Problem with Bartricks is that his polemics are powerful but he constantly insults and derogates anyone who challenges him — Wayfarer

Well, I can't go into that. I just thought that his arguments were neatly formulated and they seem to be consistent with philosophical traditions that believe in reincarnation, such as Platonism. I still believe that Platonic sources like Plotinus would be a good start. Defining "mind" or "soul" may be hard to crack - Plotinus himself explains why - but I think that, in general lines, the original philosophers were on the right track.

Problem with Bartricks is that his polemics are powerful but he constantly insults and derogates anyone who challenges him. — Wayfarer

It's Mahayana/Vajrayana style. Some Tibetan monks, for example, regularly have debating practices where heavy insults are part of the course. The practice of dishing out and handling insults is supposedly good for one's ego, or for overcoming one's ego (it works both ways).

It's Mahayana/Vajrayana style. Some Tibetan monks, for example, regularly have debating practices where heavy insults are part of the course — baker

Greek philosophers and even Christians indulged in a bit of that, too.

( I write here about Buddhism to test my own understanding of it, not because I'd be an advocate.) — baker

Just out of interest, do you identify as a Buddhist?

Do people have agency in Buddhism? That's often how reincarnation is interpreted in the west: as a solution to earthly injustice. That's obviously the main use of the concept of immortality of the soul, though that's not at all what Plato had in mind.

I think that deep need to see divine justice comes from Christianity's role as the religion of the weak and oppressed.

I think that deep need to see divine justice comes from Christianity's role as the religion of the weak and oppressed. — frank

Justice or righteousness was central to Platonic thought. The Greeks even had a goddess for it: Δίκη or Dike.

The practice of dishing out and handling insults is supposedly good for one's ego, or for overcoming one's ego (it works both ways). — baker

From the point of view of the intended target of the insults, it may be a good opportunity to practice building ego-shields. Unfortunately the ability to raise ego-shield is a highly variable human trait: some can, some can't. High-ranking politicians normally have a high coefficient of this trait; children typically don't.

Teachers and educators in lower grades publicly shame name calling among children. This may be beneficial or not, I don't know. However, teachers are normally very empathetic creatures, so to them hurting another, especially when causing permanent psychological damage, is abhorrent.

Now I don't know what would be better: allow children to take natural revenge, or suppressing hurtful behaviour in its bud. Allowing children to take natural revenge may end up in murder and cannibalism, but hey, we're overpopulating the Earth already. Plus, the survivors of kindergarten sandboxes may be all much better adjusted psychologically, even to the point of being able to use beneficially all the functions of a smartphone or tablet.

Justice or righteousness was central to Platonic thought. The Greeks even had a goddess for it: Δίκη or Dike. — Apollodorus

So that's why all the so-called just judgments were feminist rants against white, balding, overweight, privileged, middle-aged white men.

Poor Socrates, being judged by a bunch of rabidly feminist Justices.

Justice or righteousness was central to Platonic thought. The Greeks even had a goddess for it: Δίκη or Dike. — Apollodorus

Sure. Explaining otherworldly justice didn't drive his presentation of immortality of the soul, though. Did it? What am I missing? I think he was more focused on explaining how knowledge works.

Explaining otherworldly justice didn't drive his presentation of immortality of the soul, though. Did it? What am I missing? I think he was more focused on explaining how knowledge works.[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. The story of Er does involve the concept of divine justice. And the whole book revolves around just government and just living. So, justice was a key element.

The question is how do we separate mind processes from divine justice in Platonic thought when the human mind is an emanation of the divine mind.

The cosmic order (taxis) is a manifestation of the cosmic mind and justice in human society is a manifestation of cosmic order.

Injustice is like a disease that leads to disorder (ataxia). To restore order and justice in society, the human mind must operate in harmony with the cosmic mind.

So, it isn’t just about “how knowledge works” but also about how knowledge should work in harmony with divine order and justice in order for man to live a just life in a just society.

Here's a useful introduction to the subject of Justice in Platonic thought:

“In the study of Plato, two points seem so obvious as hardly to need restating. One is the special place of justice in his writings. As Eric Havelock observed, though Plato devoted several dialogues to single virtues, only justice received the honour of a treatise in ten books: the Republic, or “On Justice” as its first editors subtitled it. Yet justice is also prominent elsewhere, as in Euthyphro, where it eventually supersedes holiness, as the principle regulating man’s relations with the gods, or the Theaetetus, an inquiry into knowledge trained specifically on the question of what is just. Indeed, as Jay Kennedy has recently shown, justice was often literally central: the cluster ‘philosophy, justice and god’ recurs at the exact centre of many Platonic texts.”

D. Cammack, “Plato And Atheinian Justice”, History of Political Thought, Vol. 36., No. 4 (Winter 2015), pp. 611-642

Psss. The thread fades gently into the night, having achieved little. It's telling - and somewhat amusing - that the thread ends with a discussion of doctrinal variation amongst the True Believers.

Doubtless, given the title, the thread will be reincarnated every few months or years.

Are zombies reincarnated?

Well, by your own account you didn't rule it out. It was too incommensurate for ya.

Why bother responding irrelevantly to my response to Wayfarer's interpretation of "reincarnation" when his differs substantively, so to speak, from your own? Discuss, man, don't score points.

Do people have agency in Buddhism? That's often how reincarnation is interpreted in the west: as a solution to earthly injustice. That's obviously the main use of the concept of immortality of the soul, though that's not at all what Plato had in mind.

I think that deep need to see divine justice comes from Christianity's role as the religion of the weak and oppressed. — frank

No, Christians don't hold monopoly over this notion, as there is a parallel in Eastern folk theories of karma.
The basic formula in such folk beliefs about karma is: "If this time around, you suffer from X, this means you did X to someone in a past life. If you do X to someone this time around, you will suffer from it now or the next time around."

The actual, scripturally based doctrines of karma suppose that the process of how the consequences of actions play out over the course of lifetimes is much more complex than what those folk beliefs have us think.

Just out of interest, do you identify as a Buddhist? — Tom Storm

Not at all. Discussing it in this context is part of my effort to find closure to my involvement with it.
(In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities.)

Why bother responding irrelevantly to my response to Wayfarer's interpretation of "reincarnation" when his differs substantively, so to speak, from your own? — 180 Proof

What are you talking about??
He and I are having a discussion here too.

Discuss, man, don't score points.

I'm getting tired of all these balls I'm supposed to drag around ...

Not at all. Discussing it in this context is part of my effort to find closure to my involvement with it. (In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities.) — baker

Interesting.

In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities — baker

Good point. Personally, I think Buddhism has some interesting theories but it doesn't seems to contribute much to the discussion because its explanation of reincarnation is too nebulous.

IMO, the Platonic (and possibly Hindu) view is more detailed and better suited for finding a satisfactory or acceptable solution.

As I said before, in the Platonic context, reincarnation does seem to be connected with the concept of divine justice.

For example, Plato's Politeia starts with a discussion of justice, it mentions justice more than 250 times and ends in the story of Er which clearly involves the concept of divine justice.

So, @Bartricks’ argument from God was basically correct:

“An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being - God - exists. Life here is dangerous and we who are living such lives are ignorant of most things. God, being all powerful, let that be the case. But God, being omnibenevolent, would not have subjected innocent persons to such a life. Thus we are not innocent. But when we are born we have performed no actions in this life. Thus the moral crimes for which this life is a punishment must be ones we performed in a past life. Thus we must have lived previously.”

This was similar to my own:

“If God is just as is generally admitted, then it stands to reason that he might give us a second chance and not judge us after just one life. Therefore, we (the soul) must have more than one life.”

Or there is no god and the evil doer prospers and then turns to dust along with his victims, destined to be swallowed by a black hole in cold dark space.

Yay!

Or there is no god and the evil doer prospers and then turns to dust along with his victims, destined to be swallowed by a black hole in cold dark space. — frank

There is always the possibility. But most philosophers have believed in God and in Justice, so an argument from justice isn't quite as outlandish as it may seem to some.

There is always the possibility. But most philosophers have believed in God and in Justice, so an argument from justice isn't quite as outlandish as it may seem to some. — Apollodorus

Isn't Socrates supposed to have said "There is no such thing as Zeus"?

Isn't Socrates supposed to have said "There is no such thing as Zeus"? — frank

"Supposed" is the right word. He was talking about the "Zeus" of mythology, not about "God" in general.

As already explained on other threads, Platonism believes in an indefinable and indescribable ultimate reality ("the One"), from which the divine Cosmic Mind ("he Theou Noesis" or short "Nous)" emanates, which in turn emanates the World Soul (Psyche):

"Reality itself was seen as comprising three basic levels of intelligence: the indescribable "One", the Cosmic Mind (Nous) and the Cosmic Soul.

If we compare intelligence with light, then these levels would be as follows:

1. Pure, changeless light in itself = the One
2. The Sun = Cosmic Mind or Universal Intelligence (Nous)
3. The Moon (whose light is a reflection of the light of the Sun) = Cosmic Soul (Psyche).

The human soul (psyche) itself has three basic levels:

1. Intellectual aspect responsible for thought processes.
2. Emotional aspect responsible for feelings and emotions.
3. Sensual aspect responsible for sense perception, imagination and bodily desires.

The core of the human soul, which we may term "spirit", is essentially identical with the Cosmic Mind (Nous) from which it emanates.

Although it is described as having different "parts", the soul is one. Its aspects may, to some extent, operate separately from one another but they are largely interdependent and form part of the same one mind.

For example, the sensual aspect registers discrete sensory perceptions and combines them into a mental image. The image is taken up and analyzed by the intellectual aspect, given a name and assessed in terms of its relevance to the self. The emotional part then reacts emotionally to the image and a decision is reached as to the course of action (if any) to be taken. All these mental functions or operations exist within, and are illumined by, the light of spirit or nous."

For a better understanding of what is meant by "soul", "mind" or "consciousness" I stated this:

"... Terms like “consciousness” aren’t normally a problem because the meaning is understood from the context.

But if we insist on having a definition it can be deduced from the sources.

It looks like the original meaning was “knowledge with” and by extension “self-knowledge” ("knowledge with/of oneself"), “self-awareness”, “consciousness”.

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

So, the simplest definition in modern language would be something like “self-aware intelligence” or, more precisely, "that which is aware of itself as itself"...."

Platonism believes in an indefinable and indescribable ultimate reality ("the One"), — Apollodorus

Neoplatonism, yes. But I was talking about Socrates. The charge against him was of failing to show respect for the gods.

Neoplatonism, yes. But I was talking about Socrates. The charge against him was of failing to show respect for the gods. — frank

You mean "failing to show respect" and "gods" as interpreted by his detractors.

"Neoplatonism" is a modern concept. Platonism is a tradition that stretches from Plato to the present.

There is no logical reason to substitute supposed statements by Socrates' detractors for a centuries-long Platonic tradition that clearly believes in God, soul, divine justice and reincarnation.

There is no logical reason to substitute supposed statements by Socrates' detractors for a centuries-long Platonic tradition that clearly believes in God, soul, divine justice and reincarnation. — Apollodorus

Sure. It's just that you said the philosophers believed in god. I don't think Socrates did. Plato used him as a mouthpiece. Plato wasn't the only one who did that.

It's just that you said the philosophers believed in god. I don't think Socrates did. Plato used him as a mouthpiece. Plato wasn't the only one who did that. — frank

Well, in my view, Socrates did believe in God.

According to Socrates, a philosopher's life was a preparation for death. And the only reason for that was that he, and other philosophers, believed in God, soul, justice, etc.

Regarding soul, Socrates in Phaedo, before his death, says: “But now, inasmuch as the soul is manifestly immortal, there is no release or salvation from evil except the attainment of the highest virtue and wisdom…”

However, Socrates' beliefs are immaterial because Platonic belief in reincarnation goes back to Pythagoras and others so it isn’t dependent on what Socrates (or his detractors) believed.

Moreover, metempsychosis (Greek: μετεμψύχωσις), in philosophy, refers to transmigration of the soul, especially its reincarnation after death. Generally, the term is derived from the context of Greek philosophy where it is closely connected with the concepts of “soul”, “God” and “divine justice”.

The Buddhist theory of reincarnation, in so far as it doesn’t admit of “soul”, “God” and “justice” is a different thing and is less helpful, IMO.