There is an established discipline of cognitive psychology and science which works on issues of perception, emotion, consciousness, and other aspects of mind from a scientific viewpoint. The phenomena they study and theories they develop are not mysterious or outside the limits of mainstream science. — T Clark

Science, yes. Unfortunately, most people have no knowledge of science.

If everything were so well-known, clear-cut, and non-mysterious, then presumably people would not start threads like this one or, if they did, the issue would be settled with just one response.

Additionally, when people do have knowledge, it is not direct, personal knowledge, it is second-hand knowledge acquired from scientists. Scientists themselves have no direct knowledge of scientific facts but learn about them from other scientists, etc. Plus, they may have no knowledge of things that are outside their particular discipline or field, and so on.

It's not guess work at all. There's just a lot we don't know yet. Not the same thing. Because, you know, science. — T Clark

"Guess work" was a slight exaggeration. However, if there is "a lot we don't know yet", then what we think we know may not be true after all. Or it may appear in a totally different light once new knowledge has been revealed. We don't even know who it is that knows or thinks that they know.

Step barefooted on sharp glass, this is not guessing there is pain — Constance

The pain itself probably is not guessing since we seem to experience it. The guessing seems to come into it when we are trying to explain how contact with the sharp glass translates itself into the sensation of pain, who or what it is that perceives and interprets it and why, etc.

As the way we perceive things tends to change from one individual to another, and from situation to situation, at least some of it seems to be subjective.

The modern Russian state and the EU came into existence at practically the same time — the former in late December 1991 and the latter in February 1992 — and they soon laid the groundwork for their mutual relations. The two parties signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 1994 — and ratified it in 1997 — that made their relations so close as to be considered “strategic” at one point.
This differs significantly from the slogan of a “Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok” that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev coined in 1989 to connote a common European homeland that, in reality, had no document or agreement to back it up.
In contrast, the Russian-EU partnership was based firmly on the idea of integration. While Brussels never offered Russia full EU membership, it offered general, though indefinite assurances that its eastern neighbor would play a suitably substantial role in the “Greater Europe” that was then being built.
At the core of this “Greater Europe,” as it was then envisioned, was a rapidly expanding European Union that wound up more than doubling in size from 1992 to 2007 — and which, it was expected, would eventually include Russia as well as other Soviet republics. A sort of pan-European space was created, although Russia’s status in that new entity was never described or even discussed. Both sides simply assumed that Russia would be part of Europe.

Is Russia's Dialogue with the EU Coming to an End? - The Moscow Times

So, you can see that the plan for Russian integration into the EU was hatched at the same time that Russia was being opened up to Western capital and it was part of the larger EU expansion to the east and south. The Barcelona Process (BP), the precursor to the 2008 Mediterranean Union, was initiated in 1995, at the same time as the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was signed ....

The PCA aimed to achieve “Russia's progressive integration into the open international trading system” and “the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

EUR-Lex AGREEMENT ON PARTNERSHIP AND COOPERATION

Maybe it's time to change the vat. Or its contents, as the case may be :wink:

Correct. When it comes to things like consciousness, how it operates, and how it produces cognition, perception, experience, etc. it is all guess work.

That's why Socrates said he stopped looking into physical matter like the materialists and took up inquiry into the mind instead ....

Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke of the integration of Russia and the Ukraine back in 2007:

So we should take the European Neighbourhood Policy a step further … we must offer access to the full benefits of the single market …. The first step would be the accession of neighbouring countries – especially Russia and the Ukraine – to the WTO. Then we must build on this with comprehensive free-trade agreements …”

- David Miliband Speech at College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium, November 15 2007

David Miliband Archive: Europe 2030: Model power not superpower

He also called for the use of both “soft power” and “hard (i.e. military) power”, etc. Of course, Russian and Ukranian integration into the EU economic sphere never happened because of the Russian-Georgian War in 2008 and US-EU involvement in other former Soviet republics.

So the EU had to focus on the Mid East and North Africa (MENA) region. But that failed too:

The trade agreements between the European Union and Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, part of a broader effort to integrate the north and south shores of the Mediterranean and the Near East, have disappointed many who believed they could transform North Africa.
The political context clearly has not helped. The vision of the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, signed by EU, North African and other Mediterranean nations was to create an “an area of shared prosperity,” but two decades on it was acknowledged that this vision had not been realised and the Barcelona Declaration could not have predicted the destabilising impact on North Africa “of al-Qaeda… and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; the political immobility and lack of reforms and improvements in governance in many Mediterranean Partner Countries…; the instability caused by the Arab Spring since 2011…; the migration and refugee crises; or the emergence of Islamic State terrorism”

Policy-Report-3-Towards-EU-MENA-Shared-Prosperity.pdf

But there is no doubt that the ambitions and expectations were very high:

The UfM has introduced a new logic in Euro-Mediterranean relations and an ambitious institutional framework for regional cooperation. However, due to political obstacles chiefly as a consequence of the Middle East conflict, it has until now struggled to deliver results to meet the high expectations at the moment it was launched.

The Future of Euro-Mediterranean Regional Cooperation: The Role of the Union for the Mediterranean : IEMed

You need to start by understanding the Mediterranean Union project.

The primary intention was to do it by economic means. You start with economic cooperation agreements; you follow up with credit and investment; you tie their economy as close to, and make it as dependent on, your own, as possible; you promote the election of cooperative political leaders; you encourage capitalism dependent on international finance and intergovernmental institutions like World Bank, IMF, IFC; you liberalize and westernize their society as much as possible; you bind them to the West through legal agreements; and you gradually proceed with political integration.

You deploy your intelligence and other special operation services in collaboration with local opposition, criminal elements, and "useful idiots" to encourage or assist regime change, strictly if, when, and where necessary.

Military intervention is kept to the absolute minimum and only applied when absolutely necessary. It is never done except as a Plan C, i.e., after Plan A and Plan B have failed. And even then you first use proxies like local or foreign militias, etc.

It is a very gradual and carefully calibrated process that is designed and implemented by an army of experts. It is not really meant to get to Plan C as this can go horribly wrong and blow up in your face.

Now we appear to have come full circle back to a point of apparent disagreement. What you say, "It's only for the select few" and the quoted passage from Matthew both suggest that there is only one path to wisdom, or at the very least one kind of path consisting in discipleship of some kind, which is precisely one of the things I've been arguing against. — Janus

Well, IMHO there is nothing wrong with disagreement.

You are right that there is only one path to wisdom in a Christian context as there is only one path in Platonism, Hinduism or Buddhism. You can't walk on more than one path simultaneously. You may draw inspiration from other paths where absolutely necessary but you need to choose one path as your mainstay otherwise you may end up confounding yourself.

There are many ways to the top of the mountain but you can only ascend by choosing one. Some form of commitment is necessary. Too many cooks spoil the broth, etc.

But I think we agree on the rest.

What if wisdom consists in ataraxia, though? — Janus

Ataraxia can get you anywhere. You need to take the beginning, the center, and the end, i.e., "s", "o", ph", "i", "a", and discard the "ch", "i", "z", "r", "e", "n" to get it right. :smile:

Otherwise put, you need some reference to external realities (and authorities) to make sure you don't go to places where you don't want to be.

It's only for the select few. So you have nothing to fear :smile:

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)

I am happy with the idea of obedience to the "still small voice" of conscience, but I accept no external authority. — Janus

I agree. However, the path of humility and obedience is voluntary. No one was forced to become a monk. There was a trial period during which both the novice and the superiors could make up their mind. And monks were free to leave any time they wanted.

EU having military power? NATO is different from the EU. — ssu

France and England had enough military power to deal with any Arab state. Even more so, with NATO involvement.

You should perhaps prove here that they really instigated the uprising. — ssu

You should perhaps start by reading the EU documents on the Mediterranean Union. Or talk to yourself.

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.

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

Correct. The supreme example of humility and obedience to a higher reality. Humility and obedience were central to the early monastic orders. Without humility and obedience you were out of the door, on your way, and on your own.

Being loud doesn't count as "aggressive" in my view. You sometimes get groups of teenage girls that have had a few drinks and are a bit loud, and sometimes women or girls may start a fight with other girls but that's very rare. I just don't think you can extrapolate from this that women in general are "aggressive".

The Russians said, "you mess with us, we mess with you". They sided with Turkey, took over Syria, and messed up the whole Mediterranean Union plan that could no longer be implemented without a major war. And no one wanted that.

Union means union, economic, cultural, and eventually, political. Read the official EU documents. Oil extraction and distribution would be done by Western companies that have the know-how and the technology and some of which are co-owners of the oil fields.

It doesn't matter if the EU is a "loose entity". What matters is that it represents the interests of the banking and industrial corporations that founded it in the first place. And it has the economic and military power to implement its plans. Unfortunately, the Arab uprisings instigated by EU and US intelligence didn't quite work out as expected, Turkey's Erdogan had his own plans to rebuild the Mid-Eastern and North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Russia sided with Erdogan, Germany's economy became dependent on Russian gas and exports to Turkey (and now on exports to China), and the plan unraveled.

Now they have to do it gradually and by the backdoor through sanctions on Russia, etc. and with uncertain results.

I agree that Europe should have sided with Russia and both of them with America. But the EU, NATO, and US wanted to do it on their own terms and this was not possible. Now we've got a fine mess to deal with. China is building an economic corridor through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to Iraq, Mid-East oil, and on to Africa's resources on which Europe depends. This means the end of Europe as a power and the process is being accelerated through ever-closer economic cooperation with China.

Correct. American corporations led by the Rockefellers' Harvard Management Company and Goldman Sachs. And their European partners.

I didn't say all the countries that were expected to join were hostile to the idea. But definitely Serbia's Milosevic and some Arab leaders.

The EU needed to get its hands on Arab (North African and Mid Eastern) oil. The Mediterranean Union aimed to achieve economic, cultural, and political union. European technology and investment were to be exchanged for Arab migrant workers to make up for the EU's declining population.

BTW, personally, I think that the (unofficial) plan extended to Ukraine and even Russia. Again, tin order o supply the EU with Russian gas and oil. Of course, Putin couldn't allow that to happen. So, his government is on the EU-US hit list and this may ultimately drive Russia into the arms of China. The West is in a self-inflicted catch-22 situation and it isn't looking good.

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

Are you practicing your Buddhist sophistry, sorry, debating, skills on us? :grin:

Logic was just emerging and every system of rational thought is based on the elements available in the current culture of the time. Plato simply made use of what he had at his disposal. What would you have liked him to do, invent everything from scratch?

The Forms are a type of universals. First, in Greek religion, the Gods were personifications of natural phenomena, states of mind, human occupations, moral values, etc., that served as a form of universals that enabled Greeks to organize and make sense of the world they lived in.

Second, the Greek word for Form, eidos, means “form”, “kind”, “species”. So, it makes sense to speak of a particular x as being a form or kind of a universal X.

Third, Plato follows the reductivist tendency already found in Greek philosophy, and in natural science in general, that sought to reduce the number of fundamental principles of explanation to the absolute minimum, hence the “first principle” or arche of the earliest Greek philosophers.

So, the Forms are consistent with Plato’s explanatory framework which is hierarchical.

Fourth, it is an undeniable fact that all experience, for example, visual perception, can be reduced to fundamental elements such as number, size, shape, color, distance, etc. that constitute a form of natural universals.

Fifth, it is a common feature of the Greek language as spoken at Plato’s time to form abstract nouns by adding the definite article to the neuter adjective. Thus the adjective “good”, agathos, which is agathon in the neuter, becomes the abstract noun “the good”, to agathon. This enables the Greek philosopher to speak of “the Good”, “the Beautiful”, or “the True”. Plato was making philosophy and logic for Greeks, not for non-Greek speaking people.

Sixth, eidos comes from the verb eido, “I see” and literally means “the seen”, “that which is seen”. This reflects the fact that for Greeks in general and for Plato in particular, to know was to see, thus knowledge or wisdom being a form of mental looking or seeing. Which is why in Plato, invisible realities are seen with the “eye of the soul”.

So, when Socrates talks to Meno or Simmias about Forms, it makes perfect sense to them.

But why should we accept them? — baker

No one says that we should. But if we are trying to reconstruct what Socrates meant by examined life, etc., we need to look into known states of consciousness that are in agreement with Socrates' statements in the Phaedo and elsewhere.

It seems unquestionable that certain concentration and meditation techniques lead to an experience of peace and calm followed by joy, clarity, and what has been described as something akin to “love”, as well as experiences of "light." I don’t think that people need to have their experiences certified, approved and stamped by scientists, but science seems to agree to some extent:

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.

Meditation: In Depth | NCCIH (nih.gov)

Research has shown that the perception-meditation continuum of increasing arousal of the sympathetic nervous system is not the same as the perception-hallucination continuum.

A Cartography of the Ecstatic and Meditative States - JSTOR

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence of "omniscience" or anything of that kind, but there is some evidence that it isn’t all just hallucination. This is sufficient basis for further investigation.

Socrates relates that he had dreams in which he was ordered to write poems to his master Apollo (Phaedo 60d-e). People have precognitive dreams. How does science explain this?

I agree. Totally useless or, rather, self-interested politicians.

However, I think the story is a bit more complex than that and it's got to do with the same multinational corporations.

Remember that the European Union (EU) aimed to expand eastward into Eastern Europe and southwards into North Africa and the Mid East.

The Enlargement of the European Union was based on the Europe Agreements signed with the Central and Eastern European countries in the 1990s and to the Association Agreement with Turkey, and the Union for the Mediterranean based on the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of EU and Arab Foreign Ministers, 1995:

Europe Agreements

EU-Arab Conference 1995

Union for the Mediterranean – Wikipedia

For that objective, the EU and its US partners had to get rid of all the "dictators" (some real, some perceived) that presented any opposition to EU expansion. This is what created the big mess you see in North Africa and the Mid East.

And, of course, Russia and Turkey have taken advantage of the chaos, and China is never far behind ....

We'll have to disagree on that then :grin:

Nothing wrong with being loud if they are being themselves, is there? Even Spaniards and Italians can be loud but, again, because they are being themselves.

Japanese women may sound aggressive because of their language and Arab women possibly because of both language and culture. But definitely not Americans.

These studies all suggest that the auditory system and speech perception are different in men and women. — baker

Yes, I think something along those lines is probably true.

I find that American women in general have much louder voices, speak in a lower tone register with less tonal and dynamic variation than women elsewhere. So that gives them the effect of being dominant, aggressive, intimidating — baker

I don't think I quite agree with that. Louder than other English-speaking women, e.g., English, Irish, maybe. But definitely NOT aggressive, they are just being themselves.

I would say Japanese and Chinese women can sound aggressive. And, above all, Arabs. But none of them sound as aggressive as the men.

I would add, though, that these works have the status of classics, because they've retained interest and validity from ancient times. — Wayfarer

I agree. I've put Cicero's How to Win an Argument on my reading list and there are a few others that sound worthwhile reading.

Plato does not appear to be 180's strength. But at least he tried ... :smile:

Madge isn't performing for people like you. — K Turner

I never said she was. And even if she was, I'm not interested, period. There is no legal requirement for me to justify not liking her shows.

Now imagine a group of women or gay men come in and start saying "why do men need to be this aggressive?" — K Turner

I can't imagine anyone saying that. People are doing it for fun or for money and it's not illegal.

Plus, the OP is about the female form, not about MMA.

Well, I disagree. Ancient Greek mythos is not the same as Modern English myth. It is simply an account or narrative intended to illustrate an argument. A Platonic mythos has several levels of meaning and one of its purposes is to evoke in the reader thoughts, emotions, or attitudes that are more complicated to convey by other means.

The Platonic mythos doesn't "eclipse" philosophical thought or logic at all, on the contrary, it stimulates dialectic and inspires the reader on many different levels. If all you can see in Plato is a steaming pile of nonsense, then you may benefit from considering that beauty (or pile of steaming as the case may be) is in the eye (or head) of the beholder ....

I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense, actually, and I agree with you.

Personally, I tend to react negatively more to people’s actions than to physical things, for example, when someone is telling lies or trying to manipulate me like making me buy something that I don’t want, join an organization that I have no interest in, or generally making me do things that serve their own agenda.

This is why I don’t buy into stuff like the shows of Madonna and others. I have nothing against them as a person, but to me it looks totally fake and like a form of mass manipulation and control like in some weird cult or sect. But people apparently get upset when they hear this and they start lecturing you and trying to tell you that you are wrong and that you should do as you are told and not dare resist the mass trend or movement that is being imposed on you by “society”. A bit like what is happening on some online forums.

Regarding male and female voices, apparently, nearly half of Americans think that male voices are more powerful, so I’m guessing that the other half don’t think so?

In any case, for some unknown reason, I tend to hear female voices more clearly than male voices, especially when they are in a group. It doesn’t bother me at all, and it isn’t a criticism, it’s just that I tend to notice them over male voices. Maybe the female voice sounds more “musical” to male ears and you instinctively notice it before you notice the more “dull” male voice.

But I do agree that voice is very important, it tells you a lot about a person, for example, if they are being honest or telling you stories for some ulterior reason.

So, voice and sound in general seems to be as important as sight, perhaps even more important because to see something you need to keep your eyes on it, whereas sound is closer to you and tends to surround you from all sides and is in a way similar to feeling by touch.

Maybe this is why, in addition to visual images, music is used to evoke a certain response from the public.

I have no qualms with this movie as it depicts the intensity of female desire (regardless toward another female - nonetheless, applies to men as well). — Cobra

I did watch it and I enjoyed the music and the scenery. Just a bit emotional, maybe. Other than that, I can't see much difference to a story about a guy and a girl, to be honest.

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

Exactly. In some cases.

As I have said many times before, and as long shown by scholars like A E Taylor (Plato: The Man And His Work) and others, Plato not only has a theology, but positively criticizes and even mocks atheism.

The main problem stems from the fact that when modern readers read Socrates' statements, for example, they fail to recognize that the Sun for Plato is a God and that the Good is likewise a form of deity, simply because Platonic deities do not conform with mainstream concepts of God. In other words, the dialogues are not viewed through the perspective of 4th century BC Athens but 21st century CE Chicago which are worlds apart geographically, culturally, and chronologically.

There are, in various cultures, terms for higher knowledge - for example Jñāna, Abhijna, Prajñāpāramitā, Vidya (from Indian philosophy); gnosis, noesis (from Platonism). These conceptions have been obliterated in Western culture, which is why we can't recognise them. We have no reference cases for them, so to us they can only appear as statements of feeling or faith. That's my take on it. — Wayfarer

I definitely agree with this. The fact that there is no scientific definition or proof of something, does not mean that it does not exist. There are powerful emotional states like love, for example, that seem to have no precise scientific definition. Science cannot even adequately define consciousness, let alone paranormal states of it.

Going back to Socrates, if we are to be consistent about the "examined life", then we need to look into the issue of enlightenment more thoroughly and, at least from my own researches, it seems that certain mental training techniques like concentration, meditation, and contemplation, in which as Socrates says, the soul or consciousness is "all by itself and gathered into itself," and undisturbed by the body-mind complex, do lead to certain states of mind or consciousness where some rather interesting things are experienced, including an extraordinary sense of peace, joy, and mental clarity and alertness.

This, of course, does not constitute proof of soul, immortality, afterlife, or God. But it does prove that there are states of consciousness that are not normally experienced and only in certain very specific circumstances. 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.

I agree with this; it may indeed be so; all I have been arguing is that we cannot know that it is. — Janus

Correct. I'm not sure about the implications of "cannot know" though. Possibly, "do not know" is somehow less strong and more impartial. And, of course, it applies either way.

But, more generally, I think we were trying to establish how Socrates (or Plato) viewed things and then see how the discussion develops from there.

The agreeableness of women and the lack of interest, desire and intimidation to compete with the robust social dominance of men - even down to the very fact that men have more powerful and louder vocal cords, is largely absent in women, but doesn't in any way imply women enjoy discussing other women as a preference relative to the male form and her love for male beauty. — Cobra

You really find male voices overpowering and intimidating? I am asking because when I eat out in a busy restaurant, for example, what I tend to hear is female voices. Or perhaps men are instinctively more receptive to female voices and vice versa. But I admit that some men can be very loud and even sound or actually become aggressive when they've had too much to drink.

Incidentally, you mention "male form" and "male beauty". How much of this would you say is physical and how important is it in comparison with other forms of beauty and/or attractiveness?

You are saying that "sexuality lingers on a disgust and pleasure dichotomy or axis" and that "sexuality is disgustingly the most pleasurable of sensations on earth". Why "disgustingly"?

Also, you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking on issues of sexuality and you are saying some interesting things. May I ask if all these are your own ideas or how did you come to hold these views and when? Has philosophy had any influence on any of this or is there no relation?

Interesting. I have not read about enlightenment traditions for decades. — Tom Storm

You are probably in the right place at the right time then :grin:

But you are right, enlightenment or illumination does imply some form of diminution of the ego, at least in the Platonic tradition. The ego or individual self is illumined by the Cosmic Intellect or the Good and is submerged and "taken over" as it were by it, similar to the flame of a candle in strong sunlight.

According to some, enlightenment is sudden and total, whereas according to others it is a gradual process that even continues after death.

I think @Janus is making a valid point. The "egoless sage", since she hasn't died yet, may indeed not know the truth about death. However, that depends on how we define enlightenment. If it is a special state that facilitates paranormal knowledge, then there is a logical possibility that there would be some prescient knowledge of afterlife.

My understanding is that the OP is about Socrates and how concepts like "enlightened", "rational", "virtuous" can be defined in the context of the Socratic "examined life":

In another thread about the importance of psychology, I stated that the examined life is of importance to Socrates in that it may lead to various terms that lead to a better life. Such terms can be called, "enlightened", "rational", "virtuous".

Yet, without context these terms are ambiguous in terms of living an examined life. If we to take what Socrates said as important to ourselves, then what does it mean to live an examined life, as surely it is to our benefit to do so? — Shawn

How can we discuss Socrates' concepts without referring to his statements in the dialogues???

Rather, the question is, do people even want to communicate? — baker

That's what I'm saying. If there were a genuine will to communicate and to live peacefully and in unity and harmony, presumably there would be less crime, violence, wars, or poverty in the world.

Unfortunately, self-interest tends to come first and this happens at individual, national, and international level.

It doesn't matter. There is nothing attractive to me about the female form. — Cobra

I get that. I was just curious how talking about women comes to evoke a feeling of "disgust". But, as you say, it doesn't matter.

Men and women are not that different. They just aren't identical. The point of my post is saying just this. Women and men are not identical due to physiological distinctions that have affects; but they are not of differentiation in kind. — Cobra

As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with that. I said "if" men and women are so different (as it is often claimed). My personal view is that differences are being exaggerated and often exploited for commercial, political, or other reasons.

Establishing effective communication is easy and being done by everyone without a listening problem. — Cobra

Sure. Provided that there is a will to do so. And that's where the problem is. Society and the world in general would be a much better place if this were the case. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be so.

I think the problem stems from seeing Plato and company through modern secular eyes, as skeptics, giving them more skeptical credit than they're due, when in fact it would be more appropriate to see them as religious preachers. — baker

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. He was perhaps more successful than others, which is why his ideas were later embraced by Christians.

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. Unfortunately, those who are incognizant of the cultural and linguistic background jump to the conclusion that it was an arbitrary "invention".

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. This has led some to misconstrue him as a "skeptic" on "nihilist".

In reality, I think some of Socrates and Plato's views are compatible not only with monotheistic traditions but also with Hinduism and perhaps even Buddhism. His idea of "examined life" certainly seems generally acceptable, with some modifications.

You are being factious right? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"Factious"? I am merely pointing to the reality on the ground. We are divided by many things. Politics is just one of them and exemplifies the situation. I believe in diversity but diversity is best taken in the context of unity. Otherwise said, unity in multiplicity is the key to peace, happiness, and prosperity.

I am very familiar with your view of Plato due to your constant repetition of the interpretation. — Valentinus

Well, I don’t think it is “my view” or “interpretation” in this case at all. Divine illumination is a key element of Greek philosophy in general and of Platonism in particular.

Divine illumination played a prominent part in ancient Greek philosophy, in the later Greek commentary tradition, in neo-Platonism, and in medieval Islamic philosophy.

Divine Illumination - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Socrates makes it very clear that perception in the sensible realm is due to the light of the Sun that illumines the material world, and knowledge in the intelligible realm is due to the light of truth that emanates from the Good of which the Sun is the offspring:

This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision …” (Rep 508b - c ).

The text itself says that.

With these set of conditions being put forth as an explanation of our experience, "divine illumination" seems to be the only light bulb around. — Valentinus

Wikipedia and Aristotle may say many things. However, just because they say something, it doesn’t follow that Plato and Platonism are wrong.

The soul’s intelligence operates on different levels from sense perception to emotions to discursive thought to non-discursive (or intuitive) perception. Socrates in the Phaedo says very clearly that true knowledge and experience of reality is attained when the soul is alone by itself and gathered into itself without body, sense perceptions, or anything else apart from pure reason:

Would not that man do this most perfectly who approaches each thing, so far as possible, with the reason alone, not introducing sight into his reasoning nor dragging in any of the other senses along with his thinking, but who employs pure, absolute reason in his attempt to search out the pure, absolute essence of things, and who removes himself, so far as possible, from eyes and ears, and, in a word, from his whole body, because he feels that its companionship disturbs the soul and hinders it from attaining truth and wisdom? Is not this the man, Simmias, if anyone, to attain to the knowledge of reality?”
“That is true as true can be, Socrates,” said Simmias (65e-66a)

Divine illumination comes from the fact that the Forms are divine and that contemplation of them by means of pure reason (logismos) or intellect (nous) logically leads to the inner illumination (photismos or ellampsis) of the soul with the light of truth. This is why the soul must turn away from the body and the material world, and look on the intelligible world of realities that are divine like itself:

“Now we have also been saying for a long time, have we not, that, when the soul makes use of the body for any inquiry, either through seeing or hearing or any of the other senses—for inquiry through the body means inquiry through the senses,—then it is dragged by the body to things which never remain the same, and it wanders about and is confused and dizzy like a drunken man because it lays hold upon such things?”
“Certainly.”
“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. Is it not so?”
“Socrates,” said he, “what you say is perfectly right and true” (Phaedo 79c-d)