He wasn’t critical of all philosophy. — Joshs

Correct. Perhaps he tended to be more critical of those philosophies or philosophers that were critical of of his theories. But that's another story.

Where does Plato say that there is a spiritual part of the soul? Certainly not in the Republic or the Phaedo. — Fooloso4

Plato clearly says, through Socrates and others, that the soul is immortal - the bit that you left out from the Phaedo in your translation. As immortal means non-physical, the soul has a part that is non-physical, i.e., metaphysical or, in modern terminology, "spiritual".

No one studies Marxism by applying chemistry or astronomy to it. Likewise, no serious scholar attempts to study Platonism from a materialist or anti-theist perspective, i.e., by denying the fundamental principles upon which Platonism is based.

There are some excellent studies of Platonism that have been published since the 1950's and 60's like From Plato to Platonism (2013) by Lloyd P Gerson who is a respected professor of philosophy and author of many academic works on the subject. As I said, it is imperative to keep up with the times, and not stay stuck in the outdated ideas of post-war neo-liberalism and intellectual nihilism.

But you may do as you please. I don't care.

I'd rather not go into Gnosticism as I hear I am already on the mods' black list and I'm sure some think that this thread isn't something that should have happened in the first place .... :smile:

However, if we take a realistic and pragmatic look at the facts, one thing becomes immediately apparent, namely, that neither philosophy nor science knows what ultimate reality is, and neither of them seems to be making much progress in the direction of finding a definitive answer. The only system that claims to have some idea is mysticism.

Now, if we take the three together, we notice another important fact, which is that in all of them consciousness is of paramount importance.

If you look at something by means of, say, an electronic microscope or some other scientific instrument, you may be able to observe something that may ultimately be reduced to particles or fields of energy as constituents of matter.

Even that observation ultimately depends on a conscious subject in order to be observed. Matter itself ceases to be something solid and strangely transforms itself into something rather immaterial, hard to grasp, pin down or describe. Very much like consciousness itself.

This being the case, it seems reasonable to direct our attention to consciousness, to that on which all experience ultimately depends and, in particular, see if consciousness is able to examine itself and to tell us something about how experience such as perception, comes about. At what point does consciousness make the transition from indeterminate to determinate cognition and how?

I believe that this was what ancient philosophers like Plato aimed to achieve. If consciousness is able to observe and analyze physical and intellectual perception in increasing degrees of subtlety or abstractness, then ultimately, it must be able to observe itself. This is the logical conclusion of the philosophers' dictum "Know thyself".

It is at this point that self-contemplation, i.e., contemplation of consciousness by itself, or "mysticism", comes into the picture and takes over from both science and philosophy. Of course, we still need some science and philosophy, or reason, as an anchor and standard of reference to ensure that the new reality we are experiencing isn't something that takes us where we would rather not go or from where there would be no return.

Poetry, music, dancing, and other creative activities that tend to dislodge consciousness from the strictures of everyday experience seem to take us in the same direction of "rapture" or "ecstasy" which is nothing else than a state of being "outside" ourselves, i.e., outside our normal selves, which logically is the only condition in which consciousness or our innermost self can experience itself instead of other things such as mind, body, and the rest.

But whilst such activities may take us outside ourselves and closer to our goal, it seems that contemplation and meditation are best suited for the purpose of turning our attention inward, and for enabling consciousness to experience itself in direct, self-reflective perception. In meditation the mind ceases to be like a distracting spectacle and becomes like a mirror in which consciousness can see itself and from there progresses to an enlightening act of supreme self-recognition or knowing and being itself in itself.

And this is why Christian mystics have developed contemplation and meditation techniques to enable us to obtain a glimpse of the inner realities of consciousness, such as hesychasm.

Hesychasm - Wikipedia

HESYCHASM: THE PHILOSOPHICAL RATIONALIZATION OF TRANSPERSONAL MYSTIC EXPERIENCE

It is a well-known fact that in ancient philosophy, astronomy was used as an analogy for psychological and metaphysical phenomena.

Given that Plato believed in an immortal soul, it follows that the spiritual part of the soul is the part that carries on living after the death of the physical body.

Plato can be properly understood only by studying Platonism which has followed Plato's teachings from the 4th century BC to the present.

How do you imagine this "nothing"? — SolarWind

Good question. It is hard to imagine, I think.

In some traditions, it is common practice to imagine oneself as a dead and decomposing body eaten by worms, etc. The problem with this is that a dead body, of course, is unlikely to experience itself in quite the same way we visualize it whilst living.

Maybe we find it so hard to imagine because it is outside normal experience. Or because something within us not only believes but actually knows that death is not the end ....

Well, I think everyone has their own perception of what constitutes “truth” and some may not even believe that such a thing exists. And it is in the human nature for people to dismiss or mock what differs from their own views.

But I think that Plato leaves it to the reader to interpret the cave allegory. What seems to be clear is that the cave stands for the physical world, and the world outside for the world of metaphysical realities such as the Forms that are illumined by the light of the Universal Intelligence or Mind of God. In other words, the allegory contrasts the world of multiplicity in which the individual souls live with the higher world of unity where everything is one reality existing within consciousness.

I think instead of being afraid of dying, we are actually afraid of the way we will die. — darthbarracuda

Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.

If, as Plato and other philosophers claim, we really are a non-physical entity called "soul" and, in particular, if we accept the theory of reincarnation, also referred to by Plato and others, then it stands to reason to believe that a part of us, at least, looks forward to dying, i.e., to separating itself from the mortal body and the physical world, and return to a brighter and happier existence on a different, higher plane.

At the same time, another part of us, that is more closely connected with the physical body and the imaginative-emotional aspect of our being, is ignorant or forgetful of our true origin and destiny, and produces in us a fear of death, i.e., a fear of the unknown and associated potentiality for suffering.

On reflection, of course, if there is no life after death we have nothing to fear. And, if there is, we have everything to gain. Unless we have engaged in actions that lead us to believe that we may be subject to judgement and punishment in the other world. In which case it would boil down to a secret fear of punishment.

It reminds me of William Blake: 'If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.' — Jack Cummins

I think that's exactly it. We may say "doors of perception" or, as Plato does, "instrument or organ of perception":

"It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for by it only is reality beheld (Republic 527d - e).

The way I understand it, the faculty of sight has three basic aspects:

1. Everyday visual perception through the physical organ of sight, i.e. the eye.

2. The inner eye of the mind through which we see things internally as in imagination, dreams, and in particular, lucid dreaming.

3. The eye of the soul, whereby we perceive metaphysical realities.

In reality, it is one and the same organ or faculty operating on different levels of perception.

So, the "door" or "organ" of metaphysical perception, a.k.a. the Platonic "eye of the soul" or "eye of the heart" mentioned in Ephesians 1:18, etc. and of which Augustine and other Church Fathers speak, seems to be what philosophy together with the prayer you have just mentioned aim to cleanse, awaken, train and fortify in order to enable the soul to perceive metaphysical realities.

And chief among these metaphysical realities apart from Ultimate Reality itself, would be the various heavens or realms of spiritual existence together with their inhabitants, viz., the various classes of celestial beings such as the angels.

In 2 Cor 12:2 Paul appears to be referring to a "third heaven" which is the location of what goes by the name of "paradise". And, since presumably, paradise is something that all Christians, including philosophers aim to experience or attain, I think it wouldn't be entirely out of place to look into it and see how it may be understood, analyzed, or explained in philosophical terms. And maybe also look at parallels with Platonic descriptions in the Phaedo and other texts.

Speaking of angels, I think they play an important role in Christianity. How would you say they should be interpreted or analyzed philosophically?

And what about the role of prayer and the activities of the apostles and saints?

I found this paper on Philosophical Analysis of Petitionary Prayer quite interesting.

Though Freud did make some interesting contributions, it must not be forgotten that he was quite critical of philosophy as he was of religion. So, I don’t think it is too surprising that he has received some criticism in return.

And, of course, some of his theories, like his theory of dreams, do sound a bit far-fetched and not particularly scientific. Are dreams really just an expression of unfulfilled or repressed wishes? Seems doubtful IMHO.

Jung’s criticism of Freud’s theory of the unconscious, and of the excessive importance he gives to sexuality as a key determinant of behavior, etc., seem to be justified.

I don’t know about others, but I for one, tend to find Jung’s ideas far more appealing than Freud’s. Though, from a philosophical viewpoint, even Jung need not be accepted wholesale or uncritically.

Why would you want to leave? — Tom Storm

Good point. I suppose people can be afraid of the unknown. So, they need years of philosophy to take away that fear before they take the big step (or plunge) into another dimension of experience and existence.

I think it is a philosophy that believes in metaphysical realities.

So, it can be (1) religion on one level, (2) philosophy on another, and (3) mysticism at the top.

As Plato says, philosophy is midway between (1) and (3).

In any case, it doesn't seem very scientific to impose an exclusively intellectual or materialist interpretation on a system that involves metaphysical experience as its ultimate objective.

This is a passage from Plato (among many others) that I find worthwhile thinking about:

“It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for by it only is reality beheld. Those who share this faith will think your words superlatively true. But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine ...” (Republic 527d - e).

The “eye of the soul” or “eye of the heart” (ophthalmos/homma tes psyches, ophthalmos kardias, etc.) has been absolutely central to the Platonic tradition that has come down from Plato through Plotinus, the Church Fathers, medieval philosophers, and Islamic philosophers and mystics to the present.

The objective analysis of the facts suggests that practicing Platonists are neither delusional nor uneducated ignoramuses. As for those who insist on taking an exclusively intellectual approach to spiritual matters, by definition, they prevent themselves from experiencing anything other than their own unexamined assumptions.

I'm not an expert on fishing, but I was wondering if fish really bleed to death from a hook in their mouth? If anything, I would have thought they might experience some difficulty with feeding until the wound has healed. If they die after being released, it would be more likely from other injuries sustained when dragged out of the water or when handled before being released. It would probably also depend on the type of fish and hook, etc. I also think that industrial fishing is much more damaging to fish populations than individual fishermen catching a few fish. It's just that it is happening out of the public's sight.

Other than that, I think you are making a good point. It is interesting to look into how people react to these matters and why. In the vast majority of cases, people tend to take things for granted and either don't bother to think or can't think due to lack of adequate information on the impact their actions can have on other creatures.

Maybe.

Is there a reason why I shouldn't know? I disagree with his policies and those of the Rockefellers, or corporate groups in general for that matter. But that's another story.

A Chinese friend told me (over a Peking duck dinner) :wink:

What do you mean by those words? I sure do not consider myself to be a trained philosopher, and I am not sure I care that much about formal philosophy? I sure don't like many of the male philosophies, and deeply regret that women were closed out of the discussion. — Athena

I don't care too much about formal philosophy, either, and for the stated reasons.

Just recently, I had a discussion with a group of intelligent and educated people (male and female) who had some difficulty in wrapping their minds around the concept of "subject" as the agent in an act of perception, for example.

Depending on people's occupation and interests, if they associate the term "subject" with "subject-matter" or "x is subject to y", etc., then you will be surprised how easily misunderstandings can occur.

But I don't think women were excluded from philosophy, certainly not in Greek culture. Don’t forget Socrates’ teacher Diotima of Mantinea, and there were many others into the Christian era and the Middle Ages:

Theano of Croton (6th century BC)
Aristoclea of Delphi (6th century BC)
Aspasia of Miletus (ca 470–400 BC)
Arete of Cyrene (4th century BC)
Hipparchia of Maroneia (4th century BC)
Nicarete of Megara (ca 300 BC)
Ptolemais of Cyrene (3rd century BC)
Aesara of Lucania (3rd century BC)
Catherine of Alexandria (282–305)
Sosipatra of Ephesus (4th century CE)
Hypatia of Alexandria (c. 360–415 CE)
Aedesia of Alexandria (5th century CE)
Theodora of Emesa (5th-6th century CE)

Women philosophers – Wikipedia

American corporate strategists were aware in the 70s that China was the last great economic frontier. Westerners have been trying to figure out how to become part of it since then. What did you think the Nixon overture was for? — frank

Correct. The leading strategists were the Rockefellers. David Rockefeller visited China in 1973 and returned full of praise for its “dedicated administration and efficiency”.

From a China Traveller – The New York Times

The Rockefellers at the time were expanding their global oil and banking empire, for which purpose they founded the Trilateral Commission. Their main man in the Nixon administration was Henry Kissinger, another admirer of China. As Secretary of State, Kissinger orchestrated the opening of relations with China.

Kissinger had already visited China in 1971 to prepare the ground, when he announced that after a dinner of Peking duck he would sign anything.

Seeing that Marxism wasn't getting them anywhere, the Chinese introduced Lenin’s concept of communist-controlled state capitalism – funded by Western investment and credit.

Without financial and technical assistance from the Rockefellers and their associates, China would have gone the way of the Soviet Union.

It is a vision rather than a history, because it records a stage of consciousness which cannot yet be actualized in reality.' — Jack Cummins

That statement might be the beam of light to take us out of the wilderness and bring us (back) to the right path.

I agree with @Angelo that better organization, if not on paper at least in our mind, might help. As long as you organize it yourself and don't let others organize it for you, because otherwise you can't tell where you end up.

But in any case, as long as you don't lose sight of the NT compass, you should be just fine.

I think Plato separates the intelligible objects (ideas and Forms) from the visible objecys. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think so too. However, I think that it is essential to understand the terminology used.

The fact of the matter is that the following association of concepts is found throughout the Platonic texts:

“idea/form” + “pattern” + “contemplate” + “seeing” + "eye"

“Invisible” does not mean “absolutely incapable of being seeing or perceived”. It only means invisible to the physical eye. The Forms are seen with the eye of the soul.

There are three kinds of eye/sight, (1) physical, (2) mental (3) spiritual.

“if we are ever to know anything absolutely, we must be free from the body and must behold the actual realities with the eye of the soul alone” (Phaedo 66d – e).

www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D66e

Socrates asks “what is this idea that I may keep my eye fixed upon it and employ it as a paradeigma” (Euthyphro).

“And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and understands and is radiant with intelligence” (Republic).

“... the true analogy for this indwelling power in the soul and the instrument whereby each of us apprehends is that of an eye ...” (Republic).

“... in that state of life above all others, a man finds it truly worth while to live, as he contemplates essential beauty […] there only will it befall him, as he sees the beautiful through that which makes it visible” (Symposium).

It follows that, on a higher level, “contemplation” of the Form is a form of “seeing”.

At that level, we do not see with the physical eye as in everyday life, nor with the eye of the mind as in dreams or imagination, but with the paranormal or metaphysical faculty of sight of the nous which is the "eye of the soul".

Well, every religious or philosophical system, indeed, every person has their own conception of ethics. There is not much we can do about it.

And, no, accountability would not be to "an imaginary friend". If you do anything that has an impact on the community you live in, then in the first instance you are accountable to the community. First you get judged by fellow men in this life and then by God in the hereafter as the case may be.

Of course every word has more than one meaning. But I think when Aristotle, for example, speaks of theoria of divine realities he means "contemplation" in the sense of observing something that is seen.

Also, Plato when he speaks of Beauty, for example, he say that the philosopher "sees" it.

So, the Forms and other metaphysical or divine realities are seen, i.e., directly experienced.

We first think about them in discursive thought (dianoia) and then actually experience or "see" them in a higher form of perception (noesis) that cannot be described in words.

Are you sure you are not a CCP secret admirer? — ltlee1

Actually, we were beginning to think that you might be an acquaintance of Banno, that's why he changed his identity to deflect attention from what's going on. However, now that you are saying that we are CCP secret admirers, there may be some truth in it ....

— The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics — jorndoe

Lol I'm afraid that is not a Christian source.

This is more like it:

"Christian ethics derives its metaphysical core from the Bible, seeing God as the ultimate source of all power ... Christian ethicists use reason, philosophy, natural law, the social sciences, and the Bible to formulate modern interpretations of those principles; Christian ethics applies to all areas of personal and societal ethics ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics

Belief until personally experienced. After that, matter of fact evidenced by one's own personal experience.

Religion should inform politics? About what? — jorndoe

About ethics, what is right and what is wrong. Politics is about power, ethics is about how to use that power.

The as a source of man's better thoughts. — tim wood

Well, I suppose you could put it that way. A Collective or Universal Mind that is the source of all thoughts and experiences. But still a divine or suprahuman, not a human one. Plato and Aristotle wouldn't have disagreed.

That's precisely why in antiquity there was something like a state religion. Every city-state among the Greeks, Phoenicians, etc. had its own religion where one deity was above all others. Plato suggested something similar for the ideal city-state. The Roman empire had something like a state religion and that tradition continued after the introduction of Christianity, with the Orthodox Church based in Constantinople ruling in the east and the Catholic Church based in Rome ruling in the west. Of course things got more complicated after the reformation but all Christian denominations have some basic principles in common that they can agree on, and of course, the largest denomination would take precedence over smaller ones.

Yes, "things-in-themselves" have always intrigued philosophical minds from the time of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics says:

"What on earth do they mean by speaking of a thing-itself? assuming that the definition of man is one and the same both in man and in man-himself; for qua man they will not differ at all, and if they do not, neither will what is good and the good-itself differ qua good".

I suppose this was why Plato introduced the concept of Forms, a kind of universal patterns that consciousness uses to organize itself in order to produce determinate cognition. But if you go beyond the Forms you find consciousness itself, the Cosmic Intellect (or Mind of God) that creates all things. That's about as far as the human mind can go in discursive thought (dianoia). After that, a different form of direct, non-discursive or intuitive perception (noesis) takes over and at that stage there are no thoughts and no language in which to express the experience or communicate it to others. Words seem ridiculous and pointless.

This is why all philosophical systems, both in the West and the East, have turned to mystical experience when philosophizing about ultimate reality couldn't take them any further. It was one of the reasons why Greek philosophers embraced Christianity. Where reason no longer helps, faith and devotion might just push you that bit further and help you achieve your philosophical goal which is not to know truth intellectually, but to actually experience it.

If I recall correctly, female infants were abandoned in the woods. — Wheatley

This is a practice that has occurred in many cultures for millennia. Apparently, in India they were (are?) drowned in milk. In Arabia they used to bury them in the sand, etc.

Interesting thread though. We all tend to use words in different ways. And I agree that formal philosophy has its own language that would take at least a couple of months if not years to learn to any practical extent and then you run the risk of discovering (1) that different philosophical systems or schools use different terminologies and (2) that non-philosophers have no idea what you are talking about.

Philosophy was not easy even in the days of Plato and Aristotle. And philosophical language has become hopelessly complex and it is impossible for any one philosopher to exhaustively define and explain every single concept on which his system is constructed. That's why a Hegel or Spinoza can be interpreted in many different and even diametrically opposed ways.

it is not a thing that can be known. That's the distinction I'm making. — tim wood

I think most rational people can see the distinction. If some people had visions or other experiences of something or somebody they were convinced to be a divine being, then there is little we can say about it now when no hard evidence is available.

But the strange thing is that seemingly intelligent and educated philosophers like Socrates, Plato and their followers have spent many centuries talking and writing about God or things connected with the divine. Perhaps this reflects a deeper human need or desire for knowledge of things beyond matter. By investigating the ultimate composition of matter, science in a way is attempting to do the same thing.

Good point. Obviously, if we were to allow religion and philosophy to be conducted on political lines, that would amount to making them into instruments of vested interests which is antithetical to both religion and philosophy, both of which aim to discover a higher truth that is independent of political concerns.

Imagine practicing religion or philosophy according to one set of political guidelines for four years, and according to another set for the next four years, and so on. Totally ludicrous IMHO :grin:

How do we think of religious experience in connection to political correctness. Part of this would be about accepting everyone's views, but how would this come into play in the subjective interpretations, especially in the interpretations of the Bible? — Jack Cummins

Well, to be quite honest, I think to make Bible interpretation subject to political correctness would amount to knowingly sabotaging your own effort. Religion and philosophy should inform politics, not the other way round.

But, anyway, as long as you have expert traffic wardens to guide your bus journey, or even drive your bus for you, I'm sure it will all have a happy end. I do not wish to interfere.

:up: Yep. Down with the tennis (or other) nets. You were talking about liberation theology. How about a theology and philosophy of liberation? The Liberation of Philosophy!

On the contrary. Philosophy without tennis nets is philosophical inquiry sans frontieres, i.e., true philosophy unfettered by political correctness and other neo-Stalinist devices.

Absolutely. Even words sometimes merely point to things without actually naming or describing them.

Symbols do this even more because they can be read, interpreted, experienced or lived in many different ways and on many different levels, which is why they are much more powerful and "alive" than words because they are closer to life itself.

The Logos, the Word of God (which is another name for Jesus) is such a symbol, in fact it is the Symbol of Life, the Mystery of Being, and the Secret of Eternal Life which is the only true reality which expresses itself as infinite Wisdom, Light, and Love.

It is impossible to put one million in some kind of jail for long. Too expensive. — ltlee1

I'm afraid I must disagree on that.

If you put a million political prisoners in one concentration camp with little food and other maintenance, and make them manufacture cell phones, laptops and other electronic devices fitted with spying equipment and sell them all over the world, then you make billions from the sales alone, not to mention the value of the information stolen from all over the world.

I believe that the symbolic dimensions of life is such an important aspect of reality, but I am aware that is simply my perspective and philosophy — Jack Cummins

I don't think it is just yours. Symbolism is central to Christianity and to Classical Philosophy. The word "symbol" itself which is of Greek origin is extremely important and has many important meanings on different levels in Christian tradition. The Apostles' Creed in Greek is Σύμβολον Πίστης Symbolon Pistis, "symbol, sign, or covenant of faith", the Symbol of Life which is also the secret and mystery of being.

Symbols or signs enable us to go beyond words and access realities that are inexpressible in language. In fact, some would say that true life only begins when we leave words behind and enter the realm of symbols which is the gateway to higher levels of experience, which are the true mysteries or secrets of life. Poetic symbolism can give us a glimpse of that but religion and philosophy even more so.

So, some Chinese pin the picture of an upside down bat to their doors wishing for the arrival of blessing. — ltlee1

I see. Now I understand. I thought they did that because they hoped to catch one.

But they made me delete my comment because it was alleged to be "offensive", so I'm glad you didn't find it offensive. Maybe Chinese people are brainier than others. So, I can see your point.

Anyway, Chinese can join the CCP if they want to be involved politically. — ltlee1

But if they join the CCP then they will have to be involved politically as mandated by the CCP. If not, they get kicked out or punished.

Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China, Article 105, Paragraph 2:

"Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years."

In other words, anything you do that can be interpreted as "subversion of the political power" can land you in jail or in a concentration camp for life.