When your hot do you dispute that? — Zenny

Good example! My wife says she is hot or cold and wants to turn the temperature up and down. The thermostat, however, is set at a specific temperature. 70 degrees F is the temperature whether she feels hot or cold.

Maybe you are too young or too sheltered to have ever found that your intuitive certainty about something turned out to be wrong, but it happens all the time.

Is it your intuitive certainty that led you to conclude that I am a worshiper of dialectics? If you had actually read the essay on Plato's Phaedo that you said you did you would know that this is false.

if I'm eternal — Zenny

Well I'm not dealing in "ifs" here. — Zenny

Having a feeling of eternity does not mean you are eternal. You want to believe otherwise.

But you want more than just the comfort of your beliefs. You asked me why I am unsure of eternity, and then, on the basis of your feeling, tried to persuade me of eternity.

You conflate a feeling of eternity with life after death. For all you know, that feeling will die along with you.

Nope,of course not. — Zenny

What are you denying? I am not questioning whether you have this feeling, I am questioning whether it goes beyond that, that there is an eternity that is more than just your feeling. If I have a feeling I am going to win the lottery, I cannot be mistaken that I have this feeling, but that does not mean I will win the lottery.

Again, your feeling has nothing to do with what might happen when you die. You seem to have lost track of your own argument.

I've already stated some can be mistaken — Zenny

Do you include the feeling or experience or intuition of eternity in things about which one might be mistaken?

he seemed to be trying to hand the authority of reason to the church. — frank

I posted something right before yours that addresses this. He is trying to appease the Church. The authority is the self that thinks.

He was obviously addressing his philosophical ideas to them. — frank

Right. They had the authority to ban his writings and lock him up.

Because one you don't feel that yourself,so its disingenuous to tell me. — Zenny

I said: "if you feel". That has nothing to do with what I do or do not feel. Some people do have a feeling of being able to fly. When acted on it can be fatal. Having a feeling does not mean that feeling is anything more than a feeling, whether it is the feeling you can fly or competently do philosophy or whatever.

because you're wrong, and offer no evidence, or even argument that you're right — counterpunch

No argument needed. If he begins by doubting everything that includes doubting the Church. Of course he makes it appear otherwise.

From the Second Meditation:

Archimedes, in order that he might draw the terrestrial globe out of its place, and transport it elsewhere, demanded only that one point should be fixed and immoveable; in the same way I shall have the right to conceive high hopes if I am happy enough to discover one thing only which is certain
and indubitable.

But how can I know there is not something different from those things that I have just considered, of which one cannot have the slightest doubt? Is there not some God, or some other being by name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?

I myself, am I not at least something?

But what then am I? A thing which thinks.

This is his Archimedean point. The one thing that is fixed and immovable, the one thing certain and indubitable, he exists and is a thinking thing. It is not the Church or God but the thinking self that is the starting point from which all that is certain and indubitable follows.

OK. Follow this closely, if you feel eternity then you feel you are forever. You feel you are not your material body. Thus death is not the materialist "nothingness". — Zenny

Follow this closely, if you feel you can jump out the window and fly then you feel you can, but you can't. Try it.

If Descartes doubted the authority of the Church, he was very quiet about it, and no-one heard him. — counterpunch

You misunderstood my point.The Church was the final authority on all matters philosophical and scientific. To challenge this authority was to risk the fate of Galileo. Descartes begins by doubting everything, which means doubting the teachings of the Church. He replaces the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking self and reason

Read my post. You can experience a feeling of eternity. — Zenny

Your feeling has nothing to do with what might happen when you die. You seem to have lost track of your own argument.

Descartes however, wet his pants - and concocted a skeptical argument for subjectivism to flatter the Church's emphasis of the spiritual over the mundane — counterpunch

Descartes' doubt gave him the cover to doubt the authority of the Church.

@fishfry

I am not going to continue playing a part in another of your political rants, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to facts.

Perhaps you will have the decency to allow this thread to get back on topic.

I am criticizing those who in the past year constantly called policy by the name of science. — fishfry

For the majority of the past year your man Trump was in office. You know, the guy who tried to get the National Weather Service to back up his claims about the path of a hurricane to make him look less stupid than he is.

A test run of man-made bioweapon — fishfry

What evidence do you have of that? Again, you hear part of something and make up your own story or blindly believe conspiracy theories as if the are "alternative facts". Even if it came from a lab that does mean it was deliberately released as a test run of a bio-weapon.

I did not say she got what she deserved. I questioned your comparison to what happened to a man who was killed by having his neck kneeled on for over nine minutes.

Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire article. — fishfry

Then why make claims about what you didn't read?

Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility. — fishfry

And why do you think that is?

Science works by saying, "Let's keep an open mind and look at the facts." Not, "Let's decide on one conclusion in spite of available facts, and deplatform and smear anyone who dares to differ." That's anti-science, and that is what happened over the past year. — fishfry

In addition to not bothering to read the article you linked to it seems you have not bothered to find out the facts either.

Fauci is a political hack who changed his mind and flipflopped with the wind. Fauci is anti-science. — fishfry

It was the political hack who was elected President who suppressed the facts and forced Fauci to play by his rules. He is not anti-science and has the credentials to prove it.

A year ago, when people suggested a lab origin, they were deplatformed, fired from their scientific jobs, and labeled conspiracy theorists. That's politics, not science. — fishfry

What evidence did they have? What did Tom Cotton know? You admit that the origin is unknown. What someone "suggests" in this situation is irresponsible without solid evidence. That evidence is, by your own admission, not available.

You'd have made a good German. And if she deserved everything she got. didn't George Floyd? — fishfry

And you'd have make a piss-poor philosopher. Was she tased to death?

Who said eternity doesn't involve time? It means continuous unending time.
And why can't that be experienced? — Zenny

You cannot experience a minute in less that a minute, or an hour in less than an hour, or 100 years in less than a hundred years. For the same reason you cannot experience eternity in less time.

This piece lacks credibility:

Now that it’s largely accepted that the disease escaped a Chinese laboratory, have any of those above issued a correction or so much as an update?

First of all, it may be widely accepted by readers of the Federalist, but it is not widely accepted by those who have the expertise and information to have an informed opinion. Second, there is at this point no reason to issue a correction, there is not conclusive evidence that it did come from a lab. Third, Fauci did issue an update. He said he is no longer convinced that it could not have come from a lab and thinks that more investigation is needed.

I found nothing in the article about "systematic suppression" of the origins of the virus.

Both you and whoever wrote this piece seem to not understand how science works. Did Tom Cotton have sufficient evidence to declare in February 2020 that the virus came from a lab? Without such evidence his claim was irresponsible. Fauci's response is both reasonable and responsible. Follow the evidence.

This is what Politifact has posted on its website:

Editor’s note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes.

The story has not been "retracted". That makes it seem as if Politifact now says that it did originate in lab. It too is waiting on the evidence.

I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question. — fishfry

That seems to be exactly what you are doing.

You suggest he experienced eternity or hunkered for it? — Zenny

I suggest you read the posts. You have time. It's long but won't take an eternity.

I followed that thread before i joined.
Plato does seem mighty keen on "proving" eternity? — Zenny

If you followed the thread with sufficient attention you would not have asked the question.

I just completed a long essay in several parts on Plato's Phaedo. Read it and get back to me if you want to discuss Plato.

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

What if it is? And what if it's not?

I have had no such intuition or feeling or experience.

Not every intuition or feeling or experience I have had turned out to be reliable.

But what is the reason you are unsure about eternity? — Zenny

It hasn't happened in my lifetime. Seriously, I have nothing by which I can determine whether there is such thing and its consequences for me.

Some of us try to live in such a way that if there is something after death we will be judged well and will avoid punishment.

The problem isn't that the lanes aren't clearly marked. The problem is that people won't stay in their lanes. — Hanover

A significant part of the population and their influential leaders do not mark the lanes in the same way you do. Who has the right of way at the intersection of science, religion, and politics?

According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation on which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.
— Wikipedia, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’

So, what's the status of nihilism vis-à-vis humans? Is its "departure" imminent or has it already taken place? If it's still with us, how is humanity coping with it? What's the most promising philosophical idea in re a solution to nihilism? — TheMadFool

There are three parts to this, as described in The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit is Zarathustra. When what was once a cultures source of strength becomes its weakness then it must reject those values. But if this is not in turn overcome, if negation of the old is not replaced with new affirmative values which will be a new source of strength, then there no new "yes" only "no, that is, nihilism.

This cycle repeats whenever existing values are no longer life affirming.

The two have competing epistemologies ... The ought questions rely upon introspection and wisdom, relying upon ancient texts and time honored traditions. — Hanover

I agree in part, but while ancient texts may help with regard to thoughtfulness, technological problems require technological solutions. We cannot say what we ought to do if we do not have a proper understanding of the science involved.

The point being, there ought be no conflict if each stays within its lane and we can therefore ask ourselves whether a particular scientific discovery ought enter our lives or not without coming off as anti-scientific. — Hanover

The lanes are not clearly marked. Religious groups have restricted the use of contraceptives to control population growth and the spread of disease. There has been opposition to medical research and technologies that make use embryonic stem cells.

I can't help thinking about the issue of 'suicide' which we quickly passed over — Amity

The issue arises because of Socrates' choice to stay in Athens and drink the poison rather than flee. To some this seems like suicide, but it is questionable whether not doing everything you can to save your life amounts to suicide. In the Crito Socrates gives his reasons for his decision to stay.

At the end he does not simply calmly drink the poison, he:

downed it with great readiness and relish.

I don't think this is an indication of suicide but rather his eagerness to find out what happens next, if anything. And, of course, if death is nothingness then he won't find out.


There is also another issue: if being dead is so much better than the prison of life why not escape. Socrates appeals to the gods and our being their servants, but I do not know if there is a better argument to be found in the dialogue.

I will still keep on...and hope this thread does too... — Amity

I am thinking of following up with something more diagrammatic, an overview.

Accordingly, beliefs are ethically worrisome and even, in the words of Plato’s Socrates, “shameful.”

I don't know the context but this seems to be overstating the problem. Belief should be critically examined but where it cannot be replaced by knowledge it is all we have to work with. In the quest for knowledge saying that it is shameful might be a rallying cry but Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all begin with the examination of opinion and end it aporia; thereby providing knowledge that we do not know.

You are right about their zetetic skepticism being something different from modern skepticism. Modern skepticism, as I understand it, occurs as the result of representational theories of perception. What we see are representations in the mind. We cannot step outside these representations to determine whether things are as we represent them. It also differs from Pyrrhonian skepticism. The goal of zetetic skeptic is not the suspension of judgment. It is an inquiry into what seems best or most likely to be true, while fully aware that what seems to be may not be what is.

I learned a lot. — Valentinus

I am glad to hear that.

It’s a mythical journey that Abraham takes here. — Possibility

I don't buy it. But I am not going to argue the point.

a heuristic device, — Possibility

But the story is such that what one takes from it the that one should blindly and unquestionably obey what God commands.

It is reason that Abraham brings to the relationship. — Possibility

If he brought reason to the relationship he would have baulked and challenged God. He actually did this later when God was ready to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.

Says who? — Possibility

I provided the reference. Proverbs says "wisdom is fear of the Lord".

‘God will provide the offering’. — Possibility

He says this to Isaac who is about to be slaughtered. The angel stopped him from doing what he was about to do and would have done if not stopped.

A problem occurs when one's faith in reason is given the absolute authority of God. As if any conclusions that they have arrived at rigorously are true. I am not accusing you of this, but speaking generally. Those doing philosophy often fall into the trap of assuming truth based on reason alone.even if they do not involve the authority of God. They mistake argument for evidence.

You are right, The Theaetetus, as well as many of the other dialogues, ends in aporia. What is less well known or agreed upon is that there are also aporia in Aristotle. Some recent work addresses this.

In my opinion, and I am not alone, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all zetetic skeptics - driven by the knowledge that they did not know to inquire.

Another thing worth pointing out in the Theaetetus is that there is no mention of recollection. It would be here, in a dialogue devoted to knowledge, that one would expect to find it if it was something he accepted.

I trust the thread was worth your while ... — Banno

It was an enjoyable challenge trying to make sense of the dialogue and putting all the pieces together. No doubt, there are pieces I left out. Perhaps only those who have a fondness for Plato would find my commentary of interest, but in my opinions the details matter. I know that there are some here who admire Plato who did not appreciate what I had to say because it runs counter to their own assumptions. But running counter to assumptions is fundamental to Socrates and Plato.

I do not know if anyone read it but chose to remain silent. I hope so.

An indication of my level of interest. — Banno

Yeah, I was going to comment that you were probably not a fan.

My view: it is part of our intellectual, spiritual, and cultural history.

If one reads Descartes' Meditations in light of the Genesis story of knowledge and the tower of Babel, what Descartes was up to takes on a whole new meaning. A topic for another thread.

I think it's traditionally taken by Jews and Christians as an allegory. — frank

Right, but the question is what does the allegory mean?

Things changed. Jesus was the sacrifice. — frank

From the story of Abraham: "your son, your only son".

You're getting your stories mixed-up but I agree.

So back in the day, if you went to war with your neighbor, you were pitting yourself against their gods. — frank

Good point. Having a god who is to be feared can work in your favor, but you really have to be careful, his anger can turn against you.

So maybe the story of Abraham and Isaac is not about faith at all, but about fear.

Christians generally prefer a god of love, but given what happened to Jesus in the hands of the Romans, he does not look like a good choice to lead you into battle either.

According to Socrates, the greatest evil that can befall someone is misologic. The cause is having unreasonable expectations of what reasoned argument can accomplish and the lack of personal soundness to judge the soundness of arguments.

It is entirely devoid of any rational conception of a God. — Janus

That is correct, his is not a God of reason, but of will. He is in this way similar to Job's God and the God of Ecclesiastes. A God whose will cannot be understood by humans.

How is faith is a rational conception of God different from faith in rational conception, that is, faith in reason?

@Banno

I just posted the last section of my commentary on the Phaedo. Socrates was unable to demonstrate through argument the existence of the soul separate from the body or its continued existence in death.

The counterpart to argument is myth. Throughout the dialogue Socrates has referred to myth as a means of self-persuasion. He did not end with an argument but with a myth he made up. After telling the myth he immediately says:

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

Here again, as he said near the beginning, one should “sing incantations to himself, over and over again” in order to persuade himself. (114d)

As to recollection, he says:

"Well now, you know what happens to lovers, whenever they see a lyre or cloak or anything else their loves are accustomed to use: they recognize the lyre, and they get in their mind, don't they, the form of the boy whose lyre it is? And that is recollection. Likewise, someone seeing Simmias is often reminded of Cebes, and there'd surely be countless other such cases.'" (73b-d)

One does not need to have previously died to be reminded of lyres or lovers or friends.

Socrates uses the terms recollection, remember, and remind without distinction. Amusingly enough, his friend cannot remember the argument for recollection and asks to be reminded.

Socrates sees the myths as beneficial, at least for some, even if they are not true. It may seem odd that he does not put the truth above all else, but in the absence of truth the philosopher must be guided by what seems best.

Maybe we just haven't found the original Abraham and Isaac story in the archeological record yet. — frank

That may be. But this is the story that has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.