Science, mathematics, logic, phenomenology. Any discourse which depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority. Any discourse, that is, that is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts. — Janus
And if all fails, you can always refer to good old Wiktionary:
λῠ́σῐς • (lúsis) f (genitive λῠ́σεως) From λύω (lúō, “loosen”) + -σις (-sis) — Apollodorus
The way I understand Greek philosophy and, in particular, Platonism, philosophy, by definition, is the quest for wisdom or knowledge (sophia), where "love" of wisdom is not a passive state but an active desire to attain wisdom or knowledge that manifests itself in all areas of life. — Apollodorus
The area I find most interesting at the moment is the idea of this liberation from ignorance. — Tom Storm
I like what you said, but couldn't it be countered that these ostensibly defeasible disciplines also develop their orthodoxies and may be resistant to new ideas or approaches they view as outliers and heretics? — Tom Storm
The "perennial philosophy" is...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned, not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted, than others; and [3] that the wise... have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle, and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels
I'm not talking about the politically correct "woman's right to choose". I'm talking about the supposed "miraculous nature" of living a lifestyle in which having to have an abortion is always in sight. What is so "miraculous" in damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, and, if they fail, with abortions? You think it's "miraculous" to TOLO, like a robot? — baker
I wonder what you have to say about people who don't feel that way about food, animal or plant based. — baker
You missed the forest, not just the tree to bark at. — baker
That does indeed appear synonymous to Mokṣa. As I don't read Greek, do you know any instances in Plato's dialouges? — Wayfarer
The true philosophers and they alone are always most eager to release the soul, and just this—the release (lysis) and separation of the soul from the body—is their study (Phaedo 67c).
The lovers of knowledge, then, I say, perceive that philosophy, taking possession of the soul when it is in this state, encourages it gently and tries to set it free (lyein), pointing out that the eyes and the ears and the other senses are full of deceit, and urging it to withdraw from these, except in so far as their use is unavoidable, and exhorting it to collect and concentrate itself within itself, and to trust nothing except itself and its own abstract thought of abstract existence; and to believe that there is no truth in that which it sees by other means and which varies with the various objects in which it appears, since everything of that kind is visible and apprehended by the senses, whereas the soul itself sees that which is invisible and apprehended by the mind. Now the soul of the true philosopher believes that it must not resist this deliverance (lysis), and therefore it stands aloof from pleasures and lusts and griefs and fears, so far as it can … (Phaedo 83a-b).
Hadot, Suzuki, and others are alright as far as modern analyses go, but I think the key to understanding Plato is to read Plato. — Apollodorus
And therefore those who care for their own souls, and do not live in service to the body, turn their backs upon all these men [the lovers of money and other material things] and do not walk in their ways, for they feel that they know not whither they are going. They themselves believe that philosophy, with its deliverance (lysis) and purification, must not be resisted, and so they turn and follow it whithersoever it leads(Phaedo 82d).
To me, this suggests that a break must have occurred at some point in the interpretative tradition and that modern scholars have hopelessly lost the thread - and sometimes the plot - as noted by Gerson. — Apollodorus
But still scholars differ in their renderings and their interpretations, and it seems no one can completely escape their native assumptions, which means that Plato for us is always going to be Plato-for-us. — Janus
I've often commented on the idea of the forgotten truths of the wisdom tradition, generally to either indifference or scorn. — Wayfarer
Again, no: to have contempt for the world and the Gods in it, and the other fine things, is not what makes a good man (Enn. II.9(33)16,1-2).
Greco-Buddhism, or Graeco-Buddhism, is the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the fourth century BCE and the fifth century CE in Bactria (parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and the Gandhara (parts of modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan). It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great.
Correct. — Apollodorus
Well, we can't let you have all the fun, can we? And as a Buddhist, you ought perhaps to be less self-centered ....
There is so much divergent thinking around what it is to be a Buddhist, it seems almost anything is possible in this space. — Tom Storm
I still think it's dangerous to simply say that all religions point to the same goal, but then, Jesus did say 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' which could be interpreted to support a rather pluralist idea. And I would agree that they're more like each other, than any of them are like scientific materialism (which is why materialism tends to regard all of them as equally fallacious). — Wayfarer
Of course, the “bad guy” is always me. How predictable. — Apollodorus
But I’ve never claimed to be “spiritual”, have I? Besides, why would you want me to be spiritual, when by your own admission, you hate even the word?
"Unbiased" discourse? What is that??
— baker
Science, mathematics, logic, phenomenology. Any discourse which depends on observation and reason, and does not depend on authority. Any discourse, that is, that is in principle at least, defeasible and endlessly revisable, and wherein expertise can be gained by understanding clearly defined ideas, principles and observable or self-evident facts.
Any religion, including Buddhism, cannot be an unbiased discourse, because it depends on faith. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by the way, but in order to respect intellectual honesty it should at least be acknowledged. Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse. — Janus
Talk of "direct knowing" is a nonsense, inter-subjectively speaking, and can never constitute an unbiased discourse.
Just because a person has internalized a discourse to the point that it seems self-evident, objective, neutral, unbiased, doesn't make it so. — baker
How predictable. You cast the first stone, then cry foul. — baker
Oh, my hating even the word doesn't impede my acknowledgement that religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous. — baker
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.