Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. — praxis

I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder.

Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?

I did not say wise guidance. Note the three separate terms in Seneca's quote. the people, the wise, and the rulers. Philosophers from Plato to Machiavelli to Nietzsche have recognized the importance of religion for the people.

I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.

My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control.

I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument.

This thread is about the Trinity, not about you. I think you are confused. — Apollodorus

There is nothing in my posts about myself. In an earlier post I said:

It is not about me. And it is not about you. This is about a very old problem that Christian theologians have wrestled with for well over a thousand years. — Fooloso4

I keep pointing to the problem of the Trinity. I have offered what many Christian theologians, ancient and contemporary, take to be the only way out of the logical contradictions that arise from theological claims.

It is all well documented and easy to find, the work of Christian theologians.

The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself.

It came close to doing what few topics are able to do, unite the forum in its opposition. At the same time it revealed the inability and unwillingness of theists and anti-theists alike to be self-reflective.

You miss the point. You can do one or the other, not both. You can attempt to make a rational theological argument and then deal rationally with any contradictions or you can decide that rational argument is inadequate for understanding the mystery.

If it can be shown that the "irrational" is rational then it ceases to be irrational. — Apollodorus

Is that something you think you can do? It is not what I said. What I said is that one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality. That is not at all the same.

In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' — Amity

I recall in another forum you talking about Robert Solomon, maybe his "Spirituality for the Skeptic".

It is not about me. And it is not about you. This is about a very old problem that Christian theologians have wrestled with for well over a thousand years.. It is about the attempt to avoid logical contradiction by arguing the being in question is unique and defining it in such a way that it is exempt from logical scrutiny.

Now one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality, and it has been done, but one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational.

I just thought that God is, by definition, sui generis. He isn't an ordinary "object" or comparable to anything else. — Apollodorus

This is a perfect example of magical thinking, The fact that a thing and the power of a thing are not the same is no longer a problem because this being is not like any other being, There are no constraints on this magical being because there are no constraints on what you can claim about it.

Such irrationalism is not acceptable to philosophy in general.

And yes, you are free to believe whatever you want, but you can't have it both ways, both rational thought and an irrational religion.

What ground is there or attributing extension to systems, when Descartes in Principles only attributes extension to “corporeal substance” — Mww

It is not the system that has extension but the things that comprise the system

When it is pointed out to you that there is no way you can possibly know that, you become agitated and abusive. — Apollodorus

We already had this discussion. Did you forget because you did not like the answer or did you close your eyes and pretend it didn't happen?

You choose to ignore what we are told Jesus said in the Gospels and latch on to something in John that does not unambiguously say what you want it to.

Since you see no contradiction it follows that it is not possible for you formulate it in such a way.
— Fooloso4

It doesn't follow at all. No logical or even grammatical connection between one thing and the other. — Apollodorus

Have you forgotten what is being discussed? You said:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

Since you see no contradiction you are not able to address what is contradictory in the claim of the Trinity.

My claim is that Christians have the right to interpret their own religion in whatever way they wish. — Apollodorus

Yes, you have said so many times. No one is preventing you from interpreting it any way you want. That does not mean that your interpretation cannot be challenged. This is a philosophy forum and differences of interpretation is one of the things we do on this forum. Do you think that your religious beliefs are somehow exempt from examination?

And once again: to challenge the Trinity is not anti-Christian. The problems with the idea have been discussed by Christians for almost 2,000 years. It is one thing if you are unaware of this. Is is quite another to close your eyes to it.

I will leave it there.

So, I don't need to formulate it for myself. — Apollodorus

The issue is whether it can be formulated it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy. Since you see no contradiction it follows that it is not possible for you formulate it in such a way.

My comment was addressed to him. Nothing to do with you. — Apollodorus

This is a public forum. If you don't want anyone to challenge your claims then you are in the wrong place.

I never said I can formulate the Trinity, I don't need to. — Apollodorus

You said:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

Was I wrong to assume that you were saying that you could do it? Was it someone else who tried to do so in your post? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543286

I have compiled the separate commentary posts in order that it may be read together:

1. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1


2. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534860


3. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535343


4. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924


5. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536573


6. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537114


7. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537698


8. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538481


9. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/539501


10. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540733

In a few quick posts you have gone from claiming you can formulate the Trinity in a way that is acceptable to philosophy in general to throwing a tantrum.

Disagreeing with you in no way denies you the "right" to believe whatever you want to. Pointing to Christian sects that do not accept Trinitarianism is not an attack on Christianity.

Have you given up on trying to give a rational defense of the Trinity?

It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general — Apollodorus

But you have failed to do this.

What you call "facts" are just assertions. But those assertions do not provide a logical explanations of the Trinity.

There are two senses of "one". One, as in being in some way united, is not the same as being one and the same thing or being or ousia. To read this as 'one and the same' is contrary to Jesus' own words.

The "power of the most high" is not the same as what has that power. God and His power are not the same thing. They are not, despite the claim, homoousios, one being or substance.

There are, however, philosophers who, based on the limits of human knowledge and understanding, accept that there are things we cannot comprehend and are accepted by faith. If, however, philosophy is to be guided by reason, the Trinity cannot be made acceptable to philosophy,

But if he rejects that mind, body and god all are not responsible for guidance in the course of things, does he then claim Nature itself, is? I mean....what’s left? That, or the course of things isn’t guided at all, I guess — Mww

A mechanical system, a clockwork for example, does not need guidance. It is all just a matter of the shape of extended things in motion.

I don't think particulars as substances is compatible with Descartes' mechanistic view. Descartes does not deal with such things as prime matter and substantial change.

final cause has yet to be jettisoned from science because it's embedded in biology. — frank

Are you claiming that final causes are embedded in Descartes' biology? He does, after all, regard animal bodies as machines, automata.

But perhaps I have missed your point.

Aquinas' physics is Aristotelian. It includes formal and final causes. In addition, his use of the term substance is different from Descartes. For Aquinas a substance is a thing. He uses the example of Socrates as a substance. For Descartes substances are not particulars, there are two substances, thinking and extended.

Some thoughts:

Descartes also did work in natural philosophy, optics, mechanics, physics, medicine, and so on. By regarding the physical world as mechanistic he jettisons final causes as well as the idea that mind or reason or God guides the course of things.

Recognition of the validity of thinking outside the Bible. — Mww

Descartes, like all educated people of his age, knew the Bible. I think he used the Bible to do something that was at once consistent with it and contrary to it.

The sayings of Jesus, New Testament and the doctrine of the Trinity are three different things. Jesus would have been appalled to find that he was deified. He made a clear distinction between himself, a human being and God. The New Testament is largely the work of Paul and John. The Trinity is a later invention. The idea that Jesus was the same ousia or being or substance as God and the Trinity were made official Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.

There have been many attempts to provide a rational explanation of the Trinity. All have failed, but this has not dissuaded believers.

I wanted to follow up on my comment about Euclid. Cartesian coordinates lined Euclidean geometry and algebra. Descartes sees it as a method for solving for any unknown. Symbols replace things.

I suppose there’s all kinds of ways to distinguish one from another, right? — Mww

One question that occured to me but I did not pursue it before is, why does he want to distinguish them?

@Valentinus

I edited my original response but did not know if you saw it. Just thought of another also on Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman. "The Being of the Beautiful", by Seth Benardete.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo5971393.html

The question that unifies these three dialogues is: who is the philosopher? The Statesman asks, who is the statesman? The Sophist, who is the Sophist? The Theaetetus, what is knowledge? There is no dialogue The Philosopher. It is up to the reader to ask, who is the philosopher. Perhaps he is discovered somewhere between these three other questions.


It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing?
— Valentinus

One that comes to mind is, "How Philosophy Became Socratic: A Study of Plato's Protagoras, Charmades, and Republic" by Laurence Lampert
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo8725147.html

He takes the dialogue in their dramatic chronology, how old Socrates was when the dialogue took place.

[Edit] Another is Plato's Trilogy : Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman, by Jacob Klein

There is an important distinction to be made. Determining that it came from a lab still does not tell us if it is natural or synthetic in origin. It might have been from contact with an infected animal or from the virus extracted from the animal or from something manufactured in the lab.

There are related questions such as whether the research was being done to understand viruses or to create and protect against biological or biochemical weapons.

Amity Ha ha! I think you've caught me out speculating now. (Remembering an earlier reminder to stick to the text....). — Cuthbert

I encourage you to continue the discussion. It is directly related to the text. Perhaps not what you had in mind but one meaning of from the gut is something known without being taught, inborn knowledge or recollection.

Is it the same to define a term, as it is to declare how it is meant to be understood? — Mww

I think there is some truth to this, but first an objection. How a term is meant to be understood is by definition a definition. He does make a distinction though:

But these are utterly simple notions, which don’t on their own give us knowledge of anything that exists ...

I take his point to be that we do not gain knowledge by analysis of definitions. It is in this regard a rejection of the method of Euclid.

But how he uses the term 'thought' is not "self-evident" or "sufficiently self-explanatory". His use of the term 'thought' includes sensory awareness. Can the mind/body distinction be made if sensory awareness is a matter of thought? He elsewhere claims the "substantial union" of mind and body. This is problematic because he identifies himself as mind or soul, in which case the body is other than one's self. The union then would a union of self and other.

Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.

The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses.

Man is the measure does not mean that what any man says is thereby true, but it is, after all, man who measures the arguments made by man. A transcendent standard by which to measure is not available to us.

From the Meditations:

Well, then, what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses. (Second Meditation)

One thing I find odd about the Principles is that he says it is not necessary to define terms (10) but he says this right after defining thought (9). It may just be a response to critics who did exactly what some here are doing.

How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity

I answered this yesterday but I should have made the problem clearer. According to Socrates "safe" answer it is Life that brings life to the body.

Then, my friend, we were talking of things that have opposite qualities and naming these after them, but now we say that these opposites themselves, from the presence of which in them things get their name, never can tolerate the coming to be from one another.(103b-c)

According to this the correct answer is the presence of Life makes it living. This gives us the opposites Life and Death.

But after the unnamed man's question and the response Socrates gives above he begins again. According to this new beginning it is not Heat that makes a body hot but fire. (105b-c) We can now see why the new sophisticated answer is not a safe answer. In accord with this new beginning Socrates says:

Answer me then, what is it that, present in a body, makes it living?

Cebes: A soul. (105c)

There are two problems with this. Soul brings life to a body as fire brings heat, but just as the body loses heat when the fire dies, the body loses life when the soul dies. Socrates obscures this problem. He says the fire retreats, or the snow retreats, but these are things not Forms. The snow melts, the fire dies. Second, if there is Soul itself what is its opposite? It can't be body because in the presence of one Form its opposite retreats.

The statement in question is from "Discourse on The Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences".

In Part 1 he says:

From my childhood they fed me books, and because people convinced me that these could give me clear and certain knowledge of everything useful in life, I was extremely eager to learn them. But no sooner had I completed the whole course of study that normally takes one straight into the
ranks of the ‘learned’ than I completely changed my mind about what this education could do for me·. For I found myself tangled in so many doubts and errors that I came to think that my attempts to become educated had done me no good except to give me a steadily widening view of my
ignorance!

Descartes first stated intention is to break with the past. To begin again without reliance on what others have said.

Part 4 begins:

I don’t know whether I should tell you of the first meditations that I had there, for they are perhaps too metaphysical [here= ‘abstract’] and uncommon for everyone’s taste. But I have to report on them if you are to judge whether the foundations I have chosen are firm enough. I had long been aware that in practical life one sometimes has to act on opinions that one knows to be quite uncertain just as if they were unquestionably •true (I remarked on this above). But now that I wanted to devote myself solely to the search for truth, I thought I needed to do the exact opposite—to reject as if it were absolutely •false everything regarding which I could imagine the least doubt, so as to see whether this left me with anything entirely indubitable to believe.

'I' occurs 10 times in this paragraph, 'myself' and 'me' occur once each.

He begins anew with himself.

I decided to pretend that everything that had ever entered my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams ...

Emphasis added.

But no sooner had I embarked on this project than I noticed that while I was trying in this way to think everything to be false it had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something.

Emphasis added.

He only pretends to doubt because as a practical matter one cannot doubt everything. In matters of knowledge or science Descartes replaces the doubted authority of the "learned" with "I" or one who uses the method of rightly conducting one’s reason.

Yes, I did understand that it was the basic assumption and condition of the argument not the conclusion — Amity

I know you did. I was drawing out the point.

I meant I can't grant him that basic assumption on which the argument relies or stands.
Shaky ground. — Amity

I agree. I think he himself says as much.

I think any conclusion or belief that the soul is immortal can't be deduced by argument.
Rather it is a matter of faith. — Amity

Right, and the myths are intended to strengthen that faith.

Perhaps it was necessary to convince his students of the divine, and ideal Form - an afterlife - so that they would be protected from danger. — Amity

Do you mean the danger of being run out or sentenced to death? Or some other danger? Misologic?

With Socrates as their mentor, they would have come under suspicion... — Amity

I take it you meant danger in the first sense. I think it may also apply in other ways.

Like this ? — Amity

Also like this:

And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit after its kind;

And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind

`Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:'

And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind (Genesis 1)

And this:

The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. (Darwin, The Descent of Man)

1.Why would you say that is the kind of things Mind as Form does ? — Amity

I think this points to a problem with regard to Forms and what, if anything, Forms do. Does Beauty make things beautiful? Does Justice make things just? Socrates says that Mind arranges or orders things. (97c) Is this 'Mind' a particular mind?

The problem of Forms as causes is incomplete. It is what he refers to as 'ignorant' or 'uneducated'. It is why he later revises this and re-introduces things like 'fire' and not just Heat as a cause.

2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity

Soul is that which brings life. Here again the distinction is blurred as it was with Snow and snow.

@Banno

Myth or silence.
— Banno

My first reaction is different audience. With Christianity there was by the time the Tractatus was written more than enough myth. — Fooloso4

A few more thoughts:

Wittgenstein's concept of language is far more restrictive than Plato's.

Plato addresses the psychology or character of the individual.

Plato and Wittgenstein have different temperments

Mind as Form is not the same as a particular mind. Does the Form cause the particular or is it the particular that creates the Form ? I think the latter, others will disagree. — Amity

I think it is Socrates mind ordering things according to kind. It is the kind of thing Mind does. I don't think this is meant to be the intelligible order of the whole. It is a hypothesis by which he makes that order intelligible.

Why the concern for the 'safest answer' - what did he mean by 'safest' ? — Amity

Good question. He begins the story of his second sailing by saying how confused he was by looking at things themselves. His hypotheses are his way of bringing order to things. A second sailing means when the wind dies down and you must oar the boat, move it forward under your own power.

A philosopher who blames arguments rather than himself must 'spend the rest of his life hating and reviling reasoned discussion and so be deprived of truth and knowledge of reality' (90d). — Amity

He begins this statement by saying:

when there is a true and reliable argument and one that can be understood

This is important because the arguments for the immortality of the soul may not be true and reliable
arguments. In other words, sometimes the argument is to blame. The philosopher has a responsibility to the argument, and this includes having reasonable expectations about what argument is capable of. If the philosopher comes to hate reasoned discussion because it cannot do what he expects of it it is the philosopher and not the argument that is to blame.

Well, given that I can't accept his alleged assumption...I think accepting such matters is by faith... not by reasoned argument. — Amity

After saying he assumes the Form he goes on to say:

If you grant me these and agree that they exist ...

The acceptance of the assumption does not come as the result of reasoned argument, it is used as a condition for it.

I am not sure what you mean by 'soul' here, though. His mind, his spirit ? — Amity

This raises a couple of problems that become clear when he introduces number. In the division between the body and soul where is the activity of thought? If it is in the soul then the soul cannot be one thing because thought is the activity of Mind. Soul would the be composite, a combination of Soul and Mind and the argument that it cannot be destroyed because it is one thing and not composite fails.

Why the capitals at 'Kind Soul' ? — Amity

'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. The Greek

eidos

means both. Soul with with a capital indicates the Form rather than a particular soul.

Or is it the case that Socrates is one of a kind. — Amity

This has a double meaning: Socrates is one (a particular) of the the Kind Man, but also unique. Through much of the dialogue no distinction is made between Socrates and his soul. Is he then of the Kind/Form Soul or Man? Is the fate of his soul the same as the fate of the man?

The two uses of 'kind' in English are related. Kind means both the kind of thing something is, that is, its nature or species and something whose nature or disposition is what we describe as kind.

It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing? — Valentinus

One that comes to mind is, "How Philosophy Became Socratic: A Study of Plato's Protagoras, Charmades, and Republic" by Laurence Lampert
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo8725147.html

He takes the dialogue in their dramatic chronology, how old Socrates was when the dialogue took place.

[Edit] Another is Plato's Trilogy : Theaetetus the Sophist and the Statesman, by Jacob Klein

I read the dialogues as conversations between themselves. — Valentinus

There are certain continuities that connect them. There are a few passages in the Phaedo that I compare with the Republic. I think the similarities are intentional but the differences are what shed light.

Although I think they are intended to read one against another, I also think they all stand on their own.

This comes up in the Phaedo in the discussion about 'snow' as being 'a kind' on the one hand, and 'an instance' on the other. — Wayfarer

I discuss this. It is important because the same thing occurs with Soul/soul. At the approach of Heat Snow retreats but the stuff melts. Analogously, at the approach of Death Soul retreats but the soul of the man is destroyed.

So it's a question about the relationship between universals and particulars — Wayfarer

Right. Socrates' soul is of the Kind Soul, but his soul is not the Kind or Form Soul

The relationship between "universals and particulars" is mixed up — Valentinus

I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.” (100c-e)

I think the reference to 'our people at home' is clearly a reference to non-philosophers — Wayfarer

In the beginning of the paragraph he says "the multitude" and then toward the end "our people at home". I don't know if he is making a distinction between them. It may be some reference to something related to Thebes.

'know very well' that philosophers 'deserve death' — Wayfarer

Two ways in which he may have meant this, and possibly both -

The ascetic life, a life without pleasure, is not worth living
There was a distrust of philosophers

I do not know if Socrates says in any of the other dialogues that the philosopher desires death. I think it may have something to do with the theme of both fear of death and their despair over Socrates death. He tells that this is what philosophers want all along.


.