But not of truth. — Banno

Of certainty regarding truth.

Yet there are things we know. — Banno

And there are things we don't know. Few of us are omniscient.

But an opinion is also what we believe to be true. — Banno

There are different degrees of certainty.

There are, despite the ubiquitous, absurd pop philosophy to the contrary, very many things that we know. — Banno

"We" as the totality of knowers. Individuals know only a fraction of the total.

If we know that “knowledge is experience… etc”, then our knowledge must be outside of of our experience, and what we believe to be true. — Jan Ardena

There are many forms of knowledge such as personal experience, conclusions we arrive at through reason, things we learn from others, etc.

One may also hold that everything we know is simply a "provisional truth" that we operate on until new truths are found that are deemed to have greater validity and authority.

So where do we stand, and what in fact is knowledge? — Jan Ardena

Knowledge is what we experience and what we believe to be true. Anything else is opinion. And then there are lots of things that we do not know.

So I agree with @Constance, above:

The question you should be looking at is, What is the standard for assessing the worth of phenomenological philosophy? Prior to this, one has to look at philosophy itself, and inquire as to where the value lies here. — Constance

What is "philosophical inquiry"?

You are welcome. And you can have this for after dinner: :smile:

People are sometimes surprised to hear that Platonism involves contemplation and meditation. However, concentration, contemplation, and meditation are central practices in traditional Platonism and they are clearly described in the dialogues.

For example, in the Phaedo, Socrates says:

Purification turns out to be the very thing we were recently talking about in our discussion [at 64d-66a] namely parting the soul from the body as much as possible and habituating it to assembling and gathering itself from every part of the body, alone by itself, and to living alone by itself as far as it can, both now and afterwards, released from the body as if from fetters (67c-d)

The confusion arises in the mind of the modern reader due to the fact that nowadays such practices are associated with Eastern traditions. This is a fundamental mistake that leads to a misunderstanding of the whole Platonic project.

In particular, the popular association of contemplation and meditation with Eastern traditions results in the unfounded assumption that such practices can be performed exclusively in the “lotus” or padmasana posture associated with those traditions.

The truth of the matter is that sense-withdrawal, concentration, contemplation/meditation can be practiced in any position or situation.

For example, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra, a 7th century Sanskrit text says that meditation can be done whilst lying down and about to fall asleep; traveling on horseback or carriage; moving one’s body; looking at the sky or landscape, etc:

If the energy of breath is meditated upon at dvadashanta [twelve-fingers distance in the heart, throat or between the eyebrows] (at the time of sleeping) one will attain mastery over one’s dreams [a form of lucid dreaming] (55)
One should concentrate on the state when sleep has not yet come, but the external awareness has disappeared (75)
Whether one is seated on a moving vehicle or whether one moves one’s body slowly, one attains a peaceful mental state [through concentration] (83)

In the same text we also find a very Plotinian (or Platonic) meditation on light:

One should direct one's gaze on space which is filled with variegated light of the Sun or of a lamp. There itself one's own essential nature will be revealed (76)

There seems to be some kind of affinity between light and consciousness that is also apparent from Socrates' comparison of knowledge, truth, and the Good with the Sun (Rep. 509b). Visualization or contemplation of light seems to stimulate the mind into entering higher states of consciousness. Even exposure to physical light, e.g. sunlight, can stimulate the brain and have a positive effect on moods, inducing states of calm and focus, and enhancing memory and learning, i.e., intelligence.

So, it seems that looking at light is like intelligence looking at itself as in a mirror. But this can be properly grasped only through practice and by detaching ourselves from body, sense-perceptions, and thoughts, exactly as indicated by Socrates, in order for the soul to perceive things that are pure and immortal like itself (Phaedo 79d).

At any rate, Socrates’ emphasis on sense-withdrawal, concentration, contemplation, wakefulness, sobriety, his imperviousness to extreme cold and heat, the fact that he is always awake, alert, and sober, his habit of being absorbed in thoughts for long periods of time, all indicate practices and mental states akin to those described in Eastern traditions. And, whilst yoga postures do not seem to occur in Ancient Greece, philosophers did engage in physical and even military training, thus providing a balancing counterweight to intellectual effort and training.

Certainly, Plotinus is unlikely to have been seated in a yoga posture when he was swept away on a vision of inner light. And similar experiences are recorded in the monastic tradition of early Hellenistic Christianity.

For example, the 4th-century CE theologian Evagrius Ponticus (De Oratione) counts visions of inner light as indicative of spiritual progress, and these are sometimes explained as the nous, the soul’s organ or faculty of contemplation and insight, seeing its own light in an experience where the distinction between subject and object or knower and known subsides to give way to an experience of oneness (henosis).

Of course, the process of ascent, the Platonic Way Upward, is ongoing. It must be continued to the ultimate telos or end.

Maybe you are forgetting that the Deutsche Mark was introduced in 1948? — ssu

You mean 1948 when the Marshall Plan was introduced in Germany? :smile:

And you forget that the Americans, i.e., Rockefeller's people were in charge of both the US administration in Germany and of the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) that distributed the Marshall Plan funds.

In 1949-1952 West Germany received loans totaling $1.45 billion. All under US authority ....

Well, I don't think that a poor understanding of how global corporations operate is particularly helpful.

The Rockefellers had a worldwide petroleum and banking empire. How do you think an empire like that is run?

First, you hire trusted lawyers to assist you. Next you invest your millions in foundations that you use to buy influence. You make grants to universities that produce politicians and to think tanks that advise governments. You influence economic and foreign policy by putting pressure on politicians. You install your own lawyers and business associates in government positions, etc.

You can see here how the same law firms like Acheson's Covington and Burling influence the EU on behalf of US corporations even now:

Bonanza as Firms Try to Influence European Union - The New York Times

You also keep forgetting that the Rockefellers' CFR became part of the US government in 1942:

The Council on Foreign Relations— Is It a Club? Seminar? Presidium? ‘Invisible Government'? - The New York Times

Again no. Of course, the other occupation regions don't matter, right? — ssu

The British and American Zones merged in 1947 and were joined by France in 1949. The Americans had the supreme military command as well as the money, remember? :grin:

Military occupation is military occupation. Which part of it do you think is difficult to understand?

Anyway, here is State Secretary Acheson’s letter of October 30, 1949 to Schuman in which he admits that the Americans are “making decisions for the Germans” and tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany (note the Occupation Statute) into Western Europe”.

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the occupation statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic … These difficult problems involve direct and indirect interests of our own, and in most of them we have grown accustomed in the past four years to making decisions for the Germans … We could, of course, take the attitude that, having given to the Germans the Occupation Statute, we should wait for clear and definite evidence on the part of the Germans of behavior in accordance with our expectations. Can we afford to do so, in view of the shortness of time still at our disposal? … I believe that our policy in Germany, and the development of a German Government which can take its place in Western Europe, depends on the assumption by your country of leadership in Europe on these problems … I repeat that our own stake in this matter is very great. We here in America, with all the will in the world to help and support, cannot give the lead. That, if we are to succeed in this joint endeavor, must come from France.

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949)

Had France acted on its own initiative, there would have been no need for Acheson to put pressure on Schuman. But since Acheson did put pressure on Schuman, it follows that France did not act on its own initiative but under American pressure. France acted as America’s puppet which is not surprising considering that it depended on American financial and military assistance.

Acheson himself told Truman that "These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest”.

Acheson of course, was a partner at corporate law firm Covington and Burling. He was a director of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the committee that drafted the Marshall Plan and of the Rockefellers’ Committee for the Marshall Plan that campaigned for the implementation of the Plan. He set the foreign policy of the Truman administration from 1949 to 1953, and was involved in creating West Germany’s government.

And you seem to have left out the inconvenient bits in the article, like US cash being funneled through the CIA to pro-unification organizations, etc. ....

That's what Afghans love to say. But the truth is that Afghan tribalism and factionalism have always attracted foreign meddling. — Olivier5

Well, of course foreigners have exploited existing local tensions, but have done so for their own reasons. And it does not mean they are not meddling.

In the days of the Empire the British meddled to keep Russia out of India, not because the Afghans were at each other's throats.

Pakistan has meddled to keep India out, etc.

:grin: :up:

But, I always been so lucky to have parents with money, so them paid me for four years in a row a private English teacher every Sunday. This helped me a lot to improve not only my English skills but the ability to speak in public. — javi2541997

I think it definitely helps to have well-off parents, doesn’t it? :smile:

But it is important to look into why Francoism came to power in the first place. After all, there was a strong anti-communist movement led by Catholics. Arguably, Franco was a patriot who wanted to preserve Spanish culture.

In any case, I haven’t seen any evidence that Franco was a “Nazi” or "racist" or anything like that? Though I could be wrong.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that there was a worldwide communist movement aiming to establish a dictatorship all over the world. As usual, the British had a hand in this and used communism and socialism to destabilize and subvert other European countries, including Spain, in order to infiltrate and take over their financial, economic, and political systems.

This was primarily done through the infiltration of the education system by means of Fabian institutions and Fabian university societies.

Madrid had its own Fabian Society called “Escuela Nueva” that was run by the socialist Enrique Marti Jara who had studied at the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where he was instructed by Fabian Society leaders Graham Wallas and Sidney Webb. Other Fabians were also active within the University of Madrid.

Martí Jara, Enrique

In general, I tend to think that the emergence of Francoism and European nationalism is a bit more complex than often assumed. There was a wide range of different factors involved and it would be wrong to paint everything as just "Fascism".

And describing the 1945 Labour government as "filled with communists and socialists" is similarly not accurate — RolandTyme

I believe my statement regarding "socialists and communists" referred to France, not the Labour Party:

it was Britain’s socialist Labour government and France (that was dominated by socialists and communists) that were opposed to Spanish participation in the Marshall Plan. — Apollodorus

However, since you mention the Labour Party, its co-founders like the Webbs were admirers of Lenin and Stalin. And there were quite a few others like Labour chairman Harold Laski himself who was an open advocate of communism.

The statement “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it” was in Labour’s election manifesto of 1945. So, I think it would be difficult to argue that it was not a socialist party.

The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain

- Labour Party Manifesto 1945

Not only that, but Labour controlled the London-based Socialist International that it founded and that it used to advance its own socialist agenda in Europe and across the world.

In the 1950 manifesto Labour wrote:

By applying the moral principles of Socialism to our relations with other peoples, the Labour Government has made Britain a symbol of justice and social advance.

Unfortunately for Labour, by then the people had enough of socialism, food rationing (shopping conditions were worse under Labour than during the war), corruption, black market, prostitution, and crime, and they voted for Churchill to restore normalcy and order.

Food Rationing Ends

But Labour remained a socialist party:

We believe that the socialist [actually, Marxist] axiom "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not for home consumption only.

- Labour Party Manifesto 1964

We never thought, or promised, that the job of ending poverty, at home as well as abroad, would be an easy one. But to do this job is part of our dedication as Socialists

- Labour Party Manifesto 1970

The aims set out in this manifesto are Socialist aims, and we are proud of the word.

- Labour Party Manifesto 1974

By 1979 Labour finally realized that the British people didn’t want socialism and changed its tune from “socialism” to “democratic socialism”:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and proud of it.

- Labour Party Manifesto 1979

1983 was the last time that Labour manifestos mentioned socialism, democratic or otherwise until 2019, under self-identified socialist Jeremy Corbyn, when the National Health Service (NHS) was lamely dubbed “socialism in action”.

But the Fabian Socialists ousted Socialist Corbyn in 2020 and took back control with Keir Starmer (who has insisted that “he is still a socialist”) as new party leader ….

Keir Starmer: I still see myself as a socialist

In April 2020 Fabian Society general secretary Andrew Harrop publicly congratulated Labour’s new Fabian leaders:

The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir and Angela on their election as leader and deputy leader of the Labour party. We are incredibly proud to see two of our most talented Fabian Society members take charge of the British opposition

Congratulations to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner | Fabian Society

So, basically, Labour has moved from socialism to democratic socialism to no socialism in its manifestos, but covertly the party leadership still refers to itself as “socialist”. In fact, they cannot be anything else as they are all members of the Fabian Society which is a socialist organization:

The 1880s saw an upsurge in socialist activity in Britain and the Fabian Society was at the heart of much of it. Against the backdrop of the Match Girls’ strike and the 1889 London Dock strike, the landmark Fabian Essays was published, containing essays by George Bernard Shaw, Graham Walls, Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Annie Besant. All the contributors were united by their rejection of violent upheaval as a method of change, preferring to use the power of local government and trade unionism to transform society.
The early Fabians’ commitment to non-violent political change was underlined by the role the Fabian Society played in parliamentary politics. Having initially sought to influence the Liberal and Conservative parties, the Fabians participated in the foundation of the Labour party in 1900. The society has been affiliated to Labour throughout the party’s history and is the only original founder that remains affiliated in unchanged form.

Fabian Society – Our History

Evidently, "affiliated" in this case means "in charge" of the party ....

But... Pakistan didn't conjure up fanaticism; the Afghanis supplied that themselves. — Bitter Crank

It all started with British India. First there were the Aligarh and Deobandi movements of the 1860's, then the All-India Muslim League, and the Caliphate Movement of 1919 that spawned Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan's Jamaat-e Islami (Islamic Congress) and other Islamist organizations.

All Taliban members (taliban literally means "students") were educated in Islamic fundamentalist schools (madrassas) in Pakistan.

THE MASSACRE IN MAZAR-I SHARIF

The Afghans are tribalist, patriotic, and at the most nationalist but they were fanaticized by Pakistan. There is still a large part of the population that is not Muslim fundamentalist. The Afghans would rather do business with India and retain their independence but Pakistan won't let them.

The problem in the region is not Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

I do not know what is the matter with the Afghanis. Is it Islam? History? Culture? What? — Bitter Crank

Well, I doubt very much that the West made a serious effort to build a proper Afghan military. Plus, no Afghan army can beat the Taliban - who is getting unlimited manpower and materiel from Pakistan - without outside support.

Afghanistan has a population of about 30 million, Pakistan has 225 million. The Afghans don't stand a chance without Western backing.

So, it isn't the Afghans, it is Pakistan that has its own agenda in the region.

Without the ever-illusive "West" to fight, I think that the Taliban will just kind of internally dissolve. Perhaps, in the aftermath, there will be hope for people there then? — thewonder

"Internally dissolve"? Surely not when the Taliban are an instrument of Pakistan intended to keep India and Russia out.

And don't forget Iran's own mad mullahs who took over in 1979 and are still in charge.

Afghanistan seems to be converging on a rough theocracy, basic human rights out the window, oppression of females, ..., while we watch, before switching over to the food'n'shopping channel. — jorndoe

Yes, our politicians like to talk about our achievements in Afghanistan like enabling millions of girls to go to school, but of course that's all out of the window now, plus the billions wasted to "build the Afghan state" that is now collapsing like a house of cards.

But it isn't just Afghanistan, there is a totally new world order being forged as we speak, and this time around the West has little say in it.

China is the new global power in the making and the West's enemy No 1, along with militant Islam and other loony ideologies.

But I think the West has had it too good for too long and we have forgotten that sometimes you have to fight to defend your life, your country, and your freedom.

Maybe the pandemic should serve as a wake-up call and we need to realize that the dream is over and that it's time to start rethinking the whole situation and devising new strategies before it's too late ....

Wouldn't it be strange if China stepped in? — jorndoe

Not that strange. China has been involved in Pakistan (where the Taliban have their bases) for many years and has done deals with the Taliban in the past. But probably China will wait first for the situation to settle and then get involved - probably via the Pakistan government - if and as necessary.

The question is, what solutions can philosophy offer?

Russia rejected the EU as undemocratic? ? ? When? Who? Must have been Vlad who has said that. Yeah, he's so worried about democracy. — ssu

You are not paying attention, are you?

It was Stalin, not Putin. I was talking about the Marshall Plan and the ECSC that formed the basis of the EU. They were launched when Stalin was in power. He put pressure on East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia and Finland to reject the Plan.

Germany was controlled by US military governor McCloy who was a lawyer with close links to the Rockefellers.

Schuman was under pressure from State Secretary Dean Acheson. Monnet was not elected by anyone was he?

Of course politicians were involved and so were bankers and industrialists. What I am saying is that it was not an initiative of the European people.

See OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60

For example: I completely do not understand why despite the fact, we are the most tourist country of the world, most of the Spaniards lack of English skills. Can anyone explain this to me? — javi2541997

Good point. One of the issues I have heard of is that Spanish schools tend to teach English spoken with a Spanish accent. I don't know how true that is, but presumably Spaniards have plenty opportunities to learn better English with the help of the social media and other communication technologies?

Having said that, there are lots of other European countries where foreign languages are not necessarily a priority, England and France among them. The situation is possibly different in Germany and Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the national language is closer to English than Spanish.

I was once told by Swedish students that the reason they speak such good English is that they watch English-language movies with Swedish subtitles.

But do you think better English would improve Spain's unemployment figures?

As regards education standards, I think most European countries have various issues, possibly due to lack of government investment and because young people either can't make up their mind as to what sort of education and career options to go for or simply for lack of interest. And I don't think the state benefits system helps either.

Upbringing and culture in general may be another factor.

So he did something similar as, for example, Christian theologians did and do: Adopt a religious foundation and build on it. I see nothing special about this. — baker

Plato bridged the gap between the religion of the masses and the philosophy of the intellectual elite. This is what his theology does. It offers the less spiritually advanced a path to higher intellectual and spiritual experience.

But can atheists do it in a way that will have the same positive, life-affirming results as when religious people contemplate the Forms?
My personal experience is, they can't. Without that religious foundation that had to be internalized before one's critical thinking abilities developed, contemplation of "metaphysical realities" doesn't amount to anything. — baker

Not religious but moral and intellectual foundation. Religion is about belief (pistis) which is OK in the lower stages, but by definition, Platonism goes beyond religion or belief to the stages of reason (dianoia) and inner vision (noesis).

Religion is about obeying and worshiping the Gods. Philosophy, i.e., philosophia, is about desire or love of wisdom, it is the all-consuming desire to transcend your present condition and experience of yourself and of life.

Plato is about intelligence and transcendence. The Platonic Way is the Upward Way (he ano odos), the Way of Righteousness and Wisdom, i.e., the way of moral conduct and spiritual insight, the ascent that takes you from where you are (wherever that is) to the highest.

Religion serves the purpose of preserving order and ethical conduct in society. It also inspires us to think of something higher but beyond this it is left behind and philosophy, i.e., intellectual and spiritual training takes over. Plato is totally committed to intelligence. What distinguishes humans from inanimate objects is intelligence. Intelligence is what defines us. To deny intelligence is to deny who we are and makes no sense. Philosophy is knowing oneself and knowing truth, and the two are ultimately identical.

But what is meant by "contemplation of metaphysical realities"?

I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
Psalm 119:15 (NIV) — baker

There are of course different forms of contemplation (theoria), some involve contemplation of scriptural passages, others involve contemplation of the cosmic Gods, Forms, or the One.

Does it not simply mean 'to obey religious decrees' and all the "contemplation" and "reflection" are really just about bearing in mind the extent and the details of the religious decrees?
I don't think it includes contemplating the possibility that the "metaphysical realities" might not be real at all. — baker

For Plato, what the contemplative (theoros) contemplates (theorei) are the Forms, the realities underlying the individual appearances, and one who contemplates these atemporal and aspatial realities is enriched with a perspective on ordinary things superior to that of ordinary people (A W Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in Its Cultural Context).

The Symposium speaks of contemplating the Beautiful (211d) and the Republic of contemplation of the Form of the Good (517c-d).

But, ultimately, the metaphysical realities are you. Of course you contemplate the possibility that the lower aspects of yourself such as body and mind might not be real, but you cannot doubt that your higher self, which is identical with the realities you are contemplating, is eminently real. The closer you get to the realities you are contemplating, the more you experience yourself as your true self. It is like the centers of two circles that get ever closer to one another until they occupy exactly the same space and position and become one. Focusing, centering, and grounding yourself in a higher and more stable reality.

But the method, the method of this absorption is not known to us! And this method is crucial for understanding what exactly it was that he was doing when "standing motionless". I can "stand motionaless" but I will have ascended to the realm of the pure as much as a mole hill. Because I don't have the method. — baker

The method is known if you read the dialogues carefully. The Phaedo and the Republic tell you exactly what it is. The Good or the One is the ultimate telos of philosophical life. The One is to the intelligible world what the Sun is to the sensible world. Hierarchy of Light, Sun, Intelligence, Reality, One.

The process involves unification, concentration, interiorization, elevation, and expansion of consciousness.

This is what the Forms are about. If you follow them they take you to the One.

There are different stages of experience and realization, accomplishment, or perfection and, therefore, different methods and stages of practice.

As stated before, there are several methods or paths of achieving the goal: (1) religious and devotional practices (theourgia), (2) the mystery traditions (mysteria), and (3) philosophy proper based on intellectual training and contemplation (theoria). Religion is only necessary where required by the practitioner's level of intellectual and spiritual development.

Philosophical practice begins with the cultivation of virtues (self-control, courage, wisdom, righteousness). Self-control and courage lead to indifference to material things and physical and emotional needs, and overcoming fear of death.

The verb meletao, “to take thought”, “meditate”, also “practice” is used by Socrates with reference to “practicing dying” (Phaedo 67e). Of course “dying” here does not mean literally dying but being “dead” to the material world, body, sense perceptions and everything else aside from the soul and pure reason:

In fact, then, Simmias,” said he, “the true philosophers practice dying, and death is less terrible to them than to any other men. Consider it in this way. They are in every way hostile to the body and they desire to have the soul apart by itself alone (67e)

Depending on your stage of intellectual and spiritual development, if the stages of spiritual progress are purification (katharsis), illumination (ellampsis), oneness (henosis) then contemplation or meditation on light is a logical first step. Light dispels the inner darkness, empties and purifies your mind and sanctifies it in preparation for the inner vision of the light of consciousness.

Plotinus says:

[one must] wait quietly till it appears, preparing oneself to contemplate it, as the eye awaits the rising of the sun; and the sun rising over the horizon (from “Ocean,” the poets
say) gives itself to the eyes to see.

- Awaiting the Sun: A Plotinian Form of Contemplative Prayer

Many times it has happened: Lifted out of the body into myself; becoming external to all other things and self-encentered; beholding a marvellous beauty; then, more than ever, assured of community with the loftiest order; enacting the noblest life, acquiring identity with the divine; stationing within It by having attained that activity; poised above whatsoever within the Intellectual is less than the Supreme: yet, there comes the moment of descent from intellection to reasoning, and after that sojourn in the divine, I ask myself how it happens that I can now be descending, and how did the soul ever enter into my body, the soul which, even within the body, is the high thing it has shown itself to be (Enneads 4.8.1)

Among methods, Plotinus also enumerates learning about the Good by analogies, abstractions, understanding, upward steps toward it, purification and cultivation of virtues by means of which one becomes at once seen and seer, and the Supreme is no longer seen as an external:

Here, we put aside all the learning; disciplined to this pitch, established in beauty, the quester holds knowledge still of the ground he rests on, but, suddenly, swept beyond it all by the very crest of the wave of Intellect surging beneath, he is lifted and sees, never knowing how; the vision floods the eyes with light, but it is not a light showing some other object, the light is itself the vision … With This he himself becomes identical, with that radiance whose Act is to engender Intellectual-Principle …(Ennead 6.7.36)

But you need to go through the purification stage to insure that you are psychologically and morally stable and strong, otherwise any metaphysical experience can throw you off balance and do more harm than good.

If the philosopher is intellectually and spiritually not ready, then they must revert to the preparatory practices, otherwise they are wasting their time.

Maybe there was a tradition of training involved that was kept secret. If so, the secret is still hidden from view. — Valentinus

I think there must have been some form of training as this was the whole purpose of a school.

I am talking about what we find in the dialogues.

Philosophy in antiquity was not learned from books, but from a living teacher. There were philosophy schools and groups formed around a teacher, that were accessible to anyone with an interest, especially in the Greek-speaking parts of Europe and the Mid East.

The way I see it, Plato's works provide a number of general guidelines, not a system of water-tight theories, for the simple reason that any unclear matters would have been clarified in conversation with the teacher of your particular school. It was a living tradition based on personal practice and experience, not an academic endeavor in the modern sense.

In any case, as pointed out by Gonzales and others, Plato must be read within his own framework. If we apply Aristotelian categories and ontology to Plato, then we are reading not Plato but Aristotle's interpretation of him. Even if do take some material from Aristotle, as later Platonists sometimes do, it has to be consistent with Plato's own framework.

Toward you, perhaps, because you're male. — baker

You could be right there. There is supposed to be a different sort of chemistry between males and females. Or so they say.

There's a saying: Nobody can hate a woman as much as another woman. — baker

Well, I've seen women or girls hating each other at first sight and later becoming best friends. So, it isn't always like that. Hatred isn't a particularly elevating feeling, anyway, and people with proper upbringing tend to learn to control negative emotions, in the same way you learn not to cry or start a temper tantrum as you grow up.

As long as you make the first step, right? — baker

Not really. In most cases people just look at one another and know they can be friendly without any "first step" being made by either of them.

Most other nations stopped invading other countries long ago. — baker

Yes, but only because of international law or some other reason. For example, Germans are currently unable to invade anyone because they lack a proper military. Invasions can be costly and hence not feasible in the case of poorer countries, etc.

And women as they age tend to lose the lower frequencies, ie. their hearing for male voices deteriorates.
A match made in heaven! — baker

Well, that's how the cookie crumbles, I suppose. Maybe whoever made us had the right idea, after all.

Perhaps you can present his argument with more definition. — Valentinus

My post was in response to @Wayfarer's comment regarding Nirvana not being "navigated, understood, comprehended, by conceptual means."

The same is true of metaphysical realities such as Plato's Forms referred to by Gonzales:

It is precisely because a form is neither a subject nor a predicate that we cannot speak of it as simply one or the other but must, if we are to speak at all, treat it as both. it is thus our very language that leads us to regard beauty both as a property and as something that has this property. Many scholars see Plato as not always, or even ever, clearly distinguishing between being a property and having a property

In other words, language has obvious limitations when it comes to metaphysical realities that are supposed to be experienced, not talked about. This is why Socrates emphasizes the fact that those higher realities are "like the soul" and can be experienced only when the soul dissociates itself from the physical body and perception-based thought and contemplates the realities "alone by itself." This is the point where the mind's contemplative faculty, the nous, takes over from language and discursive thought, and leads the philosopher to a direct experience of the realities in question.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. However, personally, I have zero experience of aggressive American women. Loud, compared to some Europeans, yes. But definitely not aggressive. On the contrary, the ones I know are polite, well-mannered, and very friendly. To me, this is sufficient evidence that being loud does not equate being aggressive.

In fact, as a general rule, I find that if you are courteous, respectful, and friendly to people, they tend to be nice in return.

I am not aware of Americans invading more countries than other nations. If I am not mistaken, Slavic people invaded the European territories they occupy at present. The same is true of Germanic peoples. They invaded most of Europe and founded great nations like Germany, England, and France. There were Germanic kingdoms in Italy and Spain, not to speak of Scandinavian countries. And don't forget the Romans.

Age specific hearing loss? Well, I think I'll have to wait a long time for that to happen. And when it does happen, I can always get a hear aid, can't I? I mean one of those where you can turn down the volume when it gets too loud .... :grin:

But just like ordinary religious people nowadays, Plato et al. didn't arrive at their certainties by doing concentration and meditation techniques, did they?

I find it more likely that they were born and raised into their religion, and then later on propped it up with fancy explanations and justifications. As is common for religious people. — baker

Well, no one is born in a cultural vacuum, are they? Least of all educated people like Plato. Of course Plato made use of the materials available to him in the particular cultural context of his time.

However, it is important to understand that Plato did not blindly adopt the religious beliefs of Athenian society. On the contrary, he introduced a new theology with the cosmic Gods ranking above the Gods of mainstream religion, and a supreme non-personal God above the cosmic Gods.

Plato's introduction of the Forms and, above all, the Form of the Good clearly elevates religion above personal Gods. In fact, contemplating the Forms requires no religious beliefs whatsoever. Even atheists can do that.

And, of course, there is a strong probability that Socrates did practice some form of contemplation or meditation. It would seem strange for someone to advocate the contemplation of metaphysical realities and not practice it themselves.

The Symposium (220d-e) certainly relates how Socrates one morning remained standing motionless and absorbed in thoughts until next morning when he prayed to the Sun after which he went on his way, and that this was a habit of his. It is not difficult to imagine him in that state of contemplation or inner vision in which the soul has ascended to and entered the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and changeless where it dwells in communion with the realities that are like itself. See also Phaedo:

But when the soul inquires alone by itself, it departs into the realm of the pure, the everlasting, the immortal and the changeless, and being akin to these it dwells always with them whenever it is by itself and is not hindered, and it has rest from its wanderings and remains always the same and unchanging with the changeless, since it is in communion therewith. And this state of the soul is called wisdom (phronesis) (79d)

I cannot tell who you are shadow boxing with. — Valentinus

“Shadow boxing”? I wasn’t aware that there was anyone to shadow box with. Perhaps you know more than I do.

Gonzales saying: "the form cannot be expressed in language" does not appear to support Socrates' effort to distinguish the dialectic from mere argument — Valentinus

I think what Gonzales says with regard to Forms and Aristotle’s interpretation of them is quite clear. And if Socrates says that it would be a matter for utterly superhuman and long discourse to tell what the form of the soul is, and he describes it only by comparing it with a charioteer and winged horses then, presumably, the Forms are even more difficult to describe. Moreover, the point is that the Forms are to be “seen” or “grasped with the eye of the soul”. Language can at the most stimulate the soul’s recollection of the Forms.

Gonzales also appears to be no friend of Plotinus who links the generation of creatures to contemplation through forms — Valentinus

Well, it appears to me that people have the right to be or not to be friend of Plotinus. I don’t agree with everything that Plotinus says either.

Naturally Iran is out of this picture now after their famous revolution. — ssu

Well, we know that there was an Iranian revolution in 1979. My point was that the Rockefellers were involved in the oil crisis before the revolution and in the creation of the EU.

But anyway, consider the following facts:

The EU was rejected as undemocratic by Europe’s largest economies, Russia and England.

Germany which was under enemy military occupation was ordered to join.

France was pressured to join.

Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg could not stay out as their economies were closely interlinked with those of Germany and France.

So, all facts considered, how democratic would you say the whole project was?

To be honest with you, I feel Spain disappoints me as a Spaniard. My country has a lot of opportunities around but it looks like our governors do not want to make important choices. Just cheap tourism... also we do not have a good image around the globe and I think it is unfair because we all are not the same... — javi2541997

As a general principle, I think that philosophers should be more independent-minded and not always go with the money.

But the difficulty seems to lie in finding the right balance. When you transition from isolation to openness and you open up your economy to foreign investment and credit, you may reap some benefits but you also become more dependent and more exposed to risk.

According to Santander, Spain “has high levels of private and public debt, a very negative net external position and a high level of structural unemployment.“

Government debt to GDP rose from 69% in 2011 to 100% in 2014 and 120% in 2020.

Compare that to Germany (69.8%) and Russia (17.8%) as of Dec/2020

Country List Government Debt to GDP - Europe

Obviously, China’s pandemic activities have not helped:

Informe Anual 2020 – Bank of Spain

By the way, what changes would you like to see?

this is why, for example, you cannot properly speak of 'the concept of Nirvāṇa.' Because it is emphatically not a concept, and cannot be navigated, understood, comprehended, by conceptual means. — Wayfarer

Correct. Even Plato’s descriptions of the “tripartite soul” or Forms are often hopelessly misinterpreted because some readers fail to understand that the descriptions in question refer to realities that are ultimately indescribable, and that language merely serves as a pointer in the direction the mind must take in order to arrive at the reality described.

As Socrates puts it in the Phaedrus:

Concerning the immortality of the soul this is enough; but about its form we must speak in the following manner. To tell what it really is would be a matter for utterly superhuman and long discourse, but it is within human power to describe it briefly in a figure (246a)

The problem tends to be compounded by some readers’ attempt to interpret Plato through Aristotle who erroneously interprets Plato’s Forms, for example, through his own categories. Thus “scholars” conclude that Plato’s statements are “ambiguous”, “unclear”, “contradictory” or “confused”.

As observed by Francisco Gonzales and others:

It is no surprise that Plato should prove “confused” when interpreted through Aristotle […] As something beyond either a universal property or a paradigm instance, though bearing characteristics of both, the form cannot be expressed in language, with the result that Plato must shift back and forth between treating it as a universal and treating it as an instance. Scholars who attempt to show that Plato is confused and mistaken, “do not understand,” in the words of the Seventh Letter, “that it is not the soul of the speaker or the writer that is being refuted, but the defective nature of each of the four [means of attaining knowledge]

- F. J. Gonzales, “Plato’s Dialectic of Forms”.

And then there are the committed anti-Platonists who deliberately use Aristotle to demonstrate the “inconsistency” and “incoherence” of a “Theory of Forms” that they choose to attribute to Plato but that simply does not exist in the dialogues in the form they claim it does ....

So, Taliban is back mostly in Afghanistan. Anything new changed or is it same old? — Shawn

Well, it was entirely predictable, wasn't it?

Afghanistan is a heritage of the old “Great Game” rivalry between England and Russia. The idea was to keep the Russians out of India and the Indian Ocean. After the partition of India the focus shifted to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban was indeed the creation of England, America, and elements of the Pakistani military and secret service.

Of course Pakistan is playing a double game. It has long been an ally of China and has been pretending to be friendly with America whilst at the same time arming the Taliban and providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda and other terror organizations operating in Kashmir and other parts of India.

It is obviously impossible for the West to defeat the Taliban so long as it has a secure guerrilla base in Pakistan from where it recruits thousands of fanatical fighters and it gets unlimited financial and military support.

America and England know exactly what the situation is but they are doing absolutely nothing about it. So, China and Pakistan look set to be the winners of the Great Game, after which all they need to do is to ally themselves with Turkey and take over the Mid East, North Africa, and Europe.

Terrorism isn’t the biggest problem any more ....

Thank you. This was a very interesting article to read. I learned a bit about what happened to my country in the 40’s. Sadly, the key word is isolation which led Spain in the completely misery... — javi2541997

De nada.

Yes, isolation is never a good idea in a fast-changing world.

However, it was not just isolation. Once upon a time, Spain was a world empire with extensive colonial possessions.

What intervened was other European powers funded by commerce and trade: Portugal, France, Holland, England.

England managed to assert its supremacy and, by allying itself with America and other former colonies, became invincible.

Still, in the end, America took over and now China is on the rise.

The country with the most ruthless business and foreign policies wins.

Also, money tends to corrupt and when we gain money and material possessions we run the risk of losing our culture and our moral values.

So, isolation may have its own advantages after all. Just think what materialism, open borders, and unrestricted immigration can do to your country.

Something genuinely was lost, and it’s very hard to discern what. — Wayfarer

I think what was lost is the premodern worldview that emerged through millennia of human thought and experience, a worldview that was more in tune with both man and the cosmos, that enabled humans to create great art and architecture, and inspired them to great thoughts and actions. The spirit that gave birth to great civilizations and moved our ancestors to conceive of and aspire to higher realities and ideals. We have lost touch with the Form of greatness and for this reason we need the ancient authors to remind us of and guide us to the lost heritage that is waiting to be rediscovered and that, when found, will make us whole again, that is, both human and divine.

But the point I started out trying to make was the emphasis on 'spiritual practice' or sadhana, in those Eastern disciplines. It is always tied to that, as distinct from abstract reasoning about purported entities. — Wayfarer

Of course. Aside from parallels in theory, what Greek and Indian traditions have in common is that they are practice oriented.

And distinguishing true teachings from false, or what is true from what is untrue, is central to the practice of both. Hence the stress on diakrisis in the Greek world and on viveka in next-door India.

Personally, I started reading Plato in my early teens (which I believe is the best age to do it) and I always remembered Plato’s warning about false teachers such as the Sophists.

Interestingly, whilst flicking through the Indian shastras and agamas I found similar caveats including detailed descriptions of what constitutes a true teacher. Of course, if one applied the prescribed criteria to modern “gurus”, nearly 100% of them would fail to pass the test!

Returning to the OP topic, I think Plato’s equation of true philosophy to unwavering adherence to righteousness (dikaiosyne) and wisdom (phronesis) is a good definition:

we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil, and so we shall hold ever to the upward way and pursue righteousness with wisdom always and ever, that we may be dear to ourselves and to the gods both during our sojourn here and when we receive our reward, as the victors in the games go about to gather in theirs. And thus both here and in that journey of a thousand years, whereof I have told you, we shall fare well (Rep. 621c-d).

Being and acting in unity with one’s own higher self and with the higher reality of which the soul is a part, is the very essence of Platonic thought and practice.

As is evident from the text, the Platonic Way or “Upward Way” is “the Way of Righteousness and Wisdom”.

By definition, "way" is something one walks on, not merely thinks about. "Upward" similarly suggests direction and therefore movement.

And Greek odos “way or method followed” is the equivalent of Sanskrit sadhana, “method of (spiritual) practice”.

A plan that never existed in Spain... probably because Franco won and established a dictatorship? So ironic! Because later on US White House loved in the 60’s having Franco in Europe as a counter “socialism/communism” governor. This is why American government established a lot of military bases: Rota, Torrejón, Palomares, etc... — javi2541997

You are right. That’s a very interesting point.

But I don't think it was the Americans. Apparently, because Spain was regarded as “Fascist” it was Britain’s socialist Labour government and France (that was dominated by socialists and communists) that were opposed to Spanish participation in the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan and the Spanish postwar economy – ResearchGate

Even if the bankers did there part, the idea that it's only them, no other things happened, no other agents, players and motivations were not involved, etc. simply doesn't cut it. — ssu

I never said it was only the bankers, did I? It’s a combination of bankers, industrialists, business people and politicians.

Now you go to full tinfoil-hat territory. Yeah, obviously the Rockefellers created OPEC and started the Yom Kippur War... — ssu

OK, let’s take a look at your logic:

A. The statement S (“the Rockefellers created OPEC and started the Yom Kippur War”) is on T (“tin foil hat territory”).
B. Those who make statement S are on T.
C. You (@ssu) made statement S.
D. Therefore you (@ssu) are on T.

I think even someone from Finland must see that if the Rockefellers had a worldwide petroleum empire, then they must have had something to do with oil production and prices, hence it is wrong to say that they didn’t. But maybe not.

By your own logic, if you are a Finnish farmer selling sheep or goat meat to Sweden, you have no interest in raising meat prices, yes?

Anyway, the fact is that the energy crisis actually started in 1970 - 1971 when the US oil production had peaked which meant a fall in supply and a rise in prices.

In October 1973, the OAPEC which was controlled by Kuwait, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, announced an oil embargo on some Western countries including America. The OAPEC used its influence to increase world oil prices.

The Rockefellers’ part in it was that officials of the Rockefeller-controlled Arabian American Oil Co. (ARAMCO) actually encouraged the Arabs to raise their oil prices to justify the Rockefellers’ own price increase in the USA.

According to the Washington Post, ARAMCO (consisting of ESSO, Mobil, Standard of California and Texaco), not only encouraged the OAPEC to raise prices but also neglected to invest in the maintenance of Saudi oil wells in order to hamper production.

The Rockefelllers also profited from Arabs and Iranians depositing their oil dollars in Rockefeller banks. By 1978, Iranian deposits with Chase alone exceeded $1 billion.

And in 1999 Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company. But according to you, this is totally irrelevant.

Anyway, perhaps you should do some reading first before you start denying established facts.

D. Rockefeller, Memoirs

J. Anderson, “Details of Aramco Papers Disclosed”, Washington Post, 01/28/1974

L. Rocks, The Energy Crisis

By “Bhagavad Gita” I really meant Abhinavagupta’s Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita (Gitartha Samgraha) in the Advaita tradition.

Abhinavagupta's Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita (Gitartha Samgraha)

In terms of yogic practices (concentration, meditation, contemplation, etc.) my favorite is the Vijnanabhairava Tantra.

Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra – Wikipedia

Well, the USSR was a secretive dictatorship, so finding exact statistics is difficult if not impossible.

Trade need not have been massive, only sufficient to keep the system going and it did increase later. However, it is important to bear in mind that the main reliance on the West was not trade but credit, investment, technology, and technical assistance.

In 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, Ford started mass-producing Fordson tractors. Because of the Civil War in Russia, it could only start selling them in 1920 after which it exported tens of thousands of Fordsons to the Soviets. That was when Lenin introduced his New Economic Policy (NEP) based of state capitalism. After 1924 Ford licensed the production of tractors and trucks in Russia itself.

From then on, there was a steady transfer of US cash and technology to Russia into the 1980s. The groups involved were the Rockefellers and associates through banking and industrial corporations like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Manufacturers Hanover, and Ford Motor Company.

The weaknesses of centrally-controlled economy became apparent in the 1950’s and by the early 1970’s the USSR economy began to stagnate and this is when the regime became increasingly dependent on foreign investment and credit.

In 1960, a series of US-Soviet conferences (Dartmouth Conference) were initiated that included members of the Soviet government and American businessmen like David Rockefeller.

In 1973, the Rockefellers opened a Chase Manhattan branch in Moscow and in the same year the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC) with Rockefeller as chairman of the nominating committee, was established to promote US-Russian economic cooperation.

Loans were granted by the US government via the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) and by private banks controlled by the Rockefellers and their associates.

For example, in 1974, Eximbank granted a loan of $180 million to Russia to buy goods and services from US corporations in addition to private loans from US banks in the same amount.

180‐MILLION LOAN TO SOVIET UNION IS MADE BY U.S. - The New York Times

In 1978, the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan was also involved in financing the Orenburg gas pipeline from Russia to Europe.

In the 1980’s the USSR was forced to import growing quantities of food for which it had no hard currency.

As the Wikipedia article says:

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union needed considerable sums of hard currency to pay for food and capital goods imports and to support client states. What the country could not earn from exports or gold sales it borrowed through its banks in London, Frankfurt, Vienna, Paris, and Luxembourg.

The banks were Moscow Narodny Bank (London), Ost-West Handelsbank (Frankfurt), Donau Bank (Vienna), Banque Commercial pour l'Europe du Nord (Paris), East-West United Bank (Luxembourg).

When the USSR finally collapsed in 1991 it had a foreign debt of $70 billion.

Meditation is nothing but looking without interference from beliefs. — hope

Of course. What else can it be? As Socrates says, we must look at reality with the soul alone by itself.

And all this to what end? — baker

To attain to reality, to truth. To true knowledge, true experience, and true being. That's the only way to be yourself or just be.