What about the pre-Socratics? They were decidedly anti-mythos in seeking to replace mythos with logos and thereby marginalizing (or even in some cases eliminating?) "the gods". — 180 Proof
Yes, and that's why I emphasized the pre-Socratics because with Plato the waters start getting muddy again, that is, mythos gets reintroduced or reemphasized in philosophy. — 180 Proof
Welcome, youth, who come attended by immortal charioteers and mares which bear you on your journey to our dwelling. For it is no evil fate that has set you to travel on this road, far from the beaten paths of men, but right and justice. It is meet that you learn all things — both the unshakable heart of well-rounded truth and the opinions of mortals in which there is not true belief. (B 1.24–30)
You are easily outraged! The quote is with regard to his ignorance. His knowing how to live in the face of his ignorance is what the examined life is all about. — Fooloso4
But did he arrive at his certainty about those religious ideas by those same rational arguments with which he's trying to persuade thinking people?I think "religious preachers" is a bit exaggerated. Plato, in any case, is working with religious ideas that were already current at the time. Like other Greek philosophers, he is simply trying to make those ideas acceptable to thinking people by supporting them with rational arguments. — Apollodorus
Which is all the more reason to suspect that he did not arrive at his certainty about those religious ideas by those same rational arguments with which he's trying to persuade thinking people.Plato's idea of the Forms was already present in latent form in Greek culture, religion, and language. Plato's theory is a logical development of existing elements.
So he was doing something similar as Descartes in his Meditations?Similarly, Socrates does not reject religious beliefs, he merely wants thinking men to examine their beliefs and only accept those that can be supported by reason.
Nor can these states be transmitted or even described to others. If nothing else, this suggests that we should not dismiss things just because science cannot find them and put them under the microscope. — Apollodorus
For I am conscious that I am not wise either much or little. (21b)
I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. (21d)
“Human wisdom is of little or no value.” (23a)
“This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom.” (23b)
When there is a power differential between two people, we cannot talk of reasoned persuasion anymore, then it's preaching.Plato went to enormous lengths NOT to preach. To see him as a preacher is an injustice to his memory. His dialogues are models of reasoned persuasion. — Wayfarer
Not I. I have my own reasons. I think philosophers are generally given way too much credit and assumed to be more different than religious preachers. It seems that in a mad rush to create a world and society of their own, secularists have adopted some old thinkers for their secular purposes, while downplaying the actual religious agendas of those thinkers. Like Descartes, for example, that Trojan horse.They sometimes contain exhortations and obviously have a religious aspect to them, but characterising him as a preacher looses the very real distinction between philosophy and religion. I think we tend to characterise it like that, because we tar anything religious with the same brush. — Wayfarer
No, I mean people like Socrates who goes on saying how little he knows -- and yet he's so sure about so many things!Don't you find it odd that people who supposedly were so skeptical about their own abilities to obtain proper knowledge, nevertheless had so much to say, with utter certainty, about gods and ideas and a number of other things?
— baker
If by 'people', you mean those who speak through the Platonic dialogues,
It's more likely that this is just for show, the Socratic method. Not real doubt or uncertainty.many of their utterances were not at all marked by 'absolute certainty'. There is much weighing up, arguments for and against, doubts raised and not always dispelled.
I think you're painting the ancients as more rosy, egalitarian, skeptical, humble then they really were.Plato himself is very diffident in respect of his arguments about philosophical ultimates. He's no tub-thumper. Of course for subsequent generations Platonism became absorbed into the Christian corpus, and then it began to assume a dogmatic character that it originally didn't have.
“Human wisdom is of little or no value.” (23a)
“This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom.” (23b)
/.../ — Fooloso4
not statements of factuality. — baker
Nothing in what he says suggests he had such ignorance. — baker
Which is all the more reason to suspect that he did not arrive at his certainty about those religious ideas by those same rational arguments with which he's trying to persuade thinking people. — baker
But why should we accept them? — baker
In a 2012 study, researchers compared brain images from 50 adults who meditate and 50 adults who don’t meditate. Results suggested that people who practiced meditation for many years have more folds in the outer layer of the brain. This process (called gyrification) may increase the brain’s ability to process information.
And if one uses this conviction as a starting point, and then practices accordingly, then -- so the official theory -- one attains the fruits of the Path.Yes, I realized that the first is conviction that someone else knows and the second is conviction that oneself knows. Still both just amount to conviction. — Janus
How can you possibly know that?If you believe that is possible, then fine, but you should be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that believing that cannot ever be anything more than a matter of faith, — Janus
Actually, he doesn't have to. If he did it, he'd be playing by your rules.This is a philosophy forum and if you want to claim that extraordinary knowledge is possible then it is incumbent on you to explain how that extraordinary knowledge could constitute knowledge in any sense that could be justified by logic, reason or empirical evidence.
Are you? The world of spirituality operates by its own principles. And if you choose to enter it, you need to bear this in mind, or you'll waste a lot of time.Are we here to find a guru?
I think you're painting the ancients as more rosy, egalitarian, skeptical, humble then they really were. — baker
I think we don't recognize gnosis, noesis and so on as 'knowledge that' because 'knowledge that' should be determinably communicable and transparently justifiable. — Janus
I suspect the endless and insufferable Marvel movie franchise will spawn a world faith — Tom Storm
It is deteminably communicable and transparently justifiable within the appropriate cultural domain. Again, that has been replaced in modern culture by science, but science doesn't deal in the realities of being, only that of objects and forces. — Wayfarer
And if one uses this conviction as a starting point, and then practices accordingly, then -- so the official theory -- one attains the fruits of the Path. — baker
If you believe that is possible, then fine, but you should be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that believing that cannot ever be anything more than a matter of faith, — Janus
How can you possibly know that?
The world of spirituality is a world of hierarchy and exceptionalism. Some people are said to be capable of things that others cannot even dream of. — baker
Actually, he doesn't have to. If he did it, he'd be playing by your rules. — baker
Are we here to find a guru?
Are you? The world of spirituality operates by its own principles. And if you choose to enter it, you need to bear this in mind, or you'll waste a lot of time. — baker
But it ought not to be forgottten that in the Christian faith, the higher being manifested as a lowly indigent, in the person of Jesus, subject to all manner of insults and punishment by death. — Wayfarer
It is seems clear how knowledge is generally justified: either through empirical observation, or logical entailment. — Janus
In the common world they could only ever have the status of faith and dogma. — Janus
Anyway, enought argument for the day. I have to go and paint a wall. — Wayfarer
As I've said before, this stance is essentially positivism. You always react angrily against that, but look at the definition:
positivism a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism. — Wayfarer
What if 'the common world' is the mind-created projection of the ego, with no inherent reality? — Wayfarer
Without humility and obedience you were out of the door, on your way, and on your own. — Apollodorus
I agree. But the spiritually unenlightened or unevolved is like a child until he or she has evolved. The children of God (ta tekna tou Theou) must grow to become godlike or Gods. Until that time, they are children who owe obedience to their Father.
The pater familias in Greek and Roman culture was the supreme authority in the house. He was always addressed as "father", not "George" or "Basil" or some other personal name. God himself is addressed strictly as "Father" or "Lord", out of obedience, humility, and respect. — Apollodorus
And public servants... — Tom Storm
I am happy with the idea of obedience to the "still small voice" of conscience, but I accept no external authority. — Janus
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it ... For many are called, but few are chosen ... (Matt 7:14; 22:14)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.