In the Phaedrus Socrates compares the well written work to a living animal with each part having a function working together to form a whole. This tells us how a well written work should be read - as a whole, with each part having its function working together in a particular way to form that whole. On the assumption that the Platonic dialogues are well written works, Plato himself tells us how they are to be read. — Fooloso4

It's the difference between theology and religion studies. Theology presents interpretations. Religion studies just sticks to what we've got and tries to fit the work into the era in which it was written.

Your approach to Plato is like the theological approach where you're using your own intuitions to guide you in arriving at a meaning. In particular, this is a Protestant approach.

An academic approach to Plato would not settle in any one interpretation, but would just explain what we know about the times and the various ways Plato has been interpreted since.

For obvious reasons, it's extremely important to mark out this kind of distinction. If you're going to interpret, that's great. I truly welcome that and think we should all be doing that. Philosophy comes alive in this way.

But I'm sure you agree that each of us needs to be honest and say, "This is my interpretation."

So any interpretation of Plato that presents a cohesive narrative is neoplatonist? — Fooloso4

Any interpretation of Plato that presents a cohesive narrative could be described as "a brand of neoplatonism."

What is that "certain way" of filling in the blanks? — Fooloso4

One that creates a cohesive narrative?

Neoplatonism isn't one line of thought. It's any interpretation of Plato that fills in the blanks in a certain way. Christianity, Plotinus, and Ficino are all neoplatonist. They aren't identical, though. As I said, what you're expressing is a brand of neoplatonism. That's not an insult. It's just a simple clarification.

What do the hand gestures on each figure mean?

I am surprised to hear that. What elements of neo-platonism do you find? — Fooloso4

Neoplatonism isn't one line of thought. It's any interpretation of Plato that fills in the blanks in a certain way. Christianity, Plotinus, and Ficino are all neoplatonist. They aren't identical, though. As I said, what you're expressing is a brand of neoplatonism. That's not an insult. It's just a simple clarification.

What you've expressed is a brand of neo-platonism. That's fine, but do identify it as such. Intellectual honesty would demand that.

:up:

And, of course, poverty is nothing new. — Pantagruel

In a country like the US, it could be a lot more rare. Wouldn't you agree?

Since economic hardship is not a rare thing, there is undoubtedly a wide set of correlations with economic hardship. I believe the saying is, correlation is not causation — Pantagruel

That's true. It's not a slam dunk. It's definitely food for thought, though. Per the same FBI analysis, shooters were usually expressing desperation on social media prior to the events. They often have mental health issues. Economic hardship has been identified as a major stressor, so it stands to reason that in a society with a better social safety net, desperation of the type that leads to mass shootings would be less common.

Mike, neoliberalism is a global phenomenon. The EU is a neoliberal project. Gun control is an issue unique to the US due to its history and culture. Neoliberal Brits have no problem heavily regulating guns, just as American neoliberals don't care about whether drugs are regulated. Neoliberal deregulation is about the markets, not about social issues.

The FBI publishes analyses of mass shootings, providing statistics about the events and perpetrator profiles. If you look at the latest one, you'll see the correlation between mass shootings and recent economic hardship in the lives of perpetrators. It would be easy to argue that the flimsy social safety net associated with American neoliberal policies exacerbates desperation that leads to events like mass shootings. Though school shootings make the headlines most prominently, most mass shootings happen in retail or restaurant environments.

There is a perfectly good thread here. Our interlocutors have every right to share their own opinion, as well. — NOS4A2

You heard what I said.

That’s the bizarre thing. All the officers had cameras mounted on them. They knew this. And still acted as they did. Were they high on steroids? Caffeine? Adrenaline? Was it some Lord of the Flies groupthink fuckup? Goodness knows... — 0 thru 9

My coworkers have analyzed the cops' post beating discussion and discerned that this was a case of mistaken identity. They were looking for someone else and after they've beaten Tyree, they discover that the real suspect had been detained elsewhere, so they all start telling lies about what just happened (for the benefit of their body cams which were turned off during the beating.) They don't know that the traffic cam shows exactly what happened and it's just plain murder.

Let’s hear it. — NOS4A2

Sure. Start a different thread on it and we can have an intelligent discussion.

Note, the connection cannot be made. He fails his own test. — NOS4A2

The connection could be made. He's just not interested in exploring that.

The cops didn't realize that a traffic camera filmed as they held him and punched, kicked, pepper sprayed, and tazed him. They all need to go to jail.

:up: :up: :up:

Yes, you can easily argue that everything, whether because of regulation or because of lack or regulation, can be blamed on the government. Since this is true, the government might as well be tasked with fixing social ills. — Pantagruel

Now that would be a meaty topic with potato salad for the vegetarians. That's not the topic of this thread, though.

And which is why I’ll reference, again and again, why that’s completely irrelevant. I’ll do so as long as it takes. I’m not interested in hand-waving, I’m interested in REAL POLICIES — Mikie

The ills of any society will be seen to have something to do with government policies or the lack of whatever is needed to make the world perfect, so it's not a particularly meaty topic.

True.

Police officers have always been the dogs of prey for the state and government. — javi2541997

They have a reputation for being unnecessarily belligerent. They know they can get away with it if the victim is black. If you have dark skin, you'll immediately wonder if you're going to survive an encounter with police. Young men don't realize that running is the worst thing you can do. You have to feed their egos and say "yes sir, no sir" because it's a matter of life and death.

You're right that covering this issue over completely with the word "racism" is obscuring part of the problem.

:lol:

So neoliberal ideas came to power through the consent of various parties, and the parties worth mentioning involved were states, corporations, and unions. — Moliere

Neoliberalism is best implemented by a dictatorship. It's an embarrassment to conservatives that Hayek approved of dictatorship for this reason.

It's a challenge to "manufacture consent" for it in democratic countries like the US and the UK, especially when the Great Depression had cemented what an American would call leftism into society and academia. It was a seismic change, and not one that can be explained by pointing to a greedy elite operating on an otherwise healthy economy. It took a pretty severe ailment to bring down embedded liberalism.

So to answer your question, the consent I was talking about was that of the middle class in the UK and the US. The consent of unions wasn't needed or sought since they were targeted for demolition.

I'm not on a crusade to convince you because as I said, the standard neutral view of events says union demands were a factor in the stagflation of the 1970s.

The reason it relates to the topic is that this was the gate through which neoliberal ideas gained broad consent.

Isaac proved he had the brawn. He's amazing.

For my next trick, I will persuade Isaac to copy-paste portions of Wendy Browns book "In the Ruins of Neoliberalism"

You guys are discussing an article on stagflation. I'm so proud.

You don't have JSTOR access, do you? I suspected not.

So I did that. Google Scholar on "stagflation in 1970s UK" — Isaac

Try JSTOR. Stagflation --Its Cause and Cure

Explaining why Keynesianism failed Abba Lerner says:

"Missing was a microanalysis of why the market laws of supply and demand did not work in the downward direction. The answer is that wages are determined, not by the market, but by wage administrators--by wage negotiators, representing workers and employers, who have power to command wages to stay up even when the market is telling them that they should be going down because supply is greater than demand."

And if you're looking for the deep dive, there are analyses of how the interests of unions and the interests of central banks conflict, and what can be done to resolve that so neoliberals won't take over the next time we're at a similar crossroad.

All kinds of good stuff.

Can you guys just tone down the adolescent aggression and just talk like normal fucking people?

Did they call it that as a play on words of depths of despair — Changeling

It's a word usually used by European leftists, although some conservatives accept the label as a badge of honor or something.

Asking whose analysis it is isn't calling bullshit on you -- it's just a question, an inquiry to see more. — Moliere

Oh. Read up on the history of the stagflation of the 1970s, particularly in the UK where union gains were clearly unsustainable.

There was a war on unionization during the Reagan years culminating in the air traffic controllers incident. Are you familiar with that?

That wasn't a moral condemnation, bub. I was noting a practicality.

For me, the best approach to understanding history is to shelve condemnation and blame and just focus on the culture and agendas on the scene at the time.

The quick, easy, emotion packed narratives that advise the listener what she ought to lament have a place in human life, but I think it's important to recognize them as partial bullshit. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that bullshit is all you can spew. Why don't you offer me the same courtesy?

For me, it's clear that, at is core, the right is privilege-centric; it is defined by the possession of a much-greater-than-average portion of advantage — Pantagruel

Right. If you have a work force that's empowered to increase wages, a free market will respond by increasing prices. All it takes is an oil shock and it becomes impossible to make a return on investment. The way to return liquidity is by re-establishing social stratification.

If that's the case, then the larger part of the identifying-right must be confused in their allegiance. — Pantagruel

In the 1970s, there was an ambitious middle class in the US and the UK. Neoliberal policies appealed to them.

The people who create and implement those policies are only a small subset of the people who empowered them, and those people are one step further removed from policy formation — Pantagruel

Yep. An important thing to remember about neoliberalism is that it wasn't created by an elite group. The opposite is true. The present global elite was created by the success of a neoliberal policies. It's easy to condemn as if that's solving some problem. It's harder to understand why former leftist strategies failed so utterly. A real leftist would be interested in that question.

We're living through an event now that helps explain what happened in the 1970s. Note that Amazon just laid off 18000 workers. All of the big tech companies are doing something similar. Meanwhile, everywhere else, unemployment is low. The layoffs are part of a forced contraction to stop stagflation from setting in.

Imagine that right now, instead of companies having the power to lay people off, unions were able to increase wages. In the 1970s this happened and the resulting crisis created a difficult choice: either go deeper into socialism than the US has ever been, or take the guardrails off of regulation to allow the economy to shift away from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism. They chose the latter. It should be easy to understand why

If you don't, you fail. :lol:

Where is this line of thinking coming from? — Moliere

It's a standard analysis of the stagflation of the 1970s.

Wow

Neoliberalism doesn't really come from Ayn Rand. The main originator was Hayek. If you're interested in labor unions, it's really worth looking at how powerful unions helped set the stage for the Neoliberal take over. It's a lesson in what not to do.

The bible can be used to justify slavery or argue against it, — Athena

True. But you've scooted from "Christianity makes people passive" to "it's a two edged sword."

What is happening in the world today that can give the young a sense of purpose? I feel like we are free falling into chaos and desperately need to restore order and social purpose. — Athena

Climate change should do it.