I would assume Socrates trusted himself more on account of not being able to know the mind of another, so I suppose there's not much choice from the individual's perspective. That being said, this doesn't account for whether or not you are aware or in denial of any make-up/smudges under the mask. It's easy to rationalize one's own behavior, not so much another's. Basically it seems as though trusting one's own perception of the self wins by disqualification... A cheap win no doubt, but a win none the less.

I'd say that in soceital terms though, if we consider the court systems, your opinion of yourself or your intent means squat--you will be rewarded and punished by the outcome of your actions-- not the intent-- and this extends to every aspect of life (you don't get the apple for intending to pick it, you get the apple when you actually pick it.) Does this mean that the real "you" is best recognized by it's effect on the world as opposed to any intent behind the actions? Is the will a bad marker of the self?


I'm a bit simple so forgive me if I am understanding you wrong, but are you saying Plato was trying to put forth a system of belief for why he (or people like him) could be in charge of the city by claiming to have knowledge he clearly cannot have had? Politics man.....

As for the form of a chair-- you could call it the form of a seat if you prefer, but if there is no need for a form of a chair-- as in some basic idea/concept that is irreplaceable (a seat) to that entity (entity being a thing that exists), then I see no need for forms in general--neither triangle, chair, self, nor soul. If the idea does not apply to everything material, it does not apply period as far as I am concerned. Either there are immaterial forms of material things, or there are not--a mixture of material things with and without forms is incoherent as far as I can reason.

As far as a self vs the self, in the context I use it it is the difference between his/her self and your self--which is fairly irrelevent to this conversation. As far as the self needing a form--that depends on whether you consider the self material or immaterial. If it is immaterial then it is a form the person is experiencing a representation of-- if it is material then it (to avoid incoherance) must have an immaterial form that the person is experiencing a representation of. At least that is my logic.

I am not trying to argue against Plato's forms is why I don't see the relevance of Parmenides. I am trying to further my understanding first. It is easy enough to deny Plato's forms (especially without a full understanding) if that is one's goal, but that is not my goal.

I agree with everything you said as far as I understand it, and basically I was saying that it's the state's job to see to it that justice is actually delivered justly.

I haven't seen it, but remember it being very popular when I was a child. I have seen other media though.

I would say that belief in a totally free will adds to retributive inclination. Like this jerk chose to screw me over so I'm gonna teach them a lesson (to not do that again). I only question whether or not one actually "chose" to teach them a lesson or if it is just what they were "taught" to do, and whether their "choice" to screw you over was or wasn't the best choice they were aware of at the time. Maybe after the proper trigger event you will no longer have such retributive inclinations?

Or in less deterministic lingo, it is likely your leading soceital influence--it's everywhere. Even gangster's in the movies demand their own version of Justice (snitches get stitches). That doesn't mean it is the only way to live (turn the other cheek).

As far as state sanctioned retribution-- now doubt it takes abuse from politics, but it is meant to prevent the gross misadministration of Justice. As in one of my eyes for both of yours and a left nut. That is the idea of mandatory sentencing. Misadministration of this state sanctioned justice is why those of us who can (might) vote or take up causes.

That would be a question I don't have a satisfactory answer to in fancy philosophical terms, but my observation/experience tells me that it's really a combination of the two. Neither gets the whole picture, but neither is wholey blind. That being said I wasn't trying to answer through my own logic perse but through my rudimentary knowledge of Plato's sort of two world view.



I can see that I am still holding a bit of my own philosophy in my considerations, only sort of giving up what I need to for a rudimentary understanding-- but good, justice, and beauty do not register high in my ontology as they seem to be very subjective things, and more of ideals than things I could consider as having forms. That is why I try to relate forms to material/more tangible things that we encounter in every day life like chairs and self rather than ideals that fuel peoples' political agendas and such. I would have to say that if a triangle has a form, a chair has to though, and if a self exists it must to have a form (imo).

I do see in the Phaedrus (at least the abridged version, that the soul is basically considered a self mover, and are considered immortal--so that would basically leave the question of whether your soul and your mind are the same thing...which if they aren't (at least on a perceptual) soul really doesn't seem to hold much relation to "you" so to speak and that immortality is meaningless without the form of your (functioning) mind.This certainly changes and helps my understanding of the Plato, but I liked my old version more :eyes: now there's hooey I would have to accept (afterlife) where as my prior understanding felt much more grounded in what we can know.

I don't see the relevance of Parmenides, especially as the basis of the discussion requires the acceptance of Plato's forms. My goal is to understand Plato and explore the implications of his philosophy (which is really the same thing).

Right, that's sort of what I was getting at, and my understanding of the work. Do you have any thoughts on my other ideas; that the ideas others hold of you are possibly more accurate than your own (you are what you convey), or that we as material bodies are becoming immaterial minds?

I have not read the republic, but I am familiar with his cave analogy, though with my admittedly limited perspective on it was that it showed the difference between truth and reality, reality being what you experience/believe, truth being how reality "really is." Otherwise though, for the sake of continuing dialogue, I invite you (and others) to fill in for Plato with your own interpretations, insites, and ponderings:smile:

I knew a good/bad example was not what I was going for but I did it any way :chin:. Scale it back from Hitler to daily life, and I was sort of trying to relate this issue of personal perspective to things such as knowing whether you are being reasonable in your interpersonal relationships and such--which I know has some basis in (personal) morality, but that is not what I am getting at.

I am getting at the idea that an idea of you is more real than the material you that is talking to me right now, do you follow me? The material you is a smartphone to me. All I know of you is your post. Going back to Plato's cave, perhaps you are a human that could track me down and show me you are not a bot, and my reality of you would change, and I would not "hold the idea" that you were just my phone any longer, until then-- and perhaps after if I chose to be an ass about it :wink: --how can I or you know which is the truth? How do you know you are not just an app in my smartphone or vice versa? In essence I understand Plato's argument to say that it is irrelevant-- you are what you convey.

If you convey intelligence, that's (part of) what you are, so on and so on...but neither you personally nor anybody else can "know" the true form of you. You cannot because you are self biased, and others cannot because (besides that they are self biased) one can only know beyond doubt the presence/contents of their own mind. In essence, your true form (and that of reality) is immaterial--not experienced.

The ideas of you though, unlike your body, those last forever....That you were intelligent, powerful, douchey, creative or good willed. That you wanted to save all the whales or hunt all the gorillas, or were a painter. Those ideas do not change--you can pick them up or drop them while you are alive and change who you (or others) "are" so to speak, but once you die you have in essence "become" a "being". The ideas held of you will be all that remains for the rest of the world to know (if they ever do), and only the ideas of you and the ideals you carried in life will remain--though they will remain forever, and you will not. Thus by way of the idea that what is real never changes (ahem, dies): the ideas about you are more real than the "you" you experience.

Enter where I believe the argument is saying that we are experiencing the formation of our own minds. In this material reality we are essentially becoming ourselves--beings--and once we become so we will be perfectly "our selves," whom we will be forever. In essence you are your legacy/the mark you leave on the world. I know I haven't read his actual works, but surely this word game (becoming/being) is not possible by coincidence, am I on to anything here?

I suppose when it comes down to it that there are conflicting ideas about a person is irrelevant if the bottom line is that you are the legacy you leave on the world, and that no mark will be universally favorable--until say someone claims Picaso isn't a painter--then with morality/right and wrong out of the picture we see where I mean to show that the idea gets too murky for me to make sense of.

Or is Plato perhaps just saying that truth is immaterial, even though reality is material?



That makes sense, but I feel like the quest for improvement is just as well fueled by experiencing both inferior and superior quality to ones standard experience, or just general discomfort.

I feel that way about all interesting philosophy though (particularly metaphysics), seemingly straight forward, perhaps even easy to dismiss at first--but ultimately surprising in it's brilliance. I struggle to be positive of the difference between metaphorical and literal arguments at times (particularly with immaterialist views) and have to read things several times over to come up with enough understanding to discuss it properly. Some topics are just so far out.... Like reality for example.



I'm not sure I follow what your saying other than I need to read more.

Why did Socrates scare people? Could you clarify what Timaeus and Philebus reference? I am what you might call a low brow philosopher... Or rather my education is not my strong suit :cry:

I haven't figured out how to quote yet, and there were many replies.

First, I recognize I was using the word validity wrong, my mistake. I was using validity as a reference to the truth of the basis of one's logic-- not whether the conclusion matched the stated axioms. I'm a rookie.

However, if validity does not equate to truth, what good is it to say a conclusion is logical? That may well be true, but if the conclusion (or axioms) are false then what good is the logic? As the classic example: all cows are purple, Socrates was a cow, therefore Socrates was purple is valid logic, but untrue and irrelevent to reality. This is why I had a bit of terminology mix-up.

Color was a bad example (which was why it was coupled with the firmness of the rock and not a stand alone example).

Suppose maybe we disagreed about whether a rock would break a certain window. What amount of logic will conclude this disagreement? We can discuss our logic til the cows come home--but only throwing a rock against that window will settle the debate because my experience of windows may be different than yours after only experiencing bulletproof glass or what have you while you are referencing regular glass windows.

Tim wood, I follow you right up to the invention of logic. Without your empirical observations you never had a need or how to invent it, so you haven't disconnected them.

I'm not in doubt of the quality of good logic, I'm in doubt of how a person knows they have good logic. I simply posit that it must be put to the test or it is just a theory.

Touche on logic to interpret (and project) your experience--It just seems that something's amiss when you use logic to interpret your experience when it is experience that both grants you the ability to logic and is the basis you use as proof of your logic's truth.

Surely you see the danger of both interpreting now and projecting in the future with the same tool--if not I will inform you--that your present (possibly incorrect) perception is now your basis for claims of both reality now and reality tomorrow, and your incorrect notions today will affect what patterns you both look for and perceive tomorrow, resulting in possible affirmation of fouled logic. This is why one (or all) must prove their perceptions are true to know that their logic represents truth.

While empiricism may be a method of forming logical conclusions it must be distinguished from simple logical arguments (such as the purple cow Socrates) which have no bearing on reality. Thus we have empiricism not being the same as just logic. One can make all sorts of clever arguments with logic alone, empiricism can (at least attempt to) weed out both untrue axioms and conclusions (neither cows nor Socrates are purple--though there may have been a cow named Socrates).

Validity is one thing, but philosophy is the love of wisdom, not the love of validity. Wisdom in my opinion equates to truth of claims, not validity of logic (which seems to only equate to a clever argument). Don't get me wrong, I do like a clever argument, and it does take wisdom to create one--but I prefer that the conclusions are true in regard to things I am going to form beliefs around.

Whose logic? Suppose my logic tells me differently than yours, thus leaving us in a situation where we both claim logic but do not agree? If logic establishes validity shouldn't our logic align as say our senses of sight and touch often do when we agree on the color and firmness of a rock? It seems that disagreements on objective reality presupposes invalid logic on one end or the other unless truth and validity are meaningless.

The sheer fact of having to show your logic to prove it brings it into the realm of empiricism--in that you are making your logic experienceable to another being using written or spoken media--in my opinion. Unobservable logic from you is nothing more than thought to me, so how can you prove your logic as valid without providing the experience of proof of it's validity?

What separates logic from opinion? (Hint validity)

In a nutshell I am saying that sorting out what is valid from what is invalid is what PROOF does, and something being logical to either you or me does not constitute proof that our logic is based on valid premises, or we would never have different conclusions on a matter such as whether logic can deduce the facts of reality from that which is untrue.

I suppose where ever it is not supported by empiricism, as ultimately even mathematics is merely theory/philosophy in the language of math until it can be proven as applicable to reality. We know 1+1=2 because of all the situations we have observed where this is true; not because we figured it out logically. True we may have come to the conclusion using logic-- but logic that is based on empiricism and must be shown to be empirically true before it can be considered as logically sound AND true in practice.

Ultimately logic in itself does not prove truth, valid logic does. This is why in math class we are expected to show our work--to prove our conclusions are not only correct but were reached following valid logic and not merely by luck. Logic is only universal if it can be empirically shown.

Thinking about it, I think the absolute part of relativism is sort of implied; as relative relativism is rather redundant and nonsensical, bordering on a double negative, (I relatively believe in relativism vs I absolutely believe in it). I don't (as I understand it) believe relativism implies there are no absolute truths unless we are talking about ethics (in which case morality is said to be situational). An existence with NO truth makes NO sense... Which I suppose is only a problem if you think some things should make sense.

Am I mistaken in this understanding?

I hear you lol. Logic is a dangerous and inaccurate gun, but I certainly didn't mean to imply that it ALWAYS misses it's mark. Lucky shots (probably) happen.

I would say I only mostly trust logic, but it certainly is limitted by the accuracy of one's knowledge. Something may check out logically with the knowledge one has and still be totally inaccurate in reality.

If logic were a pancea for human knowledge it seems like we would have more convincing answers for people's questions instead of many arguments that are not very convincing. At least it seems to point towards logic not being an innate talent... but I'm sure that doesn't shock anyone.

In regards to trusting logic (outside of mathematics), I find it doubtful that logic is completely trustworthy as it is ultimately an extension (or rather interpretation) of the senses which are traditionally considered fallible. So logic is no more trustworthy than the senses it is reliant upon to exist. Not to say that I think it is impossible to learn the truth so much as impossible to know it has been learned.

In regard to the second question, I see no problem with the logic of absolute relativity. Perhaps there are absolute truths, it is even likely... But how can knowledge of them be claimed by fallible logic?