The female body is not 'attractive' to other women except in the minds of men that project their sexualities onto women — Cobra

I would say it would depend on how we define "attractive". On an "attractiveness-repulsion" scale you may have aesthetic appreciation, sexual appeal, disgust, etc. I would imagine it rather difficult for someone who has an aesthetic appreciation of physical beauty to find a well-proportioned body - any body, male or female - "disgusting". After all, the women we were talking about were talking about other women, not having them dancing on their laps. So, maybe you are exaggerating a bit.

Men that are lazy and do not care about female sexuality use money to attract women that aren't even sexually into them. It is actually easy for men to earn money than actively attempt to be sexually appetizing to women and appease her sexual nature. — Cobra

True. However, men earn money because they have to earn money for a living. Attracting women seems to be a secondary consideration. Besides, it takes two to tango. If women don't put any pressure on men to make themselves more "appetizing" to women, then of course they won't. And, anyway, if sexuality is so "brutal" and "ruthless", etc., then it shouldn't really matter, should it? That also explains male "blind-spots" and "laziness".

The way I see it, either someone is attractive or they are not. If a woman is attractive to me then she is attractive because she is attractive, not because she is making herself attractive. I think any average guy can see the difference and can tell, at least on an intuitive level, when a woman is attractive without doing anything and sometimes even in spite of doing something, and when she appears to be attractive because she is making herself attractive.

And at the point when true attraction has been established on a more fundamental level and a decision has been made to respond to it, your "brutal and ruthless" or "raw" element comes into play, and the details no longer matter.

But, in the final analysis, the real problem seems to be communication. If men and women are so different in the ways they think, feel, act, and experience everything, and conceal everything behind a wall of awkward silence, external appearances and social rituals, then how do you establish communication in any meaningful way, in the first place? You just can't. You may temporarily open up to verbal or intellectual interaction for the purpose of attaining a sexual end, but beyond that, it's back to square one, women are women and men are men, and everyone retreats behind entrenched positions. Men vote Trump and women vote Biden, and the wall goes up until next time. It isn't just sexuality that is brutal and ruthless, life can be brutal and ruthless, too. :smile:

Alright, so you're going to tell an adult (Britney, Madonna, Gaga, take your pick) who has millions of fans worldwide, has earned millions of dollars and has wide critical acclaim that their performance style of "unnecessary" and "a waste of time." — K Turner

It sounds like you've never heard of freedom of speech.

Plus, I never said "unnecessary" and "a waste of time" in absolute terms. Of course their performance style is not a waste of time in terms of making money :grin:

we appear to be making a lot of assumptions here — Possibility

That was precisely my point. Perhaps not "a lot", but too many assumptions, especially of the unexamined kind.

Which would seem to render dialogue a rather problematic endeavour .... :smile:

I don't agree with the use of that word 'theistic' in this context. — Wayfarer

I tend to use "theistic" in the sense of "not atheistic" and "spiritual", if you will.

Gerson defines Platonism as consisting of antimaterialist, antimechanist, antinominalist, antirelativist, and antiskeptic elements that predate Plato but were brought together and systematized by Plato and later Platonists.

Another important fact to bear in mind is that Plato does have a theology. However, Plato's theology and "theism" are of a particular form in that they are based on a hierarchy of metaphysical entities or realities from the Gods officially worshiped at Athens (the Olympic Gods), to the cosmic Gods (Sun, Moon, etc.) to the Good or the One. Plato's supreme deity has two aspects, an anthropomorphic one represented by the Maker of the Cosmos and a higher, non-anthropomorphic one, represented by the Good/the One.

The goal of Platonism is knowledge which in its highest form is self-knowledge, self-realization, or self-recognition in which the conscious self or soul realizes its identity with the Universal Consciousness which is ultimate reality.

The process that leads to the highest state consists of three basic phases or stages (1) purification, (2) illumination, and (3) deification or unification.

There are several methods or paths of achieving this: (1) philosophy proper based on intellectual training and contemplation (theoria), (2) religious and devotional practices (theourgia), and (3) the mystery traditions (mysteria).

Depending on the individual's psychological makeup and stage of intellectual and spiritual development, any one of the above paths may be more suitable or effective than the others. In ideal circumstances, a qualified teacher or guide assigns the philosopher to one path or the other. But all three ultimately lead to the same goal and may even be used concomitantly with one another.

It follows that though to some Platonists "God" or the supreme principle is pure universal consciousness or something that is indescribable, unfathomable, etc., to others it may be the Maker of the Universe, or indeed, one of the cosmic Gods such as the Sun. This is why it is rather difficult to describe Platonism as "not theistic" particularly in view of the fact that Plato's works are very much about divine realities. But we must, of course, understand "theistic" in the Platonic sense.

Whilst it is true that we live in a "secular" world with strong anti-theistic tendencies, we must, as far as possible, try to understand Platonism on its own terms. But this is just my opinion.

when your legs are pinned behind your head and his deep testosterone-heavy voice is whispering sweet nothings in your ear. — Cobra

Sounds like some secret yoga posture we haven't heard of yet :grin:

But the notion of most heterosexual women having "a disgust response talking about other women" seems a bit exaggerated to me.

I suppose there is a certain degree of competitiveness, jealousy, and envy. However, I think it would depend on how competitive, jealous, or envious the women involved are, on who the "other women" they are talking about are and in what context, etc.

But I agree that broad shoulders, strong arms, and "masculine" voice are probably a factor in male attractiveness to women, which is only natural, even though women may not openly admit it.

Platonism, ancient philosophy generally, existed in a master-student relationship. The teacher passed down understanding of principles many of which can't be written down, or for which the written texts are simply digests or mnemonics. So they provided a structure around the 'steaming piles', they had a 'topography', if you like. — Wayfarer

Correct. I think it is essential to understand that philosophy in general has been theistic from its very beginnings in Ancient Greece until recently. Atheistic or anti-theistic philosophy in the West became dominant only recently, from the 1800's to the 1900's with the spread of Marxism, Darwinism, materialist scientism, and Stalinism.

The atheists and anti-Platonists (here represented by Strauss & followers) are now attempting to erase theistic philosophy from the history and memory of mankind. One of their standard tactics is to artificially divide Platonism into separate segments like "Socratic", "Platonic", and "Neoplatonic", after which they declare these to be totally distinct and mutually incompatible.

This tactic leads the anti-Platonists, Platonophobes, or Plato-haters to dismiss anything Platonists say about Socrates or Plato with standard remarks like "Socrates knows nothing" and "Plato says nothing".

Another irrational technique is to insist that Plato should not be interpreted through Plotinus and other Platonists who had direct access to the Greek Platonic tradition, but through Maimonides who learned about Greek philosophy through Arab philosophers living in Spain!

The reason the Platonophobes choose Maimonides as the sole legitimate interpreter of Plato (aside from Marx, Lenin, and Stalin) is that he employed an esotericist interpretation of Greek philosophers according to which they have "hidden or secret teachings", in particular, of a subversive political nature, that only they, the Maimonidists and Straussians, know how to read and correctly interpret.

And this is why it is absolutely imperative to preserve, revive, and promote the memory of the Platonic heritage at all costs.

Plato in antiquity was referred to as "the divine Plato", precisely on account of his metaphysical teachings that were thought to have been divinely inspired. "Illumination" or photismos is central to the Platonic tradition precisely because it describes the elevation and expansion of consciousness that follows "purification", katharsis, and culminates in enlightenment proper or "deification", theosis in which the philosopher attains the highest states of experience, knowledge, and existence.

Well, philosophy as understood by Socrates and Plato certainly was a way of life, far from just intellectual pursuit.

A key aim of philosophy was the acquisition of practical knowledge regarding what is right and what is wrong and how the philosopher can act rightly at all times.

In addition to opinion, reason, and personal experience or insight, knowledge was also acquired through conversation or dialogue with others.

If they're true, they're no longer simply opinion. — Wayfarer

Absolutely correct. They are right opinion, orthe doxa, which can be used as right guidance, orthe hegesia in our actions. Like knowing the road to Larisa without having been there. So, definitely a form of knowledge:

Socrates
If a man knew the way to Larisa, or any other place you please, and walked there and led others, would he not give right and good guidance?
Meno
Certainly.
Socrates
Well, and a person who had a right opinion as to which was the way, but had never been there and did not really know, might give right guidance, might he not?
Meno
Certainly.
Socrates
And so long, I presume, as he has right opinion about that which the other man really knows, he will be just as good a guide—if he thinks the truth instead of knowing it—as the man who has the knowledge.
Meno
Just as good.(Meno 97a-b).

Incidentally, Socrates in the Phaedo says that we must have got the knowledge of the Forms before we were born (75d) and that we lost this knowledge in the course of being born, but by using our senses we start regaining it (75e).

And he mentions the Forms of Largeness, Health, and Strength, that through training we get closest to knowing them (65d-e) and that by separating ourselves as much as possible from the physical body and sense perceptions we will “hit upon reality” (66a).

So, though higher Forms like Justice, Goodness, and Beauty (65d), are more difficult to grasp, it seems that other Forms such as Largeness (or Magnitude), Health, and Strength, are easier to access and may serve as a model for gaining insight into the others.

you're implying that women degrade themselves through these performances and if only things were a little more proper relations between the sexes would improve. You may not have said this explicitly but it's what I'm gathering from going over this discussion. — Apollodorus

Of course not! I never said that, neither explicitly nor implicitly.

I said it is unnecessary, a waste of time, and I doubt that it works.

Isn't expecting women to undress in order to sing something the same as expecting them to "cover up"? If it is wrong for women in bikinis to sell cars then it should be equally wrong for women in underwear to sell music, etc.

Incidentally, you appear to be implying that women should not be seen in public without "makeup and a beautiful coat". I wonder what kind of "beautiful coat" you have in mind, maybe a burqa. Whatever it is, is expecting women to "dress up" not the same as expecting them to "cover up"?

What you seem to be implying is that a woman without makeup and a beautiful coat has less aesthetic value to you than one with makeup and a coat.

You're talking about changing the way women are seen by men, so maybe start with yourself. — K Turner

I think you should try to follow the discussion before you accuse people for no reason. I was simply replying to @Possibility's remark below:

there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued. — Possibility

@Possibility said that, not me. Obviously, "judged and valued" means judged and valued by society, including men.

If there is a problem with how women are judged and valued by men, then this implies that changes must be made in the way men view women.

Men in general. Not all men, because some men, myself included, do not have any problems with women. I do not go around attacking women, disrespecting them, asking them to cover up or whatever you are accusing me of. Maybe that's what you do.

Just curious, would you ever say something like this to e.g. a gay man? Do gay men need to be more "respectable" and "cover up" so we can finally be respected by people like you? — K Turner

(1) I never said that you can't be curious, (2) I never said anything about "covering up", (3) I never said anything about "gay men", and (4) I never said anyone needs to "strive for my approval". :roll:

Your wording was awkward, stating “we are influenced by group-think”, — praxis

I'll put that on file for future reference.

True. But you are not taxed the whole amount spent on the entire road system, only for a small fraction of it. Personally, I am against excessive taxation especially if any of my money goes to foreign aid, dodgy international institutions like the UN, and other questionable projects. But I think that paying some taxes isn't a big problem so long as it is kept within reasonable limits. The big corporations should certainly have their taxes drastically increased and they shouldn't be allowed to take over the country. With a bit of luck this might enable the state to reduce the taxes for the rest of us.

Wow. So you've never used a road? Do tell us how. — Isaac

Exactly. We may not specifically request certain services but still use them. In order to demand exemption from taxation we would need to show that we are not using any of those services now or in the future. But we can't do that if we are using them .... :grin:

Well, by "group think" I meant a situation where the individual adopts and acts on the views and behaviors of the group instead of his or her own (or where they act in ways that are different from the ways they might act if they were on their own).

And I still believe that the general culture of the society we live in does have some influence on the ways we think, act, or enjoy things. For example, in China they may enjoy eating dogs but this may seem less trendy in America or Europe, etc.

Because she’s not doing it for you or for any other men - she is expressing a potentiality that is denied to most women. So she’s doing it for women. We watch and admire the power she has to act this way without fear. We see that it is possible, and it empowers women and girls to argue against expectations that we behave and dress modestly so as not to inadvertently ‘invite’ men to attack us. That doesn’t mean I’m going to dance on the street in my underwear, but it’s important to recognise both that I CAN and that the fact that I’m afraid to is not because I’m a woman, but because there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued. — Possibility

I can see how this might work on a purely hypothetical level.

However, the fact remains that pop singers and record companies do what they are doing for profit in the first place, which raises questions about their ulterior motives regardless of what they say in public.

Another thing is that, in many parts of the Western world women are free to walk on the street in shorts or miniskirts and bikini tops or other revealing outfits (though not necessarily in underwear) without fear of being attacked by men. So, I'm not entirely sure what more could be achieved in this regard.

On the other hand, there are other popular trends like violent hip hop and the general "gangsta culture" that glorifies the culture of American street gangs and street hustlers. I don't know whether women and girls actually feel "empowered" when they are called, or call each other, "bitches" and "hos" and whether this actually helps reduce violence against women.

Personally, I tend to believe that in order to change the way women are judged, valued and treated, it is necessary to change the way women are seen by men. Undressing every time you want to sing something seems like a strange way to go about it and I doubt that it actually works. Judging by certain trends imported from Latin America, Asia and some African countries with high violence rates against women, the problem is far from being solved.

Apparently, in the 1960s, women decided not to wear bras in order to "smash patriarchy and advance feminism (or socialism)". I have a nagging feeling that it isn't going to happen any time soon. Though it may have some PR value for some.

but seriously, people are fooled into believing that they enjoy something that they actually don’t enjoy? — praxis

I think that people can be conditioned to enjoy certain things as opposed to others. After all, we are influenced by group think and by the dominant mentality and culture of the society we live in.

In addition to not having access to the Platonic corpus except in incomplete Arabic translations or commentaries, Maimonides had no interest in Plato. In fact, he simply used Greek philosophy – as seen through the eyes of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina - to construct his own philosophy.

And Maimonides has certainly been used by the likes of Leo Strauss as a vehicle for the fabrication and promulgation of some really strange ideas.

First of all, there are theorists (following in the tradition of Leo Strauss) who view Maimonides as committed to esoteric writing strategies rooted in socio-political considerations—essentially, on such a view, Maimonides will often be seen to have written the exact opposite of what he truly believed. For these theorists, the stated view of Maimonides will almost always be in extreme contrast to his true, unstated view [for a related discussion. Applying this theoretical starting point to the case at hand, the fact that Maimonides seems to embrace creation ex nihilo would suggest to some that he truly believed in Aristotelian eternity, the opposite view ….

The Influence of Islamic Thought on Maimonides - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Strauss happened to read al-Farabi and Maimonides who lived in Muslim-occupied Spain - when philosophers had to be very careful about what they said - and developed the theory that all ancient philosophers had “secret teachings”. As a political philosopher and atheist, he believes that Plato’s dialogues have a hidden political message and he makes no effort to see anything metaphysical in the dialogues. In fact, he positively resists the idea just as he ridicules Plato’s theory of Forms.

Why Plato thought of this apparently fantastic doctrine [of the Forms] is a very difficult question. ... According to an interpretation which I read in certain writers, Plato teaches that there is an idea of everything which is designated by a term which is not a proper name. There is no idea of Socrates. But whenever you find a noun or an adjective, there is surely an idea conforming to that. My favorite example is the third undersecretary of the Garment Workers Union. Even if there exists only one of those, there could exist an indefinite number, and therefore there is is an idea of it. Somehow this sounds like an absolutely absurd doctrine. What is the use of such a duplication?

- L Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, p. 199

I think that to dismiss an idea out of hand is a rather unscholarly and unphilosophical approach. When combined with Straussian esotericism, it makes a mockery of any author, ancient or modern.

Strauss has an idiosyncratic, not to say unique, reading of the ancients: he reads them as Machiavellians, or even Nietzscheans. Strauss is a Machiavellian of a peculiar sort, however. Strauss favors the ancients, who agree with Machiavelli in all respects but one: they are atheistic and amoral, like Machiavelli and Nietzsche, but are critical of the moderns for openly admitting these things. The truth, according to Strauss, is that there is no God, no divine or natural support for justice, no human good other than pleasure. Strauss, in a word, is a nihilist ...

- C Zuckert and M Zuckert, The Truth about Leo Strauss

Correct. Plato's dialogues provide plenty of pointers as to what an examined life may amount to in practice. The problem seems to stem from some people's insistence that everything is worthless or at least questionable opinion, and that "Socrates knows nothing" and "Plato says nothing".

Well, I'm not sure Donald Trump is the problem. Rather, he exemplifies what happens when the whole system loses credibility.

But I don't think it's a good idea to get stuck in any old political ideology. Things change, life and the world move on, and we need to move with the times. Time to come up with new ideas and new solutions, otherwise we keep going round and round in circles without getting anywhere or not anywhere good in any case.

Whoever has a good idea, be it "socialist" or "capitalist," it should be adopted, modified as required, and implemented. And discard the unnecessary ideological baggage that holds us back and prevents us from building a better and brighter future for all ....

If all anyone has is opinions, then where is the lodestar? — Wayfarer

Not only that, but if all opinion, including opinion about opinion, is to be perpetually doubted, questioned, and inquired into, no criteria are available on which to do that, and all results or conclusions are to be doubted, questioned, looked into, and dismissed as "opinion", then is there any point in pursuing this supposedly "examined life" or are we on the road (or shortcut) to a situation where we need to be examined by others?

Otherwise we can list all sorts of practises with no criteria as to how they are related to "wisdom". — Metaphysician Undercover

Totally agree. If lifelong perpetual doubting, questioning, and inquiring, followed by more doubting, questioning, and inquiring, followed by rejection of all conclusions, principles, and guidelines, and systematic dismissal of the possibility of ever actually knowing anything, constitutes "wisdom" then we might as well forget about it.

Moreover, if to the general self-imposed skepticism, nihilism, and sophistry we add Straussian esotericism, then we are on the sure road (or shortcut) to pseudo-philosophical acrobatics bordering on the delusional and the schizoaffective. Quite the opposite of what Socrates and Plato aimed to achieve IMHO ... :smile:

it would be nice if you could entertain the possibility that a woman can be semi-naked and still in charge of her own body... — Possibility

Well, I never said that she cannot be. What I am saying is that those shows do not have that sort of effect on me. If as you say, male viewers’ assumption is supposed to be that a singer’s intention is “to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it,” then that is a total miss because it doesn’t work that way on me at all.

In fact, whenever I watch any of those video clips, which is literally for a few seconds as they pop up when I browse YouTube, the thoughts that come to my mind tend to be “this looks ridiculously fake,” “she/they are doing this for money,” “it’s in poor taste,” “unappealing,” “low-class,” etc.

I can imagine that some may find that sort of thing appealing or even “empowering,” but personally, I’m not into underwear and I find writhing and “twirking” on-stage in underwear simply off-putting, irrespective of the performers’ gender or political agenda. So, whatever the intention is (apart from making money out of a gullible audience), it’s got the opposite effect on me and they are wasting their time.

I think the whole concept of videos staged by clever record companies that manipulate, exploit, and fool the public for profit is wrong. I would rather watch something more traditional, more authentic, and more dignified, like Spanish flamenco, Irish or Greek dancing, or even ballet that at least has some artistic and cultural value.

Other than that, I tend to agree with @Wayfarer. Either someone is alluring or they are not. They don’t need to be in their underwear. :smile:

Interesting perspective. However, personally, I don't assume anything about pop singers for the simple reason that I tend not to attend concerts or otherwise watch videos of them. But I do happen to accidentally come across programs or video clips on YouTube or TV. The only thing that crosses my mind on such occasions is that the singers in question are putting on a show that looks totally unconvincing and unappealing and, frankly, a waste of time to watch. And anyway, it's probably just a money-making enterprise with a political or cultural agenda.

In addition, the female performers do not always appear to be be "in charge" or "empowered" at all. In many cases, they seem to suggest the role of street girls whilst male singers appear in fur-coats, expensive cars, and exaggerated jewelry.

It may sound old-fashioned but that's one of the reasons why I very much prefer classical or traditional folk music .... :smile:

Yes, I did mention Augustine in my recommendations from Oxford University Press' series Very Short Introductions, above. And, of course, in the old days philosophy was a way of life and was about experience, not armchair philosophizing as it is seen today.

To my knowledge, Plato's works were available in Islamic Spain only as partial translations or commentaries in Arabic. So, they would hardly make a reliable source. In contrast, Plotinus, Proclus, and other Greek-speaking authors in the east who had direct access to Plato's original Greek works and had actually studied Greek philosophy under Greek teachers, were in a better position to read and interpret Plato than Maimonides was.

I am open to arguments for or against this or that point of view. But to propose not reading an author is an odd proposition. How will we know how right you are if we don't try it out for ourselves? — Valentinus

I can see your point. However, if some recommend that we read a certain author, others may equally recommend not to read another (or the same) author. This is what book reviews normally do.

Of course, I can't stop people from reading a book if that's what they want to do. In fact, in the case of Maimonides, I think he would probably make interesting reading if you are into medieval Jewish philosophy, for example.

But (unlike Aristotle) Plato's works were not widely available in Islamic Spain, and considering Maimonides' anti-Platonist bias it would be wrong to regard him as a reliable guide in interpreting Plato, as Leo Strauss seems to be doing. More generally, reading Plato through the eyes of medieval Jewish and Arab philosophers whilst dismissing other authors like Plotinus or Proclus - who had direct access to Plato's Greek texts - does not seem to be a particularly scholarly or impartial approach. But this is just my opinion.

Correct. I think human behavior is largely dictated by pressure from society. For instance, if a man is with a group of male friends and an attractive female happens to pass by, there is a tendency for everyone in the group to follow her with their gaze and even make comments about her looks. It is like a ritual that everyone feels obliged to observe even though they may not even think of doing it if they were on their own.

Obviously, this may occur more among men of college or university age than in other age groups but it starts fairly early and it becomes ingrained. So, group mentality and behavior certainly take over and determine how we act. Those who fail to comply with group behavior are regarded as "odd." This can reach absurd proportions in certain cultures to the extent that as a man you are virtually expected to have a number of female partners, even if you are married, to sort of "prove" that you are a man!

So, groups can allow freedom of expression, but in certain circumstances they may actually do the reverse and act in repressive ways. In any case, society and culture has a lot to do with how we act and even think and feel. And for some reason the female body tends to be the center of attention as exemplified by the growing trend for female pop singers to perform on stage in their underwear whereas males tend to cover up. Apparently, this is supposed to be an expression of "female empowerment", though it is rather difficult to follow the logic of it ....

I’m more curious why there seems to be so much cultural resistance to admiring or objectifying the male form (I have a feeling it has something to do with men’s fragile egos, but I could be mistaken). — Possibility

I don't think you are mistaken at all. I don't know about "objectifying", I don't believe it is happening to the extent that is being alleged, in any case. But I fully agree that it has something to do with fragile male egos. If something is aesthetically attractive then one should be able to say so, irrespective of whether it is the body of a woman, man, horse, dog, cat or anything.

Unfortunately, men feel that they must be careful not to be suspected of feeling any sort of attraction toward other men, and in general, men tend to be less open about feelings - depending on the particular culture we are dealing with.

Jealousy of another man's good looks, for example tends to be simply ignored or suppressed.

In contrast, women may have a different strategy. Instead of suppressing jealousy, they may transmute it into appreciation. So, instead of saying to themselves, "I am jealous", they might say to another woman something like "you look amazing today". That way they neutralize their feeling of jealousy.

The end result of this is that it becomes easier for female beauty to be openly acknowledged and appreciated than male beauty. So, it does seem to be very much a cultural thing.

By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor — NOS4A2

I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper.

He might have been less than assiduous when it comes to reflecting upon 'goodness' but I believe he thought that this plans would lead to a greater good. — Tom Storm

Yes. I think the main reasoning there was political rather than ethical. And if it is true that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany, then the German leadership was in a very difficult situation indeed. True, he did declare Jews and others enemies of the state, but Stalin did exactly the same with anyone that disagreed with him or that he suspected, rightly or wrongly, of disagreeing with him. It doesn't make sense to condemn one evil and condone another. This itself would be an unexamined thing to do according to Socrates and Plato.

Exactly. In the examination of one's life, there must be constants and variables, there can't be only variables. And the constants must not be mere meta things or generalities, in order to serve as a meaningful basis for self-examination. — baker

Absolutely correct. This is why I do not believe for a moment that Socrates was a "skeptic" or "nihilist" and I believe that the likes of Leo Strauss and other anti-Platonists are simply delusional. On the contrary, I think what emerges from the dialogues is the image of a principled man who knew exactly what was right and what was wrong and always acted in accordance with what is good, as far as possible.

As for the Nazis, they may have believed that what they were doing was right, and some of the things they did may even have been right. But at the end of the day it is a matter of balance. Socrates believes in divine judgement in the afterlife and punishment or reward in accordance with one's actions as explained in the Phaedo. So what matters is the balance of your actions. If they were more bad than good, then you get judged and punished accordingly, period.

This is why for Socrates the first and chief concern in life should be for the highest welfare of the soul.
The soul must be made pure, virtuous, and wise, and this is done by ignoring material things as far as practicable and by developing the virtues of self-control, courage, prudence, righteousness, discernment, etc. And this means acting according to certain moral principles.

When you need to act, you act according to some principles, guidelines or rules. You don't act according to doubting and questioning unless there is something wrong with you. You act according to what you and your fellow citizens believe to be right. It may still turn out to be wrong, but that's the best you can do. You use right opinion (orthe doxa), reason (episteme), and personal experience (gnosis) to determine the best course of action. And hope for the best :smile:

What are the assumptions based on which it is assumed that someone like Hitler did not live an examined life? — baker

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Hitler's methods of self-examination. Assuming that he did spend quite a bit of time in self-examination as you say, it may perhaps be concluded that his self-examination was either insufficient or otherwise in some ways deficient. I would be unable to say more at this point without additional info, and I don't want to make things up.

So, the case may be that his life was not unexamined per se but only not rightly examined. That's the whole point of dikaiosyne or righteousness in Plato, to do things, including self-examination, rightly and in tune with the Just and the Good.

At any rate, the statement, "each case, each particular, must be examined as to whether it should be regarded as good, and just, and noble, and this cannot be done without also questioning what the good, and just, and noble are", sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

If you were to start questioning what the good and the just are every single time you had to think, say, or do anything, you would probably run the risk of developing a severe case of schizoaffective disorder or something of that nature.

Socrates' philosophy may not be formulaic, but when you spend all your life "inquiring about the good, the just, and the noble", then I think you must come to some conclusions, however provisional, and you must develop some principles and guidelines of proper conduct. Otherwise the whole enterprise would be a total waste of time if not worse.

I think Labour's fundamental problem is that it was founded by the Fabian Society and trade unions which were two different camps. The agreement was for the unions to provide members and funds, and for the Fabians to provide the ideology, write policy papers and manifestos, etc.

Most Labour MPs were members of the Fabian Society and this applied in particular to party leaders. So, the Fabians have been in charge of the party ever since. The unionists may attempt a takeover once or twice in a century, but the Fabians remain firmly in control.

For example, the Fabians reasserted their control with Tony Blair after Labour didn't get anywhere with Neil Kinnock, and again, with Keir Starmer after Corbyn.

The tension between the Fabian right wing and the unionist left wing will always be there and the Fabians will always stay on top. The only way for the unionists to be in charge would be for them to form a separate party.

The example you wrote above increases my arguments. It does not mater if we are in Asia or West. Guangxi massacre is another example as Holocaust. Society acting violent because the lack of ethics. — javi2541997

What I am saying is that Confucius and Chinese philosophy do not seem to have prevented Chinese people from killing and eating people for fun.

And if Confucius and Chinese philosophy have failed to promote ethical behavior in China, why should we expect them to do so in the West?

If violence and other unethical behavior in the West is a recent development, then it seems more sensible to return to the traditional Western values that have prevented this development until now.

China has a high rate of domestic violence. In 2004, the All-China Women’s Federation compiled survey results to show that thirty percent of the women in China experienced domestic violence within their homes.

Crime in China - Wikipedia

There is also widespread cruelty to animals, massive environmental pollution, etc.

Killing another person just because is funny or different from me... This is happening more than ever. — javi2541997

Actually, killing (and eating) people because they were different or just for fun was widespread in Maoist China:

In certain areas including Wuxuan County and Wuming District, massive human cannibalism occurred even though no famine existed; according to public records available, at least 137 people—perhaps hundreds more—were eaten by others and at least thousands of people participated in the cannibalism
...
methods of slaughter included "beheading, beating, live burial, stoning, drowning, boiling, group slaughters, disemboweling, digging out hearts, livers, genitals, slicing off flesh, blowing up with dynamite, and more
...
In one case, according to official records, a person was bound to dynamites on the back and was blown up into pieces by other people—just for fun
...
In another case of 1968, "a geography instructor named Wu Shufang (吴树芳) was beaten to death by students at Wuxuan Middle School. Her body was carried to the flat stones of the Qian River where another teacher was forced at gunpoint to rip out the heart and liver. Back at the school the pupils barbecued and consumed the organs.

Guangxi Massacre - Wikipedia

So it seems that Confucius and Chinese philosophy was not much help ....

You mean better than counter-cultural or better than anti-cultural?

Psychopathic elites in power acting as role models. — Amity

I think that is one of the major problems in modern society, and it includes pop stars and social media influencers with psychological issues.

There seems to be little point in teaching ancient wisdom, eastern or western, when the dominant culture is dictated by violent hip-hop, and the prevalent gang culture inculcates ideals like knives, guns, drugs, violence and rape. Women and girls are no longer women and girls but "bitches" and "hos", and some have even started referring to themselves in those terms.

A controversial issue in rap and hip-hop culture since its inception has been the violence and aggression of its hardcore styles. The prevalence of misogyny, sexism and sexual violence in the lyrics of the most-popular gangsta rap lyrics triggered public debate about obscenity and indecency and was a topic of U.S. Senate hearings during the mid-1990s.

Partner violence in hip hop - Wikipedia

As usual, it started in run-down areas of American cities and it is spreading everywhere though less so in rural areas where traditional culture is still dominant. IMHO the solution seems to be not the introduction of more alien cultures but the restoration of traditional culture.

I can't think of something that is more successfully hidden in many people than the self. Hence the aphorism, νῶθι σεαυτόν. A classic Delphic maxim - know thyself... And yes, I appreciate that there are several conative applications of this idea. — Tom Storm

True. However, if insight is awareness of or into the self, then it is the same as self-awareness which is a form of awareness. And awareness seems to be a function of consciousness.

In other words, consciousness is the self-aware agent and awareness is the activity by which consciousness is aware of itself and other things. The capacity to conceptualize abstracts or systems and to comprehend ideas and relationships between ideas would be intelligence.

So, consciousness would come first, followed by (self-)awareness, followed by intelligence.

the conscious experience in those cases (drowsiness vs wide-awake) is just different, and not a measure of quantity of consciousness. — RogueAI

Yes, but "different" in what sense? Different could equally apply to difference in quantity. The consciousness may still be there, but if it is less aware this may mean a sort of contraction of consciousness, in which case there is less consciousness available for producing awareness.