My impression is that what he and Plato really attempted to do was to bring some order to the confused society and culture they lived in, and this implied some religious and political reforms. — Apollodorus

But what exactly were their roles in society then? What political power did they actually have?

Italy was well known for its universal healthcare system, yet the pandemic proved its flimsiness, with its hospitals unable to provide the basics. — NOS4A2

Yes. In some of those countries, doctors and esp. medical nurses have been complaining for years that they are severely understaffed (and underpayed). Even in peace time, the medical system wasn't able to take care of all the people who need medical care in a timely manner. Waiting times are measured in 6-months periods, or even years. For example, you could be having a severe headache for weeks, and have to wait for 6 months to get an MRI (and that would be fast).

So it's no surprise that people in those countries don't have much faith in the medical system.

The one vaccinated gets the one bed left, in priority over the other who deliberately chose not to be vaccinated (and may have to be isolated in a hallway, sent home, or whatever). — jorndoe

And no consideration is given as to why a person didn't get vaccinated.

It's quite strange that there are no contraindications for covid vaccines. For most medications and medical treatments, there are contraindications, even for non-prescription ones, but somehow, covid vaccines are a stellar exemption, popularily deemed safer even than Aspirin.

People with already compromised immune systems due to a genetic disease or cancer are put in the same category as perfectly healthy people. People with already compromised immune systems due to a genetic disease or cancer who are otherwise advised against many medications and medical treatments, on account that they would be too dangerous for their already compromised immune system, nevertheless are expected to get vaccinated.

Medically, this is a dangerous practice, although ideologically, it certainly makes perfect sense.

The question of the good is best addressed, to the extent it is possible, by becoming good, that is, by the development of a soul that is just and beautiful (well proportioned). But, of course, we do not have the standard by which to measure the extent to which we are good. The desire to know the good in order to be good and live a good life, seems to be the best guide available to us. — Fooloso4

But when you put it this way, it's so vague that it includes Hitler and Mother Theresa, anyone and anything.

So religion has to explain what this God is and how it can create something by sheer power — Gregory

In religion, God is defined as that one being who does things by sheer power.

Well, if you work on the premise that what is good for some is bad for others, then either (a) nothing is truly good or (b) you just have to decide which option is the best in any given situation and act according to that and to your best abilities.

What other option would you suggest? — Apollodorus

There is at least one further option, namely, that God is a tribalist, has a chosen tribe, and the objectively good is what is good for that tribe. This is what Jehovah is like, for example. And so that if one has had the misfortune of not being born into that tribe, then one is just doomed to bad things. If such is the case, then your option b above cannot apply.

Other than that, the issue at hand is the resolution of a person's fundamental moral (and other) doubts, which is a complex topic.

There is no need to take Plato as our spiritual master. He is only a guide that suggests one path out of many. If people know a better path, they are free to take it.

But the true master is the nous, our own intelligence. Our task is to learn to listen what it has to communicate to us. This is the meaning of self-examination.

This reminds me of a phenomenon we can readily observe among Western Buddhists. Namely, there are Western Buddhists who believe that the Buddha said this

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

and that if they act accordingly, they are acting in line with the Buddha's instructions and are on the path to enlightenment.
If, however, one were to inquire about the matter from actual Buddhists, esp. the Asian ones, and from the Early Buddhist texts, they would make it clear that the Buddha never said such a thing, nor that acting in line with that slogan makes for Buddhist practice.

Similarly, I suspect that simply acting in line with one's intelligence is not what Plato would applaud.
For one, it's inevitable that everyone acts in line with one's intelligence, so the idea is a non-starter to begin with.
For two, it's too general. I don't know the details, but I think it's is likely that just like the Buddha mentioned above, Plato, too, actually had very specific activities in mind and had a very specific moral system, and that only acting in line with that particular moral system would count as living an examined life, but not with others.

It seems the OP is trying to make it about the God of philosophers. But then it's not clear on the grounds of what a religious idea should be given relevance.

That's backwards, you're talking about the God of philosophers, not about God as he is conceived of in actual monotheistic religions.

(I haven't read the whole thread, so ...)

whenever we find information, we find it inscribed or encoded somehow in a physical medium of whatever kind.

This is taken from this page which aggregates various articles about Landauer.

Landauer was the head of IBM Research Labs — Wayfarer

I think this pretty much says it all. From what I've seen, computer scientists tend to view information as physical. What they do is called information technology.

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? — Constance

God's word has the power of creation.

Your request is as absurd as your accusations. My only hope for you is that you remain blissfully ignorant of what you miss out on in life and the damage you do with your combative and authoritarian attitude, and that you will only become aware of that late in life, when it will be too late to do anything about it.
You had your chance and you wasted it.

Frankly James Riley is correct.

Talking about other man morals while not knowing him or understanding his creations, not wanting to become better just to feel better and above everyone else. — theone

He started this. He started this with misrepresenting me viciously and refusing to desist. He has always treated me like I am his underling and that I am committing a grave offense for not submitting to him. He wants me to acknowledge him, while he refuses to acknowledge me. He wants to set the terms. He wants to rule over me.

Meanwhile, your molars rot.

I would place the burden of proof upon you but even I am not that mean. That would call upon you to go back and find the impetus for my contempt of you. You could not be expected to find where you refused to deny that you were a fascist or a racist, for that would be you proving yourself wrong and you can't be expected to do that. After all, you are Baker. — James Riley

Guilty until proven innocent? It's not you who needs to prove your accusation, it's I who needs to defend myself against it and convince you otherwise?
See, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes you a Trumpista. De Torquemada would be happy to have you on his team.

I don't exist. I am whatever you say that I am. I think whatever you say that I think. My intentions are whatever you say that my intentions are. I am a figment of your imagination. I don't exist.

Therefore, if he was an atheist, he must have been a secret one. But I have seen no evidence to suggest this. — Apollodorus

For example, by some Muslim standards, Christians are atheists. But does that make them atheists?

To go further East, there are many deities in Buddhism, for example, but a person not worshipping them is not deemed an atheist by those Buddhists.


It seems that the source of the problem goes back to the secular definition of theism and atheism that are to the effect of:

Theism: belief in a god or gods
Atheism: lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods

Probably no actual theist ever defined theism as "belief in a god or gods", nor atheism as "lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods".

In any case, he seems to be holding some interesting and intriguing views, especially in the eyes of moderns who are unfamiliar with the religious beliefs and customs of Ancient Greece. — Apollodorus

Of course.

A particular type of atheism is usually shaped in reference to the theism it opposes, and so just like there are many theisms, so there are many atheisms. This is how an atheist with a Hindu background differs from an atheist with a Roman Catholic background; their respective atheisms are focused on different things. Then there is also the type of atheism that is not an opposition to a particular theism, but the result of a genuine ignorance of a theism. Futher, there is the type of atheism that is the result of the person becoming exhausted by the topic of theism.

Even if Socrates was an atheist by his contemporary standards, he can't be recognized as an atheist by modern standards.

Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist?
— Valentinus

I don't know of any such thinkers. — Apollodorus

Actually, I think this is (or was) a popoular idea that one readily picks up in secular academia. I can't think of any names, but thinking back of philosophy classes at school, we'd talk about most of the old philosophers as if they would be secularists, non-theists, as if they would be "the good guys". At the time, it was a theme to recontextualize the religious/theistic claims of philosophers and to dismiss them, gloss over them. It's how secular academia made Descartes into "one of us".

Don't think that your misrepresenation and your contempt go unnoticed.
People like you make the world not worth saving.

So one can consistently hold that God is omnibenevolent and judge him. — khaled

I guess insane people can be consistent like that ...

All most people got as proof of vaccination is a flimsy paper card that is easily lost or destroyed. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the EU, a covid passport is a paper or digital document with one's covid status (recovered, vaccinated, or tested) linked to an online database that can be accessed online by those who have to check if a person has a valid covid passport. Data is fed into this database by medical personnel at vaccination and testing facilities.

So even if you lose the paper document or your smart phone, you can always get a new copy of the passport.

In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him . — Ross

Buddhism is far too versatile to make generalized claims of this sort.

For example, the Pure Land Buddhists, a major school of Buddhism, believe in salvation by a higher being.

I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, — Ross

What is that, if not salvation?


Also, the majority of practicing Buddhists (ie. those in Asian countries) probably don't focus much on nirvana, but just on getting a good rebirth.

- - -

I don't think Buddhism has one official book like the Christian Bible. It is not an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but is like philosophy where anyone can make an argument for this or that, and if is liked, it gets passed on. Buddhism is not "God's truth" or "God's commandments". — Athena

Don't get confused by the apparent versatility and multitude in Buddhism. At the ground level, when it comes to actually interacting with actual Buddhists, it's a clearly definable religion, with clearly specified scriptures, clerical hierarchy, religious practices, etc., and sharp lines between the various Buddhist schools, and the subschools and lineages within them.

The idea of an anything-goes kind of Buddhism is a Western bastardization that has no basis in the actual Buddhist traditions.

You may have a point there but do consider "gutters" and prisons" metaphorically. — TheMadFool

No, literally. If poverty would in and of itself be a virtue, then gutters and prisons should be full of good, morally upright, even enlightened people.

In a religious context, poverty is a virtue only to some extent for the clergy, but not for laypeople.

However I would argue that there are many Christians who do not have a focus on salvation. This tends to be most acute in some forms of Protestantism. — Tom Storm

That's because they take for granted that they will be saved.

It's only the few scrupolous Roman Catholics who live in fear of messing up their one and only chance who care about salvation.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. — Ross

What use is a philosophy when living by it makes you a loser?!

There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good.
— baker

Correct. But this is what examination of one's thoughts, words, and actions is for. — Apollodorus

To what use, to what end?
Unless one is omniscient, or gifted with enormous self-confidence, then how can one possibly know what is truly, objectively good?

Perhaps we can't be sure that he wouldn't. But we can't be sure that he would either. Personally, I doubt that Plato would have supported Hitler or Stalin. None of them sounds like the ideal philosopher-king to me. Besides, this is all speculation.

We don't know, exactly, and there is just too much at stake to open ourselves up to a philosopher from a past time and take him as our spiritual master.

Selective infanticide was practiced in Ancient Greece? So, female infanticide is not practiced in Modern India? And abortion is not being practiced all over the world?

We aren't talking about taking Hindus or some other people as our spiritual masters.

Well stated for once — DingoJones

*sigh*

You're lucky. At pretty much any other forum you'd be banned for misrepresenting and attacking another poster like you do.
But, hey, Jesus loves you!!!!!

I could go on, but the the failures of reason/logic go on and on, and I tire. — James Riley

In the end, irony will be the winner!!!!!!

What jurisdictions? Nursing homes and hospitals? — Cheshire

All internal and international travel for EU citizens; it's not possible to enter a EU country without a valid covid passport. Then, depending on the EU country: access to public transportation, schools, bars, restaurants, cinemas, any gatherings of more than 50 people, sports facilities, hair salons, cosmetic salons, access to some medical facilities.
These are just the most notable ones, but there are more, and, as promised by the governments, even more to come.

How might one go about finding out God’s standards? — khaled

By being a member of the chosen tribe. IOW, it's not up to one's own choice.

Right. Where does this preclude us from judging said God? God seems to have even made it possible seeing as how we can easily iudge him.

Sure. But we might still go to hell.

What I’m saying is that perhaps predictions and forecasts of the psychological kind could be just as those for the weather are, not so much mysticism but rather something founded in logic and reason about how time progresses. — Benj96

Much of a person's mental and physical behavior is habitual, ie. regular, repeated. So it's no surprise that there is a measure of predictability to it.

As I said, we don't know those. — khaled

Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean everyone else is the same as you.

So anyone who pretends to judge God by God's standards is bullshitting. He has no clue if he's correct or not.

If God is a tribalist, and a particular person is a member of the chosen tribe, then they very much have the clue.

Again, what does God being God with a capital G have to do with us being unable to judge him?

Because, by definition, God precedes and contextualizes us, makes us possible. Thus, whatever we do, is made possible by God.

In jurisdictions where covid passports are mandatory for many activities, the matter of whether it is moral or immoral to refuse to get covid vaccinated has been rendered moot anyway, and made into a matter of practical convenience. If you're vaccinated, you can go anywhere you want, do anything you want, and you don't need to get tested. Who wouldn't opt for that?! But whether it will stop the pandemic is another matter.

But if the Israel scenario is anything to go by, then, even if the majority of the population gets vaccinated, this will not stop the pandemic.

So neither tradition preaches "the prosperity gospel", baker — 180 Proof

They both teach people to work hard, earn a lot, and support the clergy.

Neither views poverty as a virtue when it comes to laypeople.

No. Successful people, like kings and emperors, throughout history have been notoriously miserable or dissatisfied people. — 180 Proof

No. You're just sourgraping.

More to the point; Siddhārtha Gautama's life improvde and his wisdom grew only after he relinquished princely wealth and priviledge;

How did it improve?? He became unfit to earn a living!

and Yeshua ben Yosef was it seems a poor carpenter and itinerant preacher who directed his follows to give away all they owned, that the rich will have a much harder time getting into heaven, and that one should live by grace "in this world but not of this world".

Don't forget that he and his immediate followers lived off the mercy and generosity of others, they were parasites, unwilling to meet their own needs on their own. A society could not function this way if everyone would adopt such a lifestyle.
And if a principle is such that not everyone can live by it, due to objective constraints, this means that said principle is immoral and should be abandoned.

In any case, "socioeconomic success" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for (seeking) wisdom.

Yeah, which is why gutters and prisons are full of enlightened people!

Whereas there isn't a rational reason to not get vaccinated (except in those with health conditions that make vaccinations dangerous), and so can't be excused. — Michael

But not in the case of this pandemic. Nobody gets excused, everyone is put into the same category.

Right in the beginning when they first started vaccinating, the plan was expressed that first the healthy should be vaccinated, in order to protect the most vulnerable. This is the standard approach to vaccination in general.

But in about a week or so, this concern completely died out, and a medically dangerous practice was adopted of vaccinating the most vulnerable first.

It's not clear whether there is any other medication where this approach is taken. Normally, if a person is already immunocompromised or otherwise of vulnerable health, they aren't forced into medical treatments that further stress their already compromised immune system. But with covid, all this caution was thrown to the wind.

Is it not that case that in most traditions, wisdom privileges aestheticism? — Tom Storm

Surely you mean asceticism.

But your thought is nice too. Heh.

It's a reference to this idiom:
"The Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/541345#:~:text=%22The%20Only%20Good%20Indian%20Is%20a%20Dead%20Indian%22%3B%20the,traditional%20life%2Dstyle.


The form "the only good (the best) X is a dead X" has wider applications.

the best of companions — TheMadFool

... for what? Misery?

I just don't see what "socioeconomic success"has to do with "wisdom". — 180 Proof

The purpose of wisdom is to improve one's life, and that includes improving one's socio-economic status. Agree?

My point is that judging God by human standards is in conflict with the basic definition of God.
— baker

Then by what standards shall he be judged if not by humanist standards? — khaled

God's standards.

What else do you think omnibenevolent meant?

Think of God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist. Now, because he's God, his perspective is all that counts, and if he happens to be a capitalist businessman or a tribalist, then this passes for omnibenevolence.

God. One cannot hold, even if just for the purposes of argument, that God is omnimax, and then judge God, and still think one is being consistent.
— baker

Yes one can

How??