there aren’t many enlightened people in India despite its population of more than one billion and there is no logical reason why this should be any different with Westerners following, or imitating, Indian traditions. (One of the things humans are naturally very good at is consciously or unconsciously imitating others.) If anything, what these Westerners have to offer is an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.

In fact, the term “enlightenment” itself is of Western origin and is not used in Indian traditions. So this may be a case of Westerners Westernizing Eastern traditions and believing their own perception of them as a substitute for the Western spirituality whose existence they choose to deny in the first place. If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such.

I'm not "changing the subject" at all. It's a complex issue and you seem to be confused. So I’ll explain it to you one last time.

My actual position is pro-Western and pro-European.

Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.

Therefore I am against Turkey.

Russia is a close ally of Turkey and, in that sense, anti-European and anti-Western.

So you can see for yourself that I cannot possibly be “pro-Russian”.

However, I am qualifying the above with the following caveats:

1. Russia is siding with Turkey (and with other dictatorships) because of the pressure Europe and the West are putting on it.

2. In terms of the wider geopolitical competition between the West and China, I think the logical thing to do would be for the West and Russia to bury their differences, at least for the time being, and form a united front against China (which, by the way, need not lead to military conflict).

So you are totally misconstruing my position.

Anyway, your own Prime Minister has just publicly apologized for her “lack of judgement”. This suggests to me, as it should suggest to you, that your blind belief in your leaders might be less justified than you think.

If we look at some EU statistics, we find some interesting facts:

Only 56% of EU citizens (and 49% of Finns) identify with being European.

Up to 28% do not identify with being European at all.

The rest are noncommittal.

Even more interesting is the following finding:

Across Europe, most politicians have long been treated with suspicion. According to Eurobarometer polling, the percentage of EU citizens who say they trust their national government and parliament has been trending upwards in recent years, but has nevertheless spent most of the 2010s below 30%.

Do you trust politicians? - Debating Europe

And this:

EU values respond less to the values of conservation (preserving group cohesion, order and security) and self-enhancement (seeking pleasure, wealth and esteem), which are also important to many citizens. To avoid further polarisation, EU policymaking could reflect more on these values as well.

The Joint Research Centre’s new report calls for the systematic consideration of values and identities in EU policymaking - EU Science Hub

Record 60% of Europeans ‘tend not to trust’ EU – Euractiv

So the European Commission’s own data show that:

1. A large percentage of EU citizens do not identify with being European.

2. An even larger percentage do not trust their political leaders.

3. There is a discrepancy between official EU values and the values held by the people.

This means that (a) there are legitimate reasons to be critical of the EU and (b) not every EU critic is a “Russian silovik”.

In any case, what you are presenting there is an obviously false narrative. This is not necessarily your fault. You may have been indoctrinated to hold those beliefs. Your fault lies in being unwilling to critically examine your beliefs.

As regards NATO, the fact remains that NATO was created by England and America as an explicitly anti-Russian, Atlanticist organization intended to represent Atlanticist interests. That’s why it’s called “NATO” (“North Atlantic Treaty Organization”) which refers to the North Atlantic countries England, Canada, and America.

Atlanticism was a joint project of England, Canada, and America designed to represent oil interests. The Atlanticist Movement was headed by Paul Cravath who was an employee of Standard Oil subsidiary Globe Oil.

Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

This is not Russian or “silovik” propaganda. It is generally accepted fact as shown by Wikipedia articles and other mainstream sources on the subject.

From the very start, NATO represented Western, especially Anglo-American, oil interests. And its purpose, as stated by its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, was to “keep the Americans in and the Russians out”.

It is beyond dispute that in geopolitical terms, there is growing competition between the Russian and Euro-Atlantic spheres of influence. This is precisely why NATO and the EU are expanding, to expand Euro-Atlantic (or EU-UK-US) influence!!!

As already stated, it all began with Napoleon, a delusional man who imagined that he could rule the world and who murdered millions of people in pursuit of his megalomaniac ambitions. His “United States of Europe” plan backfired, France lost, becoming a second-rate power, and England and Germany took over.

Next, England and France used Russia to get rid of Germany but they lost their own empires.

They are now getting kicked out of Africa because of their colonial past and Russia is moving in. This is the true reason why they are ganging up on Russia.

England and France have been predatory entities for centuries. It is absurd to claim that they wouldn’t like to get their hands on Russian oil and gas if they had the chance.

The idea is that if they dismantle Russia piece by piece and seize its resources, then they will no longer need Africa which is turning against the West and toward the East.

However, if Russia falls, China will likely become the next superpower. So I think the plan is going to backfire for Europe and for the West in general.

But the main problem is Biden. He is an old man with health problems. He is also a vindictive man who would love to see Russia being “punished” for allegedly siding with Trump. If he allows himself to be pushed by Europe and other vested interests (military industrial complex, etc.) into waging war on Russia, I don’t think it is going to end well for the world in the long term. And that includes Finland – or what’s left of it.

But, as I said, if you prefer to take a blinkered, frog-in-the-well approach to geopolitical issues, that’s your choice and your problem.

Merry Christmas & regards to Sanna and to Joulupukki! :wink:

Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment? — baker

Well, for starters, there aren't many who actually make that claim.

Second, you would want to first see some evidence in support of that claim.

Third, you would need to know (a) what enlightenment is and (b) what enlightenment means in the case of the person making the claim.

So I think that, statistically, the chance of anyone being in a position to congratulate others for being enlightened is pretty small .... :smile:

the center point of Buddhism is suffering and the end of suffering. The Buddha said that he teaches only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering. — baker

That’s why I don’t think there is much difference between Buddhism and other systems.

Glossing over this, and instead trying to chart Buddhist doctrine in ontological and epistemological terms characteristic for some other philosophies/religions, is to miss the whole point of Buddhism. — baker

Well, when you have a number of competing systems, I think it is legitimate for people to want to learn more about each of them. After all, anyone can claim that they can show you "the way to Nirvana”, only to take you for a ride.

The general view in the old days was that Western systems (especially those based on Christianity) were superior to anything the East had to offer. These days the attitude has been reversed. It has become customary to belittle all things Western and to idealize and idolize everything Eastern (or non-Western).

The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West.

Buddha-nature has a wide range of (sometimes conflicting) meanings in Indian and later East Asian and Tibetan Buddhist literature, and the idea of Buddha-nature may refer to, among others, the luminous nature of mind,[7][8][9] the pure (visuddhi), undefiled mind,[7] "the natural and true state of the mind";[10] sunyata, an emptiness that is a nonimplicative negation (as emptiness is seen in madhyamaka);[8] the alaya-vijñana ("store-consciousness", a yogacara concept);[8] the interpenetration of all dharmas; and the potential for all sentient beings to attain liberation. — Wayfarer

In The Shape of Ancient Thought, McEvilley makes some rather interesting observations on the close parallels between Greek and Indian thought:

Most modern commentators have emphasized the ontological aspect of Neoplatonism, which brings Plotinus into line with Plato (and behind him Parmenides). When this emphasis is in place, the parallels between Plotinus and the Upaniṣadic-Vedāntic tradition come to the foreground. But if, on the other hand, the mentalist-idealist aspect is emphasized, then quite a different set of parallels emerges – parallels which are in fact more striking and detailed – those between Plotinus and the consciousness-only (vijñānavāda) schools of Buddhism (p.571).

McEvilley points out that the problem identified by some Buddhist schools was how to explain karmic consequence when the only reality was momentary states of mind:

In the fourth century A.D., a century or a century and a half after Plotinus, the philosopher Vasubandhu sought to remedy this apparent contradiction through the concept of the Storehouse Consciousness (ālayavijñāna). The Storehouse is a level underlying all human mental activity and providing a bed in which the seeds of present thoughts can grow to fruition as future states of mind.
The Storehouse is pure subjectivity, yet the appearance of objectivity arises out of it as its dream, or aura, or emanation, or fume. It is the dynamic source of everything. Vasubandhu describes it as “flowing like a torrent” (Trimsikakārikā 4) … Plotinus describes Mind as “boiling with life” (Enn. VI.7.12) … In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra the conception of the highest realm is brought even closer to Plotinus’ One … (pp. 571-2).

The problem posed by the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness or impermanence (kṣaṇikavāda) is very similar to the problem posed by the impermanence of the material world in Greek philosophy, and the solution to it is also similar, with Plato and others positing a permanent, immaterial reality on which material reality depends.

If the objects of sensory consciousness (pravṛttivijñāna) are momentary, a higher, more permanent form of consciousness (ālayavijñāna) is needed, and if that is also not permanent, a final, absolutely permanent consciousness is required. Otherwise, enlightenment itself would be impermanent.

This is why three basic levels of consciousness and being are common to Buddhism and Platonism alike - each level of reality being superseded by the next higher one that generates it, until the Ultimate Source of all is reached.

The “obliteration of consciousness” that is supposed to take place in enlightenment may well be only the obliteration of lower forms of consciousness. This would make the real Buddhist position compatible with that of other systems like Platonism and Advaita Vedanta, as McEvilley suggests.

I said in my thesis that what is being criticized as 'eternalism' is the belief that the aim of the religious life is to secure an unending series of lives - to live 'forever after' in propitious circumstances (which is somewhat similar to some popular ideas of heaven). That is not what Nirvāṇa means - it means the complete cessation of the process of rebirth. — Wayfarer

Sure. And, presumably, to really understand Nirvana one must experience it first.

But I think the difficulty tends to arise from what seems to be a multiplicity of Buddhist traditions and/or interpretations, in addition to apparent contradictions in the texts.

The English word “consciousness” may have been coined in the 17th century, but the concept of consciousness as “perception of cognitive processes” or something along those lines, certainly existed many centuries before together with words describing it, both in Europe and in India. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense to translate Sanskrit, Pali, or Greek words as “consciousness”.

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta says:

What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance' (15)

And the Anguttara Nikaya:

Monks, in the world with its devas, Mara and Brahma, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed and cognized, attained, searched into, pondered over by the mind—all that is fully understood by the Tathagata. That is why he is called the Tathagata (4:23)

If the Tathagata (“One who has arrived”) “understands everything that is perceived and pondered over by the mind”, “sees the disappearance of consciousness”, etc., this seems to suggest the presence of some form of consciousness or awareness that the Tathagata has.

This may not be the ordinary consciousness (viññāṇa) associated with everyday experience, as the Tathagata is said to “see the disappearance” of that. But it may still be a higher form of consciousness, otherwise we couldn’t speak of “seeing” and “understanding”. Unless, of course, it is not meant literally. But if it is not meant literally, how do we know that other statements are not to be taken literally, either?

This is where the Buddha eschews theories. Theories are dṛṣṭi, 'dogmatic viewpoints' - about consciousness or an eternal self or anything of the kind. The word 'consciousness' was only coined in the 17th century, and besides it's something you can loose. If you start to qualify it, 'ah, that's not what I mean by "consciousness"' then you're already 'tangled in thickets of views', to quote the Aggi-Vaccha sutta again.

Of course, there's a lot more that could be said, but this is a very long post already. Suffice to say that this criticism of 'objectifying' is fundamental to Buddhist philosophy, and really understanding it is to understand a 'stance' or way-of-being which is unique to Buddhism. Few do. — Wayfarer

I’m not sure the stance against the “objectification” of a higher reality is entirely unique to Buddhism. If Buddhists think, talk, and write about it, then they “objectify” it, anyway.

I think what tends to happen is that when people don’t know about something but they know (or are told) that it exists, the mind will compensate for the lack of information by imagining things and this can be equivalent to getting “tangled in theories”.

In any case, no one expects a full-blown theory. But a better explanation might help people to understand. If not, it amounts to saying that Buddhists have nothing to say on the topic, which doesn't seem to be the case.

So I gather that you think that stating the following ... Is disinformation, anti-Russian propaganda, distortion. — ssu

Absolutely. It’s a well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood.

The fact that you got one sentence right does NOT mean that the whole text or narrative is right!

As for distortion, I have just demonstrated that you are deliberately distorting my statements in the first place, so I don’t need to repeat myself.

I can understand that you have this fixation with Russia. Being from Finland, you probably feel that the EU has somehow “saved” you from the “evil” Russians, or whatever.

However, as we have seen, the EU hasn’t really saved you, as demographic projections indicate that soon you will be extinct or close to extinction.

In any case, it doesn’t validate your arguments, which was the point I was making.

In fact, they are not even arguments. They are just rhetorical questions and straw men.

To say that “Russian siloviki say so”, is NOT an argument. As I already explained to you, the fact that Russian “siloviki” or Russians in general say something, does not mean that it isn’t true. There is no logical connection between one thing and the other.

Here is your “logic”:

A. Someone makes Statement “S”.
B. But that’s what Russian siloviki say.
C. Therefore, “S” cannot be true.

You may not realize this, but the conclusion C does not follow from the premises A and B.

The same applies to Cyprus. I knew you would be unable to give an honest answer to a simple question, and you proved me right by resorting to more illogical statements.

To claim that if Turkey invades and occupies Cyprus without annexing it, is OK but that if Russia invades, occupies, and annexes Crimea, it is not OK is just too preposterous even for EU-activists like yourself.

By your logic, if Sweden invaded and occupied Finland without annexing it, that would be a legitimate operation!

In historical terms, the plain truth is that compared to other European powers like England and France, Russia has been remarkably non-aggressive. Unlike England, France, or Spain, Russia has never had a world empire built by African slaves.

Russia became mildly aggressive only after being attacked by the West, used by England and France to fight their wars on rival powers, and converted to communism by the West.

This is why I pointed out to you that it was Napoleon who invaded Russia and that the “United States of Europe” was Napoleon’s idea that was carried on by the founders of the EU who actually called their project “United States of Europe”.

The “Father of the EU” Jean Monnet set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE) to realize his project:

The role of the Action Committee for the United States of Europe – University of Luxembourg

As I pointed out to you, the EU actually aimed to incorporate Russia into its union in the 1990’s.

A first step in this direction was the 1997 EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), that included financial, economic, and cultural cooperation as well as political dialogue, and expressly aimed to “provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

A Partnership is hereby established between the Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Russia, of the other part. The objectives of this Partnership are:
….
To provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe

Full text here:

EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Document 21997A1128(01) - EURLex

Putin stopped that just in time, otherwise Russia would be now taking orders from Brussels, like you do.

All facts considered, it is the EU (and NATO) that are expanding, not Russia.

Your reply is that “this is what Russians say”. This is your standard method (or tactic) of argumentation. You are dismissing and trying to sweep under the carpet any fact that is inconvenient to your political agenda.

Incidentally, according to the UN, Finns are the “happiest nation in the world”. Presumably, awareness of the fact that you are heading for extinction is one of the causes. Or perhaps it’s a case of “ignorance is bliss”?

In any case, if believing your own propaganda makes you happy, feel free to talk to yourself. I don’t want to hold you back.

Oh, and don’t forget to post some more pictures to “prove” that your propaganda is true. Reindeer and Santa Claus would be just perfect …. :rofl:

This requires very careful interpretation as it is easily misconstrued. — Wayfarer

I agree that things can get easily misconstrued, especially when we are dealing with ancient texts.

The “melting away of I and mine”, etc., seems fairly clear. But this doesn’t answer the question of what remains in the end. In Western traditions like Platonism and Hindu ones like Advaita Vedanta, the answer would be “consciousness”.

The Buddhist answer seems less clear. The assertion to the effect that “everything is impermanent, everything is painful, everything is not-self” isn’t quite what is seems at face value.

The original text as given at the Dhammapada 277-279 actually refers to “all conditioned phenomena (samskaras)”, NOT to “everything” (sarvam) in an absolute sense.

The Dhammapada: Verses and Stories

So I don’t think this sounds like nihilism. On the contrary, it seems to suggest that after all there may be something that is “permanent, blissful, and self”, to which conditioned phenomena are contrasted as “not so” (cf. the Upanishadic “neti”/”na iti”, “not so”).

And that “something” may well be consciousness, exactly as in other systems. On the other hand, if consciousness is denied, this tends to raise a number of problems, for example, relating to cognitive phenomena like memory.

Memory (smrti or sati) is defined as “not letting go of the object [of past experience]” (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 54.22–23).

What is unclear is who is holding on to the object and how, what that object is, where it is located, what happens to it when you let go of it, etc., in the absence of consciousness.

And there you have it. It's OK to annex parts of other sovereign countries because they have Russian minorities. — ssu

As I said, more obvious disinformation, distortion, and black propaganda. And straw men!

The FACT is, I never said it was OK. What I said is that it doesn’t threaten England, France, or America for them to attack Russia.

That England feels threatened by Russia was not my idea, either. It was what the British intelligence statement said which I quoted!

And what you are trying to cover up is that Turkey, which is a NATO member, has invaded and occupied Cyprus, and no one does or says anything about it!

Why is it OK for NATO members like Turkey but not for Russia? I bet you can’t answer even a simple question like that.

I think these are glaring double standards and complete lack of objectivity and impartiality on your part.

The fact is that I am neither Russian nor Finnish. So frankly, I think there is a greater chance of me being objective than you.

As a general rule, when analyzing a problem, it is common practice to start from objective observations.

In contrast, you are starting from political ideology and propaganda, as we’ve seen from previous discussions. It’s a well-known fact that pictures are a prime tool of propaganda and agitation, that’s why you keep posting them instead of proper rational and fact-based arguments.

This EU of yours seems to be like a religion (or given the circumstances, like a death cult), and anyone who disagrees with it is “evil” or, perhaps even worse than evil, “a Russian silovik”!

As I have pointed out to you before, there are a number of serious problems with the EU. For starters, the EU is in demographic and cultural decline. An association of countries whose fertility rate has dropped from far above replacement level to well below that level within a few decades, cannot be deemed “successful”, given that the existing trend leads to population decline and, eventually, to population extinction.

According to the European Commission, on the current trend, Europe’s population will rapidly age and decline.

Without migration the current EU population of nearly 504 million will shrink to 492 million in 2030 and 467 million in 2045. The declining number of young people and increasing longevity will also mean that society will 'age' rapidly. Today there is roughly one person over 65 for every four people of working age; in 2050, there will be one for every two.

The fact is that Europe’s fertility rate has fallen from 2.5 children per woman in the 1950’s to currently about 1.6:

The numbers of children being born has fallen from an EU-28 average of around 2.5 children per woman in 1960, to a little under 1.6 today. This is far below the 2.1 births per woman considered necessary in developed countries to maintain the population in the long term

Demographic Outlook for the European Union 2019 – European Parliament

Total fertility rate in Europe from 1950 to 2021 - Statista

Once a population has peaked, it will rapidly decline and reach a point of no return (or “fertility trap”) that can only culminate in extinction or near-extinction within a matter of decades.

Obviously, there are differences from member state to member state. Some, like France and England, will probably take longer to decline. For others, e.g. in Eastern Europe, long-term extinction is pretty much guaranteed.

Romania’s population, for example, has fallen from 23 million in the late 1980’s to currently 19 million, with a fertility rate of 1.59.

These countries also have a high emigration rate which (1) accelerates the population decline and (2) shows that their situation has not improved as a result of EU membership.

Between 2009 and 2018, more than a fourth (26 percent) of Romanians living in Romania expressed a desire to permanently settle abroad if they had the opportunity. This is one of the highest percentages in the region, exceeded only by Moldova.
The desire to emigrate is especially high for young Romanians, with nearly half of people aged 15-24 saying they intended to leave the country

Romania’s emigrant population is the fifth largest in the world and growing, OECD report finds – Business Review

Large European countries like Germany, France, and England, have been able to maintain their population levels only through mass immigration from other parts of Europe and from around the world.

In 2015, Germany recorded 2.137 million immigrants arriving in the country, many of them from the Mid East, and about 1 million Germans leaving.

China is projected to decline rapidly from currently 1.4 billion but it will still have a population of about 800 million in 2100 which is sufficient to dominate the West for the rest of the century.

Future population projections by country, 1970 to 2100 – Our World in Data

The EU also has a high unemployment rate (6.7%) compared to America (4.2%) and Russia (4.3%). In some European countries unemployment is very high, e.g. France (8.1%) Italy (9.4%), Greece (13%) and Spain (14.5%).

The EU is increasingly dependent on China and other anti-European and anti-Western dictatorships like Turkey.

There is a growing trend in Europe for people to be more concerned with “saving the environment” than with saving themselves. Which rather shows that they are out of touch with reality.

In sum, Europe is a bit of a joke, really. Not an example to emulate, but to avoid at all costs. I think Biden is making a big mistake if he gangs up with Europe against Russia instead on focusing on China.

So, as far as I am concerned, you can keep your propaganda to yourself. :smile:

the idea is to free oneself from forms of attachment which enslave, not from those which liberate. — Janus

Good point. Human consciousness can’t jump from "enslavement" to "liberation". At least in normal circumstances, there must be a lengthy process of emancipation in which, as Socrates says, consciousness must gently detach itself from ordinary experience and attach itself to higher realities.

So, the idea is not to immediately achieve non-attachment, which is beyond ordinary human capacity, but to progress to increasingly liberating forms of attachment until the state of absolute non-attachment has been attained.

Even imagination, which is usually contrasted with reality, can play a role in this process. For example, if we think of ourselves as free consciousness instead of self-identifying with the physical body, emotions, and thoughts, then there is a good chance of achieving a degree of detachment from ordinary experience and of opening new doors of perception that eventually lead to the desired goal.

This is also the idea behind certain visualization techniques as practiced in Indian traditions:

Mandala - Wikipedia

Even reading a book about higher states of consciousness can, at least temporarily, lift us out of ordinary experience engrossed in material things.

Essentially, this amounts to consciousness using itself as a ladder to ascend to higher states in the same way it uses itself as a ladder to descend to the lower states of ordinary experience.

(Or, as I said earlier, consciousness oscillating between states of different degrees of subtlety or wakefulness, such as waking, dreaming, and dreamless, deep sleep, and back again.)

And if pure, unconditioned consciousness is the ultimate goal, then it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the nature of consciousness in the first place. For example, we need to realize that consciousness, i.e., that which is aware of our thoughts, is more subtle than even the more abstract and refined thought.

The situation seems to be less clear in Buddhism, though, at least in those schools that deny the ultimate reality of consciousness and of self.

As usual, obvious propaganda, distortion, and disinformation. Posting a few irrelevant pictures might make your argument more “credible” among Finnish school kids, but not in the real world. You are free to think otherwise if it makes you happy, though. :grin:

I for one can see no difference between the propaganda of what you call “Russian siloviki” and the propaganda of EU activists and agitators. But if you insist on “nuance”, the fact that the latter seem to be even more blinded by fanaticism than the former comes to mind.

Anyway, my original statement was this:

The head of British intelligence MI6 has said that China is now the biggest external threat on account of its aggressive foreign policy including espionage and economic activities

The head of MI6 does not normally make public statements of the sort (or of any sort). The statement is highly unusual and it makes two main points that I think are relevant to the OP and to my other comment.

First, it says that China is the “single greatest priority”. Second, it says "We're not trying to encircle Russia, we're not trying to prevent it from pursuing its legitimate interest." But that’s exactly what EU and NATO expansion is doing. And yet MI6 says that Russia is an “acute threat” to the UK!

Moreover, the MI6 statement was made at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and at the same time foreign secretary Liz Truss attended a NATO meeting in Latvia where she said that “we will stand with our fellow democracies against Russia’s malign activity”.

Latvia is right on Russia’s border, along with Belarus and Ukraine that the West would like to see incorporated into the EU and NATO.

MI6 a.k.a. SIS, of course, is the same outfit that in 2003 fabricated “evidence” purporting to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that could reach London within 45 minutes, as an excuse for the West to invade Iraq and seize its oil fields.

Fortunately, we now know better as the British government’s own Iraq Inquiry found that it was all a pack of lies:

Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance – BBC News

Another example is the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 on the pretext that the Serbs were perpetrating “genocide” on the Albanians of Kosovo. In reality, there was no genocide. The Albanians had fled over the border to Albania and returned safely when the armed conflict ended.

The standard excuse used by the West to bomb or invade any country at will seems to be “weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)”, “attacks on civilians”, “actions that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity”, “genocide”, etc., often on very flimsy evidence and sometimes, as you can see for yourself, on evidence that is utterly false.

In the same vein, you conveniently forget that it isn’t Russia that is encircling NATO but NATO encircling Russia.

It isn’t Russia that is expanding but NATO and the EU.

Russia is reacting the same way America would react if Mexico and Canada were to enter into a military alliance with Russia, China, or any other rival power.

The fact is that Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia have very close historical, cultural and linguistic ties, all of them being linked with the Kievan Rus:

Kievan Rus’ - Wikipedia

The disputed areas in Ukraine like Crimea have Russian-majority populations. So it isn’t as if the Russians are invading England or France for those countries to feel threatened by Russia. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with America.

If Ukraine has a right to be independent from Russia, then Russian-inhabited parts of Ukraine have the right to be independent from Ukraine.

And yes, it was Napoleon who came up with the idea of a “United States of Europe” and who, as is well known, invaded and tried to conquer Russia, not the other way round.

The West’s plan to create a “United States of Europe” and incorporate Russia into it has a long history.

Even communism - which supported the idea of a “United States of Europe” - was introduced into Russia from the West.

But it takes EU-activists from Finland to deny established historical fact. In the final analysis, there is not one jot of objectivity in what you are saying.

He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world. — baker

"He"?

Who is "he"? I thought the "non-existence of self" (anatman/anatta) was taken for granted in Buddhism.

My original comment was .... — ssu

It may well have been your original comment.

However, your following comments were exactly as I stated:

1.

Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, — ssu

After which you admitted that Finland isn't any better when I pointed out to you that both China and Finland are well below replacement level:

2.

that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality ... — ssu

As you can see for yourself, that is the chronological order of your two statements. Statement 1 is first in relation to Statement 2.

As for "siloviki", it was your own choice of words!

If you don't like the sound of "EU siloviki" try "EU bureaucrats", "EU apparatchiks" or "EU stooges". It's all the same to me. :grin:

Anyway, if you think that China is the enemy of the West, then I don't think it makes sense to advocate conflict between Russia and the West. It certainly makes no sense to do so just because Finns hate Russians.

The pandemic has already caused a lot of tension in the West and the last thing we need is more division and hatred.

The way I see it, it makes far more sense for Russia and the West to cooperate against China.

What you preposterously call "reality check" is just more anti-Russian propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that it was the West who attacked Russia under Napoleon who wanted a "United States of Europe" ruled by himself. Now it’s his successors, the EU, UK, and US who are starting a war allegedly to “save” Ukraine from Russia but in reality to promote EU and NATO expansion with a view to getting their hands on Russian oil and gas.

Ordinary Westerners have nothing to gain from this. Oil and gas aren’t going to be cheaper. The only winners will be Western oil corporations and arms manufacturers. And China.

If you think about it, if Africa, India, and America don’t want to be ruled by the EU, why should Russia? Expecting Russia to surrender to the EU (and NATO) is just illogical IMO.

that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality, but I'm not forecasting my country to be an economic juggernaut that will surpass others. So I'm clueless why you are thinking this is a "case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black". — ssu

You first seemed to suggest that Finland’s demographic outlook is somehow better than China’s, and now you are admitting that it isn’t.

Finland may or may not aim to be an economic juggernaut, but the EU does of which Finland is a member.

If a low birth rate is a problem for China, it is also a problem for the EU and its member-states.

I also suggest you look at your other statement:

This indeed is what the siloviks have and the KGB has said all along. Those evil Westerners!!!

(And people fall for this) — ssu

On your logic, if “siloviki” say that the sky is blue, then it must be wrong and no one must ever repeat that statement.

The reality, of course, is that an EU silovik is not any better than a Russian silovik. Same rhetoric and same propaganda.

Btw, ALL European countries are below 2,0 fertility rate for those who don't know it. Yet Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, and still higher even if we'd take that 1,37 you refer to. (see here). — ssu

I think you are clutching at straws there.

You may not realize this, but if replacement level fertility is above 2, then anything below 2 is below replacement level. This renders the difference between China's 1.3 and Finland's 1.4 negligible.

Basically, what your own statement boils down to is that Finland is in the same boat as China. So, it's a case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. :smile:

Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. — ssu

Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China!

Statistics Finland unveils bleak population forecast – population to start decline in 2031 – Helsinki Times

I don't think I will bother with your other comments .... :smile:

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular.” — Tom Storm

I don’t know if that has anything to do with Nietzsche, but I think Jung is making a good point.

The main problem seems to be that people want to be enlightened without being enlightened. In other words, they want to be at once what they are now and enlightened. This, of course, is not possible because when you are enlightened, you no longer are what you were before.

Instead of being “what you are now (and enlightened)”, you will be “enlightened (and what you are now)”. The enlightened aspect being the dominant element, the what-you-are-now aspect will be completely subordinate to it, which means that you no longer are what you were before, though you may appear to be so externally, i.e., to others.

Enlightenment is often referred to as a form of “liberation”. In the Western tradition, this goes back to Socrates, Plato, and others for whom this liberation (lysis) is a liberation of the conscious soul, i.e., of intelligence, from the confines of embodied existence.

Intelligence or consciousness is, by definition, the principle of life, which is a free, living and creative force. However, through association with the limited and limiting physical body it inhabits, intelligence becomes caught up in limiting modes of experience in which it identifies more and more with the objective element of consciousness, i.e., body, material possessions, thoughts, and emotions associated with these, until awareness of one’s real identity recedes into the background almost completely.

The liberation process consists in intelligence extricating itself from everyday experience that is based on material reality. But this does not mean that material reality disappears, only that it is recognized as a product of intelligence.

According to Plato, there is no Reality other than Intelligence (Nous). Even if another reality existed, intelligence would be still needed in order for there to be awareness of it. It follows that there is nothing higher than the Intelligence that sees and imparts reality to all things, and everything else is secondary to it.

This is why Plato refers to the Highest Truth or Ultimate Reality as the “Light of All” (to Phos pasi), i.e., that which gives light, and reality, to all things (Republic 540a).

Plotinus explains how individual intelligence comes to have an experience of Intelligence:

When it is in that place it must necessarily come to union with Intelligence, since it has been turned to it. And having been turned to it, it has nothing in between, and when it has come to Intelligence, it is fitted to it. And having been fitted to it, it is united with it while not being dissolved, but both are one, while still being two. When it is in this state it would not change, but would be in an unchanging state in relation to intellection, while having at the same time awareness of itself (synaisthesin hautes), as having become simultaneously one and identical with the intelligible (Ennead IV.4.2.25-34)

Those who have some experience of lucid dreams are in a better position to understand the true nature of consciousness. As research has shown, in the “ambient” type of lucid dreams, the dreamer is passively, though consciously, aware of the fact that he or she is dreaming. In the “active” type, the dreamer is able to actively engage with the events taking place in the dream and influence their course.

This illustrates how cognition is ultimately nothing but self-aware intelligence affected by the modifications brought about in itself by itself, and this gives us an idea of how a higher Intelligence might be able to bring about the whole of reality as a manifestation of itself.

Plato repeatedly draws parallels between the individual self and the Universal Self. The point he is making is that in the same way the individual self uses its cognitive powers to generate cognition in the form of thoughts, etc., the Universal Self uses its powers to generate the Universe.

As stated in the Phaedo and elsewhere, the only way to obtain a vision of higher realities is by intelligence extricating itself from the confines of everyday experience. Any mental state in which consciousness detaches itself from normal experience and returns to its natural state of freedom may be used for this purpose.

Such states can occur naturally, e.g. lucid dreaming or the state between waking and sleeping, etc., but also as a result of meditation or contemplation. Plotinus compares contemplation on light or light-like intelligence itself, to awaiting the Sun to rise from beyond the ocean, culminating in an experience of Oneness:

But as contemplation ascends from nature to soul and from soul to Intelligence, the act of contemplation becomes ever more personal [i.e., closer to the contemplating subject] and produces unity within the contemplator (III.8.8.1-8)

In other words, during the ascent to higher reality, the objective aspect of intellection becomes closer and closer to, and ultimately identical with, the subjective aspect.

Most modern philosophers are conditioned, or have conditioned themselves, to prefer to remain in the realm of thought. But, however “abstract” it might be, thought belongs to the objective side of consciousness. The subjective side, the thinker’s true self, is above that.

By dismissing Platonism and similar philosophical systems as “mysticism” they deliberately reject their higher self which is their true identity. This renders it impossible for them to understand the concept of enlightenment and, ultimately, to understand themselves.

In contrast, whatever philosophical systems like Platonism might seem to be to outsiders at first sight, they are first and foremost practical philosophy from start to finish, progressing upward from ethical conduct to intellectual and spiritual development and from there to realization of Ultimate Reality.

Plato explains, repeatedly and in unambiguous terms, that self-effort is required, and that this self-effort consists in a conscious redirection of our intelligence away from everyday experience and toward the Light of Reality.

Plotinus shows that the Platonic Way Upward does yield concrete results and he gives us an idea of the state of awakening experienced when individual intelligence approaches Universal Intelligence:

Often I wake up from the body into myself, and since I come to be outside of other things and within myself, I have a vision of extraordinary beauty and I feel supremely confident that I belong to a higher realm, and having come to identity with the Divine, and being established in it I have come to that actuality above all the rest of the intelligible world (IV.8.1.1-11)

The concept of “darkness” or “going through darkness” in order to see the light, is equally revealing. Obviously, this can be interpreted in many different ways. But in cognitive terms, the process leading to enlightenment is often described as a process of interiorization of consciousness consisting of several distinct phases: (1) waking, (2) dreaming, (3) deep sleep, and (4) pure, awakened consciousness.

On this account, consciousness in the first three stages withdraws as it were into itself until no awareness of external, material reality is left. From this point, consciousness either (a) returns to the dreaming and waking states (which is what normally happens), or (b) goes in the opposite direction, and having overcome the darkness of deep sleep, emerges on the other side, the side of infinite light from where the material reality left behind is seen as nothing but a manifestation of the same living, creative light of consciousness that is experienced as oneself.

The whole process is based on maintaining consciousness through all the phases of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. In the same way as we can be consciously aware of the fact that we are dreaming, we can (though with much greater difficulty) be aware that we are in deep sleep. This is when the true light of consciousness, the light of liberated intelligence, dawns on us and the enlightenment process proper begins.

This is what Plotinus and others are describing. Anything beyond that can no longer be described. But life becomes an expression of that state and the desire “to be one’s (unenlightened) old self and at the same time enlightened” becomes a fading memory.

The desire to blame someone is strong. These days, China is the usual suspect for everything bad, so let's blame China ... — baker

I think the usual suspect for everything bad these days is the West. Slavery, genocide, global warming, you name it, it's all the fault of the West.

Like the original sin of the Bible, being a Westerner is bad by definition. Tainted, marked, and damned for ever ....

But I didn't know that subscribing to Buddhism entails standing up for the Chinese Communist Party.

Would you stand up for Putin, too? Or only for Xi?

And what about Tibet?

While China and Russia are currently on friendly terms, I don't think they are friendly enough to aid one another in a war with the US if it is happens that either China or Russia is the one that decides to start one with us. However whether this is true or not remains to be seen. — dclements

Obviously, it is not in Russia's long-term interest to be too close to China as it might end up as a Chinese satellite if it doesn't watch it. But Russia may be forced to side with China as a short-term defensive measure against Western aggression.

The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources.

This had already been the plan in the 1990s when the EU wanted to incorporate Russia into its expanding union. Then Putin came to power in 2000 which spoiled the plan.

So, it's all about control of resources from oil and gas to gold, diamonds, and other assets. The US, EU, and UK are obviously hoping to share the spoils if Putin falls and they are trying to make him fall sooner rather than later.

The usual tactic is to "democratize" a country, then open up its economy to investment resulting in foreign financial control, and finally control its political system and its military.

This is a tactic China has learned from the West and is now applying in developing countries and, increasingly, in developed regions like Europe.

America and Europe are slowly beginning to wake up to reality. Unfortunately, they still have Russia in their sights. This has already forced Russia to gang up with Turkey and other unpalatable dictatorships.

This can only be bad news for Europe, America, and the whole international community.

I agree that there are many simple little things which Socrates would say we can't assume a Form of this, and a Form of that, until there is a different Form for every distinct individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

When we are talking about a literary figure in the dialogues, it is safe to assume that they serve as a conduit for Plato’s views. But when we are dealing with real characters like Socrates, then we must take into consideration the possibility (or likelihood) that their statements represent their own views.

In any case, if the assumption is that Plato posits Forms of artifacts, then there should be some corroboration for it from internal or external evidence. Personally, I can see no such evidence.

On the contrary, as shown by his conclusion, Aristotle at Meta. 1080a and elsewhere means to say that Plato limits Forms to natural things, only.

(See H. F. Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism, 243-4; G. Fine, On Ideas, 83; L. Robin, La théorie platonicienne des idées, 177; W. D. Ross, Plato’s Theory of Ideas, 171, and others.)

Aristotle moves to close the gap with the concept of "matter", allowing that matter accounts for the accidentals, and the uniqueness of each individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don’t see any such “gap” in Plato at all. Plato, of course, does believe in matter consisting of the primary elements.

He implies that natural things are created in the very same way, but from the Divine Mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think Aristotle’s conception of this “Divine Mind” is pretty nebulous. Its relation to the physical universe is not at all clear. In contrast, Plato clearly says that the Creative Intelligence or Creator-God (Demiurge) creates the Universe along with the Cosmic Soul and other subordinate entities.

I believe that this is factually incorrect. The early Christian metaphysicians, St Augustine for example were well versed in Neo-Platonism. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn’t factually incorrect at all. My exact words were:

Christians like Aquinas who lived about a millennium later in the West, were cut off from the Platonic tradition.

That early Christians like Augustine were well-versed in Platonism is beyond dispute. They lived at a time when the living Platonic tradition was still extant. I myself have said so multiple times as you can see for yourself if you read my posts!

Aquinas is a totally different story. There was no Platonic tradition in the West at the time.

Metaphysically, this "quest for the One" is lagging far behind Aristotle, who found "the One", as the particular, the individual, and defined it with the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don’t think Plato is "lagging" behind anyone. It is obvious that Plato’s metaphysics leads to the Universal One which comprises all the individual or particular ones. There is only one Ultimate Reality and Plato’s teachings show the way to it.

Obviously, anti-Platonists see things differently. This is why we’ll have to agree to disagree.

The bottom line is even if China isn't able or willing to use military action to get what it wants in the near future, in the coming decades will it be able to use it's economic and/or military might to get whatever it wants and be able to eventually even push the US and her allies into a corner and make it so that the rest of world has to allow China to whatever it wants and eventually allow China to surpass the US as the world's major superpower? — dclements

I think China is already trying to do that and it will only stop if the international community takes concerted action to stop it.

The European Union has just announced a €300bn fund to counteract growing Chinese influence:

EU launches €300bn fund to challenge China’s influence – BBC News

The head of British intelligence has said that China is now the biggest external threat on account of its aggressive foreign policy including espionage and subversive economic activities:

China now our biggest priority, says head of MI6 – The Times

China is trapping poor nations with data snares and debt, says MI6 chief – The Times

And anti-China resistance is growing in Africa, India, and elsewhere:

China calls on citizens to leave eastern Congo after attacks – AP

So, there seems to be growing awareness of the danger posed by China's foreign policy and a certain degree of willingness to put up resistance.

The only problem is that if the West keeps putting pressure on Russia by constantly expanding NATO and interfering in Ukraine and elsewhere, Russia will see itself forced to side with China against the West.

A more logical approach would be for the West to form a united front with Russia, India, Japan, and Africa to stop China's growing economic expansionism and militarism.

Perhaps Aristotle is referring to the fact that Plato posited Forms for qualities, like Beauty and Just, not for particular things like a house or a ring. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle says that Plato posits Forms for qualities, but not for artifacts.

He says that Plato at Phaedo (100d) affirms that a beautiful thing exists in virtue of its dependence on the Form of Beauty.

Aristotle’s point is that (man-made) objects like house or ring of which Plato and the Platonists hold that there are no Forms are nevertheless generated. And if objects like house and ring are generated without Forms, then other things might also be so generated.

Therefore, he concludes:

Thus it is clearly possible that all other things may both exist and be generated for the same causes as the things just mentioned [i.e. house or ring].

In other words, Aristotle is using Plato’s rejection of Forms of artifacts to attack Plato’s Theory of Forms.

However, Aristotle does not apply to his own comments the same logic that he applies to those he attacks. For, if no Forms are necessary for humans to build houses and make rings, it does not follow that this must apply to naturally occurring things, or to all things.

Moreover, according to Plato, natural objects (and the whole Universe) are not generated by Forms but by the Universal Intelligence (Creator-God) using Matter shaped according to Forms. Aristotle knows this, but he must reject it because in his own system there is no Creator-God.

Therefore, Aristotle's argument may succeed according to his own system, but fails according to Plato’s.

In any case, Aristotle’s statements in the Metaphysics and elsewhere show that Plato holds that there are no Forms of artifacts. As we have just seen, Aristotle sometimes puts a subtle spin on his treatment of Plato’s views to bolster his own. Therefore, we should acquaint ourselves with Plato’s views before we read Aristotle’s comments on them.

However, as I said before, Aristotle does not lie. He could not lie even if he wanted to because his audience knows what Plato's views are. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we may safely assume that he is a reliable witness in this regard.

This is why, as already explained, Socrates’ “Form of Bed” is a purely hypothetical Form that he uses exclusively for the sake of the Painter and Poet Analogy and should not be taken to mean that he (and even less Plato) is committed to Forms of artifacts. Had Plato believed in Forms of artifacts, he would have made this clear. But nowhere does he do so.

As regards the Platonic tradition, the Academy at Athens was closed down in 529 AD (though other Platonic schools continued to function even afterward). Platonists like Alcinous, Plotinus, and Proclus wrote and taught at a time when the Platonic tradition was still alive and well and existed within the wider Greek-speaking, Hellenic tradition.

In contrast, Christians like Aquinas who lived about a millennium later in the West, were cut off from the Platonic tradition. Their knowledge of Greek philosophy was largely limited to Latin translations of Aristotle and the works of Aristotelians like Averroes and Maimonides, who were anti-Platonists.

So, if we are reading Plato through a multi-layered filter of Aristotelianism, Thomism, and anti-Platonism, we may find that there isn’t much of the real Plato left.

Platonists (Platonikoi) in antiquity did not start their study of Plato by reading Aristotle and even less (as is currently the case) by reading translations of the Republic interpreted by non-Platonists and non-Greeks. They normally began with dialogues like the Phaedo and ended with the Timaeus and the Parmenides, in the original Greek, which afforded a much better preparation for a proper understanding of Plato’s true teachings. This is why I believe that we stand a much better chance of correctly understanding Plato if we follow the Platonists, at least in general outline.

Concepts like “the One” and “Oneness” (or “Unity”) are absolutely central to Platonism for a very good reason. They go back to Plato and his Academy (and even before).

The quest for the One (on different levels) is a recurrent theme in the dialogues. Plato himself writes:

He who is a first-class craftsman or warden, in any department, must not only be able to pay regard to the many, but must be able also to press towards the one so as to discern it and, on discerning it, to survey and organize all the rest with a single eye to it (Laws 12.965b)

Can any man get an accurate vision and view of any object better than by being able to look from the many and dissimilar to the one unifying form? (Laws 12.965c)

The very same principle is applied by Plato to philosophy as a whole as much as to individual philosophical problems. To begin with, candidates for philosophical life are to be selected on their aptitude for dialectic which is the ability to take a comprehensive or unified view (synopsis):

The chief test of the dialectical nature and its opposite is that he who can view things in their connection (synoptikos) is a dialectician (dialektikos); he who cannot, is not (Rep. 537c)

Dialectics is the only process of inquiry that advances in this manner, doing away with hypotheses, up to the first principle (arche) itself in order to find confirmation there (Rep. 533c).

For Plato, synoptikos = dialektikos = philosophos
(synoptic-visioned man = dialectician = philosopher)

Moreover, Plato is a man of action who does what he preaches. He says that everyone in practicing their respective craft must survey and organize all the elements of that craft with a single eye to one unifying principle.

And this is precisely what Plato is doing in the context of his own craft which is, practicing, teaching, and writing about philosophy. He takes different strands of culture, religion, and philosophy that he regards as the best, the most beautiful, and the truest, and masterfully weaves them into an integrated, sublime whole.

And he can only do so because he is endowed with synoptic vision.

So, Plato may be regarded as the paradigm of the synoptikos, of the man who has a holistic, unified and unifying vision, which is the true philosophical vision.

Indeed, all the terms that a careful reader of Plato finds at the core of Platonic philosophy, such as “awareness” (syneidesis), “understanding” (synesis), “comprehensive view” (synopsis), etc. are based on the concept of bringing together, unifying, making one, and seeing, knowing, and understanding everything as one.

In short, Plato understands that which all philosophers, consciously or subconsciously, strive to understand.

Each thing exists by being one. And there is a universal principle of unity that makes this oneness possible, both at individual and at universal level. In the case of man, it is the soul. In the case of the Universe, it is the Cosmic Soul. And because soul is intelligence, this Principle of Unity is Intelligence.

If we acknowledge our true identity as intelligence (nous), and bring all elements of cognition together, which is the only way we can have a comprehensive view or synopsis, we obtain one cognition and one cognizer, i.e., intelligence consisting of a subjective and an objective element.

If we next complete the unification process by bringing together cognition and cognizer to make them one, so that subject and object are cognitively identical, we obtain the One. And since the Ultimate is One (Hen), oneness (henosis) is the ultimate goal.

This is the inescapable conclusion if we follow the inner logic of the dialogues and, in particular, Plato’s Divided Line representing the cognitive continuum stretching from the multiplicity of sense-perceptions to the vision of a single Reality symbolized by the Sun, i.e., the all-illumining Light of Consciousness which is the Source of all Knowledge and all Life.

This is the fundamental core around which the Platonic framework is built.

Where I disagree with you is in how you present this aspect of Platonism, as being "committed to certain Forms". This would be the way that Forms are related to each other, perhaps as a hierarchy of Forms. Plato presents the good, not as a Form, but as the material thing desired by a man. So there is no equivalence between the One, which is the Form that supports mathematics (for Plato), and the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, we’ll just have to disagree then.

The way I see it, the word “good” can have many different meanings on many different levels. It can refer to a material thing, an ethical value, a Platonic Form, or Ultimate Reality, depending on the context, on how we wish to use it, the purpose for which we use it, etc., etc.

To return to my earlier statement, Aristotle says that Platonists deny that there are Forms of house or ring. In discussing Plato’s Phaedo, he says:

… while many other things are generated, e.g. house, ring, of which we hold that there are no Forms (Meta. 1.991b)

… and many other things are generated, e.g. house and ring, of which they say that there are no Forms (Meta. 13.1080a)

In Peri Ideon (On Ideas/Forms), he says:

For example, carpentry is of bench without qualification, not of this bench, and of bed without qualification, not of this bed. And sculpture, painting, house-building, and each of the other crafts is related in a similar way to the things that fall under it. Therefore there will be an Idea of each of the things that fall under the crafts, which they [the Platonists] do not want (Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Metaph. 80.5)

As a member of the Academy, Aristotle was in a position to know what the general view, including Plato’s own, was, and he clearly agrees with Plato that there are Forms of natural objects but not of artifacts:

In some cases the individuality does not exist apart from the composite substance (e.g., the form of a house does not exist separately, except as the art of building); if it does so at all, it does so in the case of natural objects. Hence Plato was not far wrong in saying that there are as many Forms as there are kinds of natural objects (Meta. 12.1070a)

Alcinous also says that most Platonists rejected Forms of artifacts (Didaskalikos 1.9).

So, there is a tradition going back to the Old Academy according to which Plato and other Platonists reject Forms of artifacts. This is why Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus pay little attention to the Republic 10 passage.

As I said earlier, the passage should not be ignored. First, because it is quite interesting in that it shows how Plato connects human psychology with ontology and metaphysics, which I for one believe to be a key feature of his system. And second, because in my view, a closer reading puts to rest the idea that it commits Plato to Forms of artifacts.

Craftsmen do indeed look to “forms” in the sense of “paradigms” or “templates”, but not necessarily to Forms as eternal Ideas. They can look to paradigms in nature or in the work of other craftsmen. If anything, what craftsmen need for their knowledge is not an Artifact Form such as Form of Bed, Table, or House, but a Mathematical Form like Geometrical Shape or Size that involves exact measurements.

Animals are a different story. For example, some bird species build intricate nests without being shown how to do it. In Platonic terms, it may be argued that they do this as a result of some form of subconscious access to a higher intelligence that contains templates or “forms” related to such activity. Humans have largely lost this instinctive knowledge and need to learn such skills by observing other animals (or humans).

Ultimately, however, the individual selves or intelligences are manifestations of the Universal Intelligence which creates them (v. Timaeus) and therefore dependent on it. It is in this sense that we look to a higher reality in order to acquire certain forms of knowledge. Even when we look to natural objects or animals for inspiration, it is really the Universal Intelligence that we draw inspiration from.

We are normally unaware, and even dismissive, of the individual intelligence’s connection with a larger, collective or universal intelligence until extraordinary circumstances, such as precognitive dreams, force us to acknowledge at least the possibility of such a connection. This realization of the possible (or probable) existence of a higher reality is the first step on the path to knowledge and the beginning of Platonic, i.e., genuine philosophy as understood in Ancient Greece.

Much has been made of Socrates’ admission that he “knows nothing”. In reality, his exact words as related by Plato were:

“I am aware that I am wise neither in great things nor in small things” (Apology 21b)

Those who see nothing here but an admission of ignorance do nothing but demonstrate their own ignorance and lack of understanding. They are like the imitators in Socrates’ Analogy of the Painter. In reality, the key words are not the denial of knowledge but the affirmation of awareness: “I am aware” (synoida emauto). What matters is awareness. Awareness that there are limits to our knowledge implies awareness of the existence of some things that we have no knowledge of.

This is the beginning of philosophy in the Platonic sense. The awareness that there are realities “out there”, i.e., outside our everyday experience and knowledge, that we don’t know and don’t understand and that it is our task, as intelligent beings endowed with awareness and understanding, to inquire into these realities. Some, like Socrates, feel compelled to do so by an “inner voice”, “instinct”, or “guiding spirit” (daimonion) that in itself indicates that there is more to reality than meets the eye.

At the other end of the spectrum, others refuse outright to even contemplate the existence of anything outside the range of their five sense-perceptions.

Socrates himself tells us why this is the case. The soul has two aspects (or forms of intelligence): a higher, thinking one that is receptive to higher truths and always strives toward wisdom (phronesis) and a base, unthinking one that is attracted to what is far from wisdom (Rep. 602c-605b).

Different parts of the soul are attracted to different aspects of reality. This is why, in Socrates' analogy, the thoughtless in whom base intelligence is dominant are taken in by the illusory product of the imitative crafts, whilst the thoughtful in whom higher intelligence is the dominant aspect see the productive crafts as producing what is real. This applies to painting, poetry, science, and philosophic discourse itself.

This explains why Plato is interpreted in many different ways by different readers. Some, like the Straussians, who come from a background of political science, see Plato’s dialogues as having a purely political message with no metaphysical content. Similarly, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists all have their own interpretation according to the inclination in their soul that happens to be dominant at the time.

Some follow the imitators, i.e., the translators and interpreters of the unthinking kind who have little knowledge of Greek and even less of Plato, and who choose to render phronesis as “prudence”.

My own view is that Platonists understand Plato best. This is because their understanding is based not only on Platonic tradition itself, but also on the realization that Plato is a highly intelligent writer whose entire project starts with intelligence and ends in intelligence.

As Plato puts it, it would be extremely strange not to assign intelligence (nous) to Being:

“What then, by Zeus! Are we to be so easily persuaded that change and life and soul and wisdom are truly absent from what completely is, and that it does not live, or think, but sits there in august holiness, devoid of intelligence, fixed and unchanging?”
“That would be a quite shocking account of things for us to accept” (Soph. 248e-249a)

Similarly, we are told that the Universe is created and ruled by Intelligence:

All the wise agree that Intelligence (Nous) is king of heaven and earth (Phileb. 28c6-8)

The Platonic philosopher’s task is to become aware of the oneness and universality of Intelligence. It is the universality of Intelligence which is One that validates Truth.

Like awareness (syneidesis) which is derived from syn (“with”, “together”) and oida (“know”), understanding (synesis), from syn and hiemi (“bring”), implies a bringing together of cognitive elements resulting in understanding.

Without this bringing together or unification, no understanding is possible. This is why Plato stresses the importance of the cognitive processes whereby intelligence classifies cognitive elements according to the principles of sameness and difference. It is this bringing together or unification of elements of experience into assorted categories and of categories into a unified whole, that makes understanding possible.

Awareness, therefore, is a principle of unification or unity that makes intelligence and life possible, and is itself one. This is why Plato and Platonists refer to Ultimate Reality as “Intelligence” and “the One”.

In Plato, philosophy begins with epistemology and ends with metaphysics, both of which are part of one cognitive continuum as clearly indicated in the Analogy of the Line. The underlying reality of it is intelligence itself, which is why Plato tells us how intelligence works, how individual intelligence mirrors a higher Intelligence of which it is a part, and how philosophy can be used as a practical method of elevating human cognition from the most basic to the highest possible.

what you espouse as "Plato's general framework" is the product of a misunderstanding of Plato. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I think I have made myself clear on what I believe Plato’s framework to be.

But here is another example in connection with the Forms:

(A). Sensibles are “in flow and motion” and always changing (Theaet. 152e).

(B). Therefore, knowledge of them is not possible.

(C). But knowledge is possible.

(D). Therefore, there must be non-sensible objects of knowledge that are changeless.

(E). These non-sensible, changeless objects of knowledge are the Forms.

Plato is clearly committed to Forms as principles of explanation for knowledge or aspects of knowledge.

He is also committed to certain Forms like the Good (or the One), Beauty, Justice, etc.

But there is no evidence that he is committed to Forms for everything under the sun.

In the Parmenides (130b-d), he has Socrates say that he is undecided about a Form of Man and that he does not believe in Forms for things like mud, hair, or dirt, which he holds to be “such as they appear to us”. The contrast between appearance and reality is a recurrent theme in the dialogues.

Plato does not explicitly say what his exact personal view on Forms of artifacts is. We have to rely on the material available in the dialogues and on the testimony of members of his Academy.

Aristotle says that Plato does not believe in Forms of artifacts. Therefore, it is legitimate to see if an interpretation can be found that reconciles what we know about Plato from Aristotle and others that were close to the Academy on one hand, and Plato’s own statements on the other hand.

The fact of the matter is that the speakers here are Socrates and Glaucon, not Plato. The fact that Socrates expresses or appears to express a certain view regarding Forms does not mean that Plato himself holds exactly the same view in all respects.

At any rate, what matters is the wider argument that is being made in the Republic against poetry, of which the reference to “Form of Bed” is a part.

Socrates’ real complaint is against poets. This is why he begins by saying that he is delighted that all dramatic representation has been banned from the Ideal City.

Glaucon asks him to explain. Socrates introduces the painter as an illustrative example. The painter paints an image of an object or person that can be so realistic as to “deceive children and foolish people into believing that it is real” (598c).

But the greatest deception is that people are led to believe that the painter is an expert on all the things he is representing, when in fact he is just an imitator of things he knows little or nothing about.

Socrates describes the painter as standing three removes from the original maker in order to make an analogy with the poet. Having presented the painter as a paradigm of imitator, Socrates next moves to poets.

He does mention a “Form of Bed” but one that is hypothetically made by God and the whole passage is coached in ambiguous terms that raise doubts about this “Form of Bed”.

What is telling is that he makes no attempt to define this “Form of Bed” and offers no argument to show that there must be such a Form. His real concern is the analogy between painter and poet. Not the “Form of Bed” (that may or may not exist), but the painter himself as a Paradigm (or Form) of Imitator.

A Platonic Form is a Paradigm (Paradeigma) and the Paradigm at issue here is the Paradigm of Imitator and Deceiver which is contrasted with those who possess true knowledge, and which Socrates will use to make his point about the poet as a questionable educator of the masses as part of the wider discussion of education.

Socrates classifies craftsmen into three types: one who actually uses an object, one who makes the object, and one who merely imitates the object. Those who actually use an object have the best knowledge of it, i.e., of its practical use, which defines the object’s practical value. Those who make the object have no knowledge of its practical use. And those who imitate the object have even less knowledge of the object as they merely observe it from a distance. Moreover, the imitators do not imitate the things, e.g., a bed, as they are, but as they appear to be.

Similarly, the poets produce imitations or copies of what appear to be instances of human or divine excellence. This leads people to believe that the poets are experts in excellence who can teach them how to live their lives.

But these imitations are not always consistent with the reality of what is truly good. If the masses blindly follow the poets and the role models praised in their poems, they will be deceived in the same way they might be deceived into thinking that other imitative artists, such as painters, are experts on crafts and on objects used by craftsmen.

Of course, poetry is not always deceptive. Socrates himself, like most other Greeks (whose main education consisted in learning the Odyssey and the Iliad by heart), sometimes cites Homer in support of his views. The lesson he and Plato are trying to convey is not that poetry in itself is harmful, but that it can be harmful when it gives a false impression of what is right and what is wrong in terms of human behavior, for example, by uncritically presenting a particular action as the correct ideal.

Philosophers must not follow the masses. They must use their own judgement that has been honed through specific methods of inquiry, and separate what is good in poetry – and in all forms of transmitted knowledge – from what is bad. The whole dialogue has an ethical theme which is the Good and the Just and how they can be integrated into human society by means of education, philosophic inquiry, etc.

In any case, the way I see it, Socrates here seems to use the “Form of Bed” simply as a hypothesis (which is why he repeats phrases like “we assume” or “suppose”) for the sake of the analogy between painter and poet, and need not be taken as a commitment to Forms of artifacts on Socrates’ (or Plato’s) part.

As I said, I don’t see carpenters looking to a “Form of Bed” made by God as a template. They normally have a catalogue of templates most of which are copied from other carpenters.

At the most, humans might look at “beds” (or nests) made by apes and other animals from tree branches, leaves, and grass, and construct something similar adapted to human use, that can be later perfected according to Forms like Proportion, Size, Shape, etc., instantiations of which can be observed in nature.

So, if anything, there might be a Form of Nest, that animals copy and humans imitate after the example of animals. And if neither humans nor animals need a Form of Bed to construct a bed, then no such Form need be assumed. We may, however, assume one when we want to make some particular argument or analogy that requires such a hypothetical assumption, as Socrates does in the Republic.

I am denying that Telegraph article correctly interprets the results of the find. — Benkei

The Telegraph may not be perfect, but I doubt that Nature is much better.

The truth can only be discovered if there is an ongoing inquiry into the facts.

Given that China looks like a ruthless dictatorship, I think we need more critical articles not less.

So what is it that you're really concerned about? That covid is China's biochemical warfare in an effort to take over the world? — baker

My concern is establishing the truth.

When a person is acting suspiciously, it is the duty of the police to investigate them and the same applies to state actors: the international community must investigate suspicious state activities for its own security.

In China’s case, no proper investigation has been conducted. So, pressure must be put on Western governments to take appropriate action.

I note that in discussing this aspect of the incident, we are remiss if we do not include the fact that the three who were shot by R were all "white" guys. — Michael Zwingli

Correct. Rittenhouse may or may not have acted in self-defense (though this seems to have been the case).

But it is beyond dispute that the guys he shot (Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz) were all white, NOT black.

So, I fail to see how anyone can construe Rittenhouse's actions as "racially motivated" or responsible for the wider "racial injustice" in society.

This may be one possible way of looking at it. Unfortunately, the matter isn’t quite as straightforward as it seems.

It is entirely possible that Plato here presents a position that includes Forms of artifacts but which he later no longer holds (hence Aristotle's claim), in the same way in earlier dialogues he (or Socrates) seems to suggest that Forms are completely separate from sensibles and from one another, but later presents a more complex view where Forms do combine and are present in particulars through material copies of themselves.

A second possibility is that Plato does posit Artifact Forms but of a different type from the usual one, that does not have all the features normally attributed to Socratic (or Platonic) Forms. After all, a craftsman cannot have the same access to Forms as a philosopher.

Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus tend to dismiss this passage. Personally, I don’t think it should be dismissed, but we should take a second look at it and see if it can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with Plato’s general framework.

A third possibility consistent with this would be that the example of the “bed in itself” or "Form of Bed" could be given for the sake of argument, only.

The passage begins with the following statement:

We are in the habit, I take it, of positing a single Idea or Form in the case of the various multiplicities to which we give the same name (Rep. 596a)

Then three examples of bed are given, of which the first is referred to as “existing in nature, and we would say, I suppose, that it was made by God”.

“I suppose that God knew it […] and produced in nature a single bed-in-itself”

“I suppose so”.

So, this is a hypothesis (a) intended to back up an argument that is in line with previously stated views, and (b) followed by the phrase “I suppose” repeated several times.

In other words, if and only if, all these suppositions are true, then “we might call God author of the bed’s nature or some such name.”

But what if they are not true?

We also find the question “No one else could have made it?” to which the answer is “I think not” – not “Of course not”.

There are other interesting statements like:

“You must use your own eyes”

“Imagine a mirror that reflects all things”

And, finally, “Suppose a man could produce both the original and the copy”.

This last statement suggests that the carpenter forms an idea of a bed in his mind using properties like size, shape, etc. (eternal and perfect versions of which are present in the Divine Mind), and then produces the palpable bed, the “copy”, after the mental image which is the “original”.

Indeed, there can be no doubt that the craftsman forms an ideal image of bed in his mind prior to producing the physical bed. The only doubt that arises is whether God himself first creates a Form of Bed in his own Mind. Hence the question, “No one else could have made it?” which introduces an element of doubt that this is actually the case.

This doubt is reinforced by another question, “Then you say that the artist’s representation stands at third remove from reality?” (597e) and is followed by the affirmation that a distinction must be made between “things as they are and things as they appear”. In other words, the matter may be not quite as it appears to be.

If, in addition to the image in the craftsman’s mind, we were to admit an eternal Form of Bed in God’s own Mind then the artist’s copy would be at fourth remove. Alternatively, we could say that the craftsman (a) has direct access to the Mind of God and (b) has no mind of his own. More likely, the original is not in God’s Mind, but in the craftsman’s mind.

Another doubt that arises is whether carpenters really look to a Form of Bed as a blueprint or template. A more likely scenario would be that they produce a bed following the specifications indicated by the customer. On the whole, therefore, the passage may not be meant literally.

This takes us back to Plato’s wider argument in the Republic which is to distinguish between productive crafts and imitative crafts. According to Plato, the validity of knowledge increases or decreases according to its dependence on objects of knowledge belonging to a higher or lower order of reality.

Things created by God and the carpenter are true production because they are the product of a higher form of intellection and, accordingly, closer to reality. In contrast, artistic creation which is mere imitation (mimesis) does not amount to true production. The painter who paints a picture of a bed is basing his activity on the visual perception of a physical bed and has no intimate acquaintance with or knowledge of the object he is painting.

Therefore, the artist (painter, poet, etc.) has no real knowledge of the represented object and no practical skill such as making the object. His creation or imitation belongs to the lowest level of knowledge which is the level of shadows or illusion (eikasia) that creates copies of copies. The craftsman’s creation is also a copy, but is a product of right belief (pistis or doxa) which is based on the mental original which is a product of reason (dianoia), which is itself inspired by universal properties ultimately derived from Forms and perceived by means of intuition or insight (noesis).

Drawing inspiration from the Forms perceived by his nous (the part of the human soul that is closest to the Divine Mind or God’s Creative Intelligence), man can form an ideal mental image in his mind, of which he produces a physical copy. If a craftsman has the ability to form an ideal image of an object in his mind that is at least partly consistent with a higher reality, we can image how much closer to reality the accomplished philosopher will be who, thanks to special intellectual training, is able to have a clear vision of Reality. After all, this is why, though craftsmen have a role to play in society, rulers are to be selected from among philosophers, not from among craftsmen.

So, the focus here is on the similarity between human and divine creation and, therefore, on the reality and correctitude of human activity when based on a divine and perfect model. It is action in harmony with a higher, and true, ideal that enables the philosopher who has established contact with the Light that illumines all things (to Phos pasi) i.e., the Light of Consciousness itself, to always act in the correct manner in all circumstances.

I suppose that's what you get from reading the Telegraph. — Benkei

Well, it isn’t my fault that papers choose to employ laymen to write articles.

Besides, it isn’t just the Telegraph, there are lots of other sources like the BBC and the Guardian that have the same or similar stories.

Covid: Biden orders investigation into virus origin as lab leak theory debated – BBC

Joe Biden orders US intelligence to intensify efforts to study Covid’s origins – The Guardian

The fact is the Biden administration has conceded that the intelligence community is split on Covid-19's origins.

Biden said the majority of the intelligence community had "coalesced" around two scenarios - human contact with an infected animal or laboratory accident - but "do not believe there is sufficient information to assess one to be more likely than the other".

Fauci himself has said “I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened”.

If intelligence agencies and scientists are in two minds about the possibility that China has something to do with the pandemic, there is no reason why we should rule it out.

I think that this is contrary to what Plato describes in The Republic. He says that when the carpenter makes a bed, as a material thing, he holds in his mind an idea of a bed, a form which he copies when producing the bed. In coming up with his idea of a bed, the one which he will make, he tries as much as possible to replicate the Divine Form, the idea of the perfect bed, or Ideal. — Metaphysician Undercover

He doesn’t actually say “Form/Idea of Bed”. So, the reference to “bed in itself” may simply be an illustration that need not be taken literally.

But you are right about the carpenter producing a bed using an idea of the bed that he has in his mind, which is more to the point. The point Plato is making is to show the parallels between human and divine creation and, ultimately, between human and divine mind or intelligence. They both involve cognitive activity and they mirror one another.

The aim of Platonic philosophy is to enable the philosopher to become as godlike as humanly possible.

This is achieved through a noetic or intuitive grasp of the Good (the “greatest lesson or object of study”) which may be defined as a universal principle of goodness.

But the Good is also described as the cause of knowledge, objects of knowledge, and power to know.

So, I think what Plato is trying to say is that he has discovered a way to reach the source of knowledge itself, which is consciousness itself.

The way I see it, Plato’s teachings are not about religion or “mysticism” - though they may contain elements of both just as they contain elements of ethics and politics - but about cognition (on which politics, ethics, religion, "mysticism", and philosophy itself, depend). It is only when we understand the actual source of cognition that we truly understand everything, and above all, ourselves, in a deeper sense.

This is why, as noted by Proclus, the Universe within Plato’s Academy was considered as “generated for the purpose of instruction about its Creator” and that even Divine Intellect has a cause.

Plato’s Analogy of the Mirror is not without significance in terms of the identity of the human and divine (i.e., higher) intelligence.

There are numerous parallels between the human and the divine in the dialogues. Both the human intelligence and God’s Creative Intelligence have the faculties of thought and perception. They have intellectual activity that is productive. Both have language. And both are described in terms of light.

Plato uses the conception of “light suddenly kindled in the soul” or “seeing the light” in relation to solving a philosophical problem through the process of dialectic.

More importantly, however, he says that the Good, which is compared to the Sun-God, is that “which sheds light on all things”, whilst the human soul is that whose light is turned upward to the Light Divine.

Supreme Intelligence and its human mirror-image are made of the same stuff, the Light of Consciousness which is the source of all things and from which everything eternally emanates like rays from the Sun.

The philosopher begins by seeing this Light of Consciousness in its variegated manifestations in particular things that are increasingly reflective of it, from physical objects to his own intellect, until both streams of light, the lower directed upward and the higher directed downward, not only see but touch and come into direct contact with one another, and the light in the philosopher’s soul is embraced by the All-illumining and Life-bestowing Light of all Lights.

If Consciousness is a living reality on which all knowledge and all life literally depend, then it is not wrong to refer to it as “God” – not a personal God, of course, but a divine being in the sense of a living reality that is above, and more perfect, than everything else and to which all things, including ourselves, owe their existence.

This is why Plato prefers to refer to this Ultimate Reality as “the Good” or “the One”. And even this fails to describe what is ultimately indescribable and unknowable except to itself.

As Proclus puts it, what we are naming by “the One” is really the understanding of Oneness (of Consciousness) which is in ourselves:

What else is the One except the operation and energy of this striving (after the One)? It is therefore this interior understanding of unity, which is a projection and, as it were, an expression of the One in ourselves, that we call “the One.” So the One itself is not nameable, but the One in ourselves

Having reached the very source of cognition, the philosopher truly sees everything in the right light. This does not necessarily render him omniscient or omnipotent. He remains subject to certain natural laws, at least in his embodied existence. But he now has an understanding of the interconnectedness of all things and of the superiority of universal goals and concerns to particular or personal ones, which, in turn, makes it easier for him to identify and follow the right vision, right thought, and right action in any given situation.

It is this understanding or inner vision of a higher truth that, according to Plato, enables the accomplished philosopher to assume a leading role in society.

Plato says of the philosopher-rulers who have undergone years of physical and intellectual training:

We shall require them to turn upwards the light of their souls (he tes psyches auge) and fix their gaze on that which sheds light on all [note the imagery of light meeting Light], and when they have thus beheld the Good itself they shall use it as a pattern for the right ordering of the state and the citizens and themselves throughout the remainder of their lives, each in his turn, devoting the greater part of their time to the study of philosophy, but when the turn comes for each, toiling in the service of the state and holding office for the city's sake, regarding the task not as a fine thing but a necessity; and so, when each generation has educated others like themselves to take their place as guardians of the state, they shall depart to the Islands of the Blest and there dwell (Rep. 540a-b)

So long as we hold Plato’s central concern before us, the details will tend to fall into place, sooner or later.

clickbait — Benkei

1. It still seems to amount to evidence that research on bat viruses was done at the Wuhan lab.

2. The Laos virus may not be "close enough" in its natural variant, but with some minor lab modifications it may be a different story ....

Though the good and the beautiful are not necessarily the same, they may be the same, and when they are, we might call this Truth.

You'll see that Aristotle described this principle in a slightly different way, and his description was adopted into Christianity, especially from Aquinas and later. He distinguished the real good from the apparent good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Culture, religion, and philosophy in the Roman Empire, especially in the East, were heavily Hellenized. This is why key Platonic concepts like “the inner man” (entos anthropos, Rep. 589a) the true human being that is an image of the Divine, appear in early Christian texts (Romans 7:22, 2 Cor. 4:16, Ephes. 3:16) and later commentators like Augustine.

It is this “inner man”, in contrast to the “outer man” (whose attention is caught up in the material world and in personal interests), that discerns the difference between what an individual person regards as “good” and what may be regarded as “universal truth” or “Divine Truth”.

As in Platonism, human intelligence or reason in Augustine has two parts, one looking upward to higher realities, the other looking downward to worldly existence. The upward-looking part corresponding to the Platonic nous, also called “the eye of the soul” both in Plato and Augustine and other Christian thinkers, is the part that is capable of contemplating the Divine and grasping eternal truths that remain invisible to the untrained sight of unphilosophical man.

Hence, as in Plato, this inner optic organ in Augustine is in need of purification in order to have its faculty of higher vision restored. Like Plato who speaks of Eternal Forms, Augustine speaks of Eternal Ideas, etc.

I think this is the point here. Truth is elusive to the intellect, difficult to understand. The good is always present, so it is apprehended first. To move onward from the good to Truth, we must give to beauty what we find in the good, thus uniting Beauty and Good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Beauty leads to Good and Good (together with Beauty) leads to Truth. All Forms ultimately lead to Truth of which they are expressions or manifestations. This is why I think that the emphasis should be on similarity, rather than difference.

The identity and function of “the Good” is of particular significance, being the link between Beauty and Truth as Ultimate Reality.

In the dialogues, Plato lists the Form (eidos) of the Good together with other Forms that are said to be “essences”. But in the Republic he states that the Idea (idea) of the Good is “above essence” (Rep. 508e).

So, there are two aspects of the Good. One is coordinate with other Forms, the other is superordinate to them.

The Form of the Good itself holds a central place among Forms as a Genus (genos) of which other Forms that bring goodness, e.g., Justice, are species.

This Form of the Good is contained, together with other Forms, within the Creative Intelligence that brings forth the Universe.

In contrast, the Idea of the Good is above Creative Intelligence. It is (1) the source of all Forms, i.e., the Reality of which all Forms are manifestations, and (2) the source of Creative Intelligence itself which contains the Forms.

And, in the same way the Good has two aspects occupying two different ontological positions, so the One has two main aspects:

1. The One in itself (which is identical with the Idea of the Good).
2. The One and the Indefinite Dyad which together generate (a) Creative Intelligence and Forms and (b) Matter.

Creative Intelligence and Forms are (or is) “Intelligence with Form” where Intelligence is the dominant element and Form a barely distinct form of Intelligence, comparable to a perfectly transparent object contained within a perfectly transparent medium, like a clear object made of ice in a body of clear water.

This “transparency” of the Forms makes it possible for the Creative Intelligence to hold within itself a multiplicity of Forms and perceive them at once as One and Many and as distinct from, and identical with, each other and itself.

Matter, on the other hand, is the exact opposite, it is “Form with Intelligence”, where visible Form is the dominant element and Intelligence is barely present, being imperceptible to the naked eye (though it may be observed at atomic level as an internal form of activity).

It is for this reason that the One and the Good are one and the same Reality which is nothing but Pure, Objectless Intelligence that produces all things out of itself in a process of increasing “externalization” and “materialization”.

To take Diotima’s Sea of Beauty Analogy, Beauty Itself is the Sea and beautiful objects are particular waves, and the same holds for the Form of the Good.

Similarly, the Idea of the Good or the One, i.e., Ultimate Reality, is like an Ocean of Infinite Intelligence that contains currents of water (= Forms) within itself that are imperceptible from the outside, and at the same time produces waves on its own surface that are visible externally (= material objects). Thus, the Good, i.e., Reality, is One.

Plato himself held a public lecture in which he concluded that “the Good is One”, as witnessed by Aristotle and related by Aristotle’s pupil Aristoxenus in Elementa Harmonica (Harmonika Stoicheia) II. 30-31.

When Aristotle says:

And of those who hold that unchangeable substances [or immovable essences/realities] exist, some say that the One itself is the Good itself (Aristot. Meta. 1091b13)

he can perfectly well refer to Plato. In fact, in light of Plato’s lecture, he most likely does so. The use of the plural does not always imply more than one person. The plural is obviously regarded as less strong and more respectful and therefore serves the purpose of softening the tone of Aristotle’s criticism of some of the views held by Plato who, after all, was his teacher and friend for many years.

In any case, if we consider the philosophical parameters of the time within which Plato operates; his belief in the deification of the human soul, i.e., the elevation of human consciousness to the highest possible level; his belief in the Good as the ultimate source of all knowledge and as the highest object of philosophic inquiry; his commitment to the reduction of explanatory principles to the absolute minimum; and his application of epistemology, psychology, ontology, metaphysics, and mathematics to Ultimate Reality, I think the conclusion that the Good is One and that the Good and the One are identical with one another and with Ultimate Reality, becomes inevitable.

Once we have identified Plato’s Ultimate Reality as absolutely simple and one, the principles below it, though still of some interest, become less important.

This is why I said earlier that the exact position of Forms in relation to one another is ultimately irrelevant and does not present a real problem, not because Forms cannot be classified in a particular ontological or metaphysical order (Plato’s method of dieresis or Collection and Division may be applied to all objects of knowledge) but because the Intelligence that contains them is beyond time and space, which means that no Form is “higher” or “lower” than others, in the same way one idea formed in the mind is not spatially higher or lower than others, though the mind may now focus on one, now on another, endowing one idea with greater importance in relation to others at any given time.

Plato is clearly unconcerned with a complete classification of all things because such a classification is not needed for living a good and happy life. Still, once the First Principle has been more or less understood, a structural hierarchy may be outlined beginning with the Megista Gene (Greatest Genera) and proceeding in descending order with Ethic, Natural, and Mathematical Forms:

1. The One a.k.a. the Idea of the Good
2. Primary Genera – Being On), Self-Identity/Sameness (Tauton), Difference (Thateron), Stability/Rest (Stasis), Motion (Kinesis)
3. Ethical Forms – Beauty, Goodness (Form of Good), Justice
4. Natural Forms – Earth, Sky, Living Beings
5. Mathematical Forms – Number, Quantity, etc.

Incidentally, it may be worth noting that, as observed by Aristotle, Plato does not suggest that there are Forms for artificial or man-made things such as table or bed. These can be explained by means of the combined Forms of Shape, Size, etc., that the human craftsman combines in his mind to form an image of the object to be crafted.

Here, again, we can see the close parallels between human and divine cognition (hence Plato's Mirror Analogy). As humans create artifacts following certain patterns seen in their mind, so Divine Creative Intelligence, too, creates according to certain patterns it forms within itself.

In other words, the Forms are nothing but the cognitive powers by which Intelligence actualizes, manifests, or makes itself known to itself and to “others”. As part of Intelligence, the Forms are one. As powers, they are many and different. Thus Ultimate Reality Itself, the Supreme Intelligence, is the Dynamis Panton, the Power behind all things.

This is why Plato’s central idea is that higher degrees of being are inseparable from higher degrees of unity, eventually resulting in One Ultimate Reality: the closer we get to Truth, the more we realize both its oneness and our own oneness with it.

So, from seeing beauty in one object, the rightly-guided philosopher advances to seeing beauty in all things. From pursuing a single Form, he eventually reaches a mode of experience and being where all Forms are one and individual intelligence is identical with Universal Intelligence. At that point, all things, from Forms to their material instantiations are seen as products of one Infinite Intelligence, like waves rising and subsiding in the vast expanse of the Ocean of Existence which, deep within itself, remains eternally changeless, silent, and One.

It looks like the Chinese lab origins of the Corona virus may have finally been uncovered.

Apparently, leaked emails between EcoHealth Alliance and US government funders show that viral samples of high-risk bat species living in Laos - the country where the closest relative to Covid-19 has been found - were sent to a Wuhan lab from where the virus escaped (or was released?) and caused the pandemic.

New documents back theory that Covid outbreak started in Wuhan lab – The Telegraph

This seems to be a Plato of abstract mysticism, removed from life completely. Once we've eliminated dialectic and become one with the One, what is left? Perhaps we achieve release from rebirth in nirvana. Shantih. — Cuthbert

Good point. I agree that Plato is not to everyone’s liking. But there is no harm in trying to understand him on his own terms even if we don’t agree with everything he says.

Ancient Greece was a world of rival city-states and hostile foreign powers. Many philosophers sought to reinterpret established religion and were often regarded with suspicion in Athenian society, especially when they were involved in politics. For example, if Plato had taught about the Good or the One as a single omnipotent Being, suspicious minds could have interpreted this as an endorsement of absolute monarchy, dictatorship or, perhaps even worse, “worship of foreign Gods”.

It wasn’t just Biblical Jews who objected to foreign Gods. The relationship between man and Gods in Greece (as in much of the Ancient World) was contractual. The Gods protected the City if the City worshiped the Gods. Disrespecting the Gods or worshiping other Gods was considered a crime against the Gods and against the whole community.

So, Plato had to be cautious for political and religious reasons, aside from the fact that the metaphysical realities implied in his writings have to be experienced, not philosophized about. Even the Mystery Rites, though popular and respected, were secret.

The approach to Plato’s teachings took place on three levels:

1. The written dialogues served to introduce the readers to philosophical problems and modes of addressing them.

2. The Academy taught students certain dialectical methods such as dieresis and assigned problems to be solved by senior students as part of the curriculum.

3. Higher esoteric teachings were made available to the most advanced students who had developed adequate philosophic and spiritual aptitudes.

Platonism may indeed sound like “mysticism” to some, but the Platonic “nirvana” or liberation (lysis) is definitely NOT disappearance into Nothingness or into the Ultimate (however defined).

According to Plato, having attained the highest possible experience and knowledge of reality, the philosopher must come back down to earth, as it were, and do his duty to society. He must let his experience and knowledge of reality inspire, guide, and direct him in everything he does. In fact, he is compelled to do so as exemplified by Socrates.

The accomplished Platonic philosopher dedicates himself to the production of good and beautiful things as a poet, artist, teacher, craftsman, architect, town planner, law-maker, or politician, or in any other capacity (including as a parent), and in doing so, he brings down the One, i.e., Divine Creative Intelligence itself (or part of it) into the realm of matter in order to make the world as divine and perfect as possible in the same way he has made himself as divine and perfect as humanly possible.

So, basically, Plato takes the Greek ideal of striving to be good and beautiful in every respect and provides a metaphysical foundation for it.

In any case, the Road to Eleusis is open to all. The very Gate to it is but a few steps away from Pythodorus’ house in the Keramikos, where the best philosophers of Ancient Greece, handpicked by Plato himself, are discussing the way to Ultimate Reality. It is for the reader to decide how far he or she wishes to travel in the Platonic Way.

:zip: — TheMadFool

:grin:

Early Christians understood Plato well because they were Platonists. All educated citizens of the Roman Empire, especially in the East, spoke Greek and were familiar with Platonism. St Paul himself spoke Greek and was conversant with Greek philosophy.

It was the Platonist belief in the One that led Pagan intellectuals to Christianity, as stated by St Augustine (who had read Victorinus’ Latin translations of Plotinus and Porphyry).

Even though they embraced Christianity, Platonists remained Platonists at heart. When Synesius of Cyrene, originally a Platonist, was made bishop in 411 AD, he asked to be replaced by someone else because as a bishop he couldn’t find the time to practice contemplation as required by his Platonist beliefs.

Platonism did not, and could not, disappear, as there was nothing comparable in the whole Roman Empire to replace it. Instead, it persisted among the intellectual classes and was largely adopted by the upper echelons of the Church itself. Over the centuries that followed, however, Platonism became more and more Christianized and most Christians, especially in the Catholic and later Protestant West, ended up with a poor (if any) grasp of Plato’s teachings.

This is why, personally, I would recommend turning to Platonists and scholars of Plato for a better understanding. Gersons's From Plato to Platonism is a good start. I don't agree with everything he says - just as I don't agree with everything Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus say - but I think he understands the basics of what Plato and Platonism are about and can put readers of Plato on the right track. After that, they can work out the details themselves as they think best within the general Platonic framework.

It can be seen from Plato’s written works that his philosophy acquires an increasingly higher degree of sophistication over time. Plato’s Theory of Forms, for example, starts with the Meno and Phaedo where Forms are described as entities that exist as “themselves in themselves”, i.e., that are separate from the material world and from one another, and moves towards a description of Forms as blended with others and connected with the material world through copies of themselves.

Beauty and Good are not identical in every respect but they are closely interconnected, especially on higher levels of experience, with consciousness and experience becoming increasingly unified. In the Philebus, the Good is described as a mixture of three Forms, Beauty, Proportion, and Truth, and Beauty and Good appear together in other dialogues.

The combination and (partial) identification of Beauty with Good is particularly obvious in the Symposium.

To begin with, the dialogue takes place at the house of the “Good and Beautiful” Agathon. Beauty and Good are combined in Agathon himself, the party host, who is said to be “beautiful” and whose name means “good”. This could not have escaped Plato readers even under Roman rule when all educated citizens, including Christians, spoke Greek. Moreover, Socrates himself calls Agathon “very beautiful and of good nature and breeding” in the Protagoras (315d-e).

So, there can be no doubt that we are in the realm of the Good and Beautiful from the start. Socrates himself is dressed in beautiful clothes for the occasion.

Moreover, the Symposium consists of speeches dedicated to the God Eros. And, as Socrates states, Eros is the son of Aphrodite, the Goddess of Beauty and Love, and he is always “scheming for all that is beautiful and good” (Symp. 203d).

The best, most important, and most beautiful speeches in the Symposium are those of Agathon and Socrates - they are placed at the center of the dialogue and their authors are crowned by Alcibiades who has appointed himself judge over the contest.

Agathon and Socrates mirror each other in many ways. Agathon is young and beautiful, Socrates is older and not very good-looking. Agathon is a playwright who composes speeches for public consumption. Socrates is a philosopher who makes speeches addressed to small private groups. Their close connection is emphasized by the fact that they both are expressly dressed in beautiful attire for the party and they are seated together on the same couch: Agathon the Beautiful and Socrates the Good.

In particular, both value wisdom and expert knowledge above common opinion. Both view love of beauty and goodness as arising from a lack of these. And both agree that, in addition to beauty and goodness, what love lacks is truth – hence they both criticize poets for neglecting truth.

The triad of Beauty, Goodness, and Truth is an important one in Plato. All three appear together in the Phaedrus and now in Diotima’s Love Lesson. This should not be ignored.

Crucially, Agathon brings together beauty and good not only in himself but also in his speech, concluding that love of beauty brings good to both Gods and men:

And who, let me ask, will gainsay that the composing of all forms of life is Love's own craft, whereby all creatures are begotten and produced? … Since this God (Eros) arose, the loving of beautiful things has brought all kinds of benefits both to Gods and to men (Symp. 197a-b).

The connection between beauty and good is made explicit by Agathon when he brings into focus the concept of love of the Beautiful as conducive to Good. He thereby prepares the ground for Socrates’ own speech, in which Socrates takes the theme to the highest level where the philosopher who has set out on the quest for Beauty has found the Good and the Good and the Beautiful combine together with Truth to form one reality.

As already stated, the process implied in the Ladder of Love is one of inner transformation of the soul which involves interiorization, elevation, concentration and unification of consciousness.

The goal of this is nothing less than deification (theosis), i.e. “assimilation to the Divine” or “becoming godlike” (homoiosis Theo) which can only happen as a result of liberation of consciousness from the human condition.

This liberation involves the extrication of consciousness from the confines of human experience revolving on sense-perception and all the mental states based on it such as imagination, opinion, emotion, and thought, and turning our attention to higher realities.

The stages of this process are clearly outlined in the Ladder of Love. The turning of attention from one beautiful body to many beautiful bodies initiates the extrication of consciousness. The consideration of beauty in customs, laws, and knowledge brings about its interiorization and elevation. And the focus on one knowledge results in its concentration and unification.

When the extrication process has been completed, it is followed by a free, spontaneous, and sudden expansion of consciousness beyond anything known or imaginable. The philosopher no longer sees one beautiful body, or any body at all, but an infinite expanse or “sea” of ever-existing beauty (pelagos tou kalou) (Symp. 210d-e).

This is the final state of release or liberation (lysis). It is a state of absolutely free intelligence which is a state of absolute happiness which is nothing but absolute freedom and fullness or completeness and satisfaction.

When intelligence is in this state, it becomes truly creative and productive of things that are beautiful, good, and true. Of course, these beautiful things can be physical babies, who will grow to be like Agathon, beautiful and good. However, Diotima emphasises the beautiful production of poets, artists, craftsmen, architects, town planners, and law-makers who, being “pregnant in the soul” from contact with Beauty and Good, make themselves immortal by giving birth to things that are more beautiful and more deathless than man:

But pregnancy of soul—for there are persons,’ she declared, ‘who in their souls still more than in their bodies conceive those things which are proper for soul to conceive and bring forth … (209a).

This productive activity of the intelligence which has found its freedom and its true self, is not caused by any lack or need but by unceasing, overflowing and therefore creative, overabundance. Love itself is completely transformed. It is no longer motivated by a desire to acquire and possess things that we do not have, but by a desire to give things that we do have.

The key to understanding the Mystery of Eros, and to understanding Plato and Platonism in general, is the understanding of the fact that Eros here stands for the totality of states and activities of volition.

Eros refers not only to humans, but to all living beings including the Gods. Divine love or desire may seem different from human love or desire. The one stems from an awareness the Divine has of its own abundance. The other stems from an awareness (or perception) of absence of abundance. But human desire is ultimately an expression of divine desire, of the will of intelligence or spirit to be itself, i.e., to be happy and free, including free from desire.

The exchange between Diotima and Socrates is as follows:

D: You hold that love is directed to what is beautiful. But why does the lover desire the beautiful?
S: The lover desires the beautiful in order to possess it.
D: But what will the lover get by possessing beautiful things?
S: This question I am unable to answer offhand.
D: Well, let’s change the object of the question. Why does the lover desire good things?
S: In order to possess them.
D: But what will the lover get by possessing good things?
S: This I can answer easily, happiness.
D: Yes, this is the ultimate answer. We have no more need to ask for what end a man wishes to be happy (204b-205a)

Happiness (eudaimonia) is the ultimate end of all human endeavor. And we don’t need to ask why we wish to be happy because we know that to be happy means to be our real self. When we are happy, we are at peace, i.e., in harmony, with ourselves and the world.

Our real self is the intelligent spirit within us (nous) whose supreme happiness consists in contemplating the Divine within itself, i.e., itself as it really is on the highest level of existence. This is the meaning of contemplation (theoria). The divine is beauty, wisdom, goodness, and all such qualities (Phaedrus 246e). Contemplation of divine qualities, for example, beauty, elevates and refines consciousness until it acquires a direct vision of Beauty itself. The Gods themselves, who are supremely happy and blessed, derive their happiness from contemplation.

Indeed, if we are happy when we possess beautiful and good things, we can easily imagine how much happier we will be when we possess not only beautiful and good things, but the Beautiful and the Good themselves, and with them, Truth itself which is, above all, the truth about our true identity.

But happiness is of little value without the awareness of being happy. Where there is happiness, there is awareness. Awareness and happiness are the highest and most fundamental principles of intelligent life. Awareness and Happiness are the properties or faculties of Supreme Intelligence, along with Will-Power, Knowledge, and Action as indicated in the Timaeus.

Therefore, the imagery of the Sea of Beauty takes us sufficiently close to Ultimate Reality for us to conceptually grasp Plato’s Two Causes.

Though Beauty itself belongs to Ultimate Reality, the philosopher can have awareness of it because it is also within him and because his consciousness has sufficiently expanded to contain Beauty, at least partly, within its field of awareness.

These two elements of experience, (1) the Sea (or Ocean) of Infinite and Eternal Beauty, and (2) Awareness of it, are the objective and subjective aspects of consciousness, respectively, that correspond to the Dyad and the One. Awareness also corresponds to the One through its function of unifying experience.

The philosopher’s expanded consciousness and Ultimate Reality mirror one another. The philosopher arrives at Infinite Beauty and Awareness of it by a process of ascent or return (epistrophe) to the Ultimate Source and Cause of all. In contrast, Ultimate Reality arrives at the stage of the One and the Dyad by a process of descent or procession (proodos) from the Ultimate Source and Cause of all.

The stages of Consciousness prior to Creation are as follows:

1. Pure, Undivided Intelligence or Awareness (syneseis or synaesthesis) a.k.a. “the One”.
2. Self-Aware Intelligence, i.e., Intelligence with Consciousness (parakolouthesis) or Self-Awareness (parakolouthesis heauto) = Intelligence (subjective element) aware of itself (objective element) = “Indefinite Dyad”
3. Creative Intelligence (nous poietikos) = “Creator-God” = Intelligence containing Forms = Knowledge

Otherwise formulated:

(A). The good is defined by beauty (kallos), proportion (symmetria), and truth (aletheia) (Phileb. 65e).
(B). These properties depend on order which is a well-proportioned arrangement of parts in a harmonious whole.
(C). Therefore, the basis of order is unity or oneness.
(D). Therefore, Unity or Oneness is the cause of all good.
(E). But Order and Goodness in the world are not perfect.
(F). Therefore, a cause must exist that is opposed to Oneness and Goodness.
(G). Such a cause must be a principle of Division and Plurality.
(H). This cause is the Indefinite Dyad.
(I). Therefore, there are two causes, the One, and the Indefinite Dyad.
(J). But the Indefinite Dyad exists exclusively in opposition to the One.
(K). Therefore, the Indefinite Dyad is dependent on the One.
( L). Therefore, the One (= the Good) is the Ultimate Cause of all.

When the One, i.e., Supreme Intelligence, sets about to create the Universe, it limits its own powers by imposing Limit on the Unlimited, and thus produces (1) Spirit or Soul which possesses exactly the same powers as the Supreme but in limited degree and (2) Matter which is (almost) completely devoid of intelligence.

Were this not the case, the human soul would not have the powers of awareness, happiness, will, knowledge and action, and would be no better than inanimate objects. Indeed, it would be worse given that even inanimate matter, though devoid of higher intelligence, still possesses some powers as can be seen from the behavior of atomic particles, energy fields, etc. – which, at the very least, indicates the presence of a very limited power of action.

It follows that human love or desire for the beautiful and the good, and ultimately, for happiness, is really an expression of divine will, i.e., of the will of limited, individual intelligence to recover its original happiness and freedom which it once had before descending into particular existence.

This act of volition (boulesis) on the part of the human soul is triggered by the perception of beauty in objects other than itself.

The perception of objective beauty activates the soul’s innate memory of the “infinite Sea of Beauty” that was once part of its self-identity, and, through philosophic practice the soul gradually recovers its full awareness of its true identity. Having recovered its identity, it is once again complete, fully satisfied, self-sufficient, self-contained, full of Beauty, Goodness, and Truth, infinitely and eternally happy, and lacking in absolutely nothing. It has now attained ultimate perfection (and is welcomed into the company of Gods).

I mean, even if by working terribly hard I could understand this dialogue, what's the point of it? — Cuthbert

Plato's dialogues reflect philosophical problems discussed in the Academy. This can be seen, for example, from the way Forms are dealt with as if everyone involved was familiar with the topic.

Given the existence of the Academy, where discussion was ongoing, the dialogues do not provide solutions to all the problems raised.

The "aporia" here belongs to outsiders. The insiders, i.e., Academy students, presumably have a pretty clear understanding of what Plato is trying to say and I believe so does Proclus.

The dialogue starts with the discussion between Socrates, Zeno, and Parmenides, that takes place by the Gate to the Sacred Road from Athens to Eleusis, the seat of the Mystery Rites.

The Mystery Rites aimed to bring about the union of the initiates with the Deity, here represented by "the One".

So, the discussion of the Forms and the One is the intellectual equivalent of the Mystery Procession, i.e., the means by which the philosopher proceeds from Athens to Eleusis or from ordinary to higher experience.

As the Mystery Rites end in a vision of and union with the Divine, so the discussion or philosophizing must end in silent contemplation of the One which represents the Ultimate Reality of Socrates/Plato, Zeno, and Parmenides.

The Forms, of course, do exist because as Parmenides points out, dialectic or intellection would be impossible without them. But the point of the quest for Ultimate Reality is not to talk or think about it, but to experience it and to experience it means to be it.

And this can only happen by leaving dialectic and all intellectual activity behind, activity that actually creates an unwanted distance between philosopher and his goal, and enter a state of complete mental and emotional stillness, the only state in which the unity of subject and object, of Ultimate Reality and individual intelligence, can take place.

As Proclus puts it:

This whole dialectical method, which works by negations, conducts us to what lies before the threshold of the One, removing all inferior things and by this removal dissolving the impediments to the contemplation of the One, if it is possible to speak of such a thing. But after going through all the negations, one ought to set aside this dialectical method also, as being troublesome and introducing the notion of the things denied with which the One can have no neighborhood.

For the intellect cannot have a pure vision when it is obstructed intelligizing the things that come after it, nor the soul distracted by deliberation, of the things that are lower than the soul, nor in general is it possible to have perfect vision with deliberation. Deliberation is the mark of thought’s encounter with difficulties. It deliberates only when it is doubtful and falls short of being knowledge.

Just as there deliberation ought to be eliminated from our activity, although it is brought to perfection by deliberation, so here all dialectical activity ought to be eliminated. These dialectical operations are the preparation for the strain toward the One, but are not themselves the strain. Or rather, not only must it be eliminated, but the strain as well. Finally, when it has completed its course, the soul may rightly abide with the One. Having become single and alone in itself, it will choose only the simply One.
….
It is with silence, then, that he brings to completion the study of the One (7.74K).

The problem here, is that your "traditional Platonic" view is an off-shoot, a perspective which is not consistent with Aristotle and the majority of western readers of Plato (Christian Platonists). — Metaphysician Undercover

If the Platonic tradition is an "off-shoot", then surely so are the Aristotelian and Christian Platonist traditions which, of course, are different from each other and from Plato’s own tradition.

In other words, Christians may have an interpretation of Plato but there is no logical necessity for it to be the right one.

So, I don’t see that as a valid argument at all. More like an ad populum fallacy, to be quite honest.

This is not consistent with what is written at 206. What people crave is the good, and there is no mention of "Beauty" at this particular section of the discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we atomize the dialogues and divide them into thousands of separate and unconnected statements, then I think what is going to happen (and quite predictably so) is that we will fail to see the wood for the trees.

The fact of the matter is that the Symposium consists of speeches dedicated to the God Eros. And, as Socrates says, Eros is the son of Aphrodite, the Goddess of Beauty and Love, and he is always “scheming for all that is beautiful and good” (Symp. 203d).

There is an explicit connection between desire and the beautiful and the good from the start.

So, the matter is very simple:

(A). Philosophy is a quest for Knowledge.
(B). The source of Knowledge is the Good.
(C). Therefore, the end (telos) of the philosophic quest is the Good.
(D). But man loves Beauty.
(E). And Beauty culminates in the Good.
(F). Therefore, the path to the Good is through Beauty.

There is nothing unclear about it.

You completely misrepresent "intelligence". The source of all knowledge is not intelligence, intelligence is the product of knowledge. The source of knowledge is the desire for the good, the desire for immortality, which is a manifestation of the Divine Form, Beauty. As the Form Beauty is the cause of that desire for the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Plato’s basic forms of knowledge and their corresponding faculties are:

Faculty of sensory perception (aisthetikon) => Sense-perception

Faculty of forming mental images (phantastikon) => Imagined objects

Faculty of thinking or reasoning (logistikon) => Thoughts

Faculty of intuition and insight (nous) => Intuitive knowledge

Divine Nous a.k.a. Creator-Intelligence (Nous Poietikos) => Forms, etc.

The Good a.k.a. the One (to Hen) => Totality of Knowledge

It can be seen that the faculties of knowledge are prior, not posterior, to knowledge.

As I said before:

When we imagine something, e.g., a series of images, it is our own intelligence that creates, organizes, and observes the images, and we know this to be the case.

It follows that it is wrong to claim that intelligence is the product of knowledge just as it is wrong to claim that imagination is the product of the imagined image. Intelligence and imagination are the faculties, knowledge and imagined image are the products of, and therefore posterior to, their respective faculties.

Were this not the case, we would have to say that the Source of Knowledge (the Good or One) is the product of knowledge. This is certainly not what Plato is saying. Knowledge has a Source and that Source is the One which is Intelligence.

I also feel that this apparent paradox reflects what Wittgenstein referred to as "bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language" because replace "is the only constant" with "is continuous" in the above statement by Heraclitus and we get... — TheMadFool

Yes, language can create as much as solve problems. This is why some believe that truth is to be found in silence.