Conclusion: What you had attributed to China is actually more applicable the US. — ltlee1

To some extent, I suppose, that may be the case.

And, yes, maybe the US does need an external enemy to unify society. In that case, having an enemy may be a good thing.

However, isn't China doing the same by portraying all non-Chinese, including Tibetans, Mongolians, and even some Chinese, as enemy?

if they knew, then we can know too. — tim wood

Not necessarily. They may have had access to evidence, e.g., miracles, visions, etc. that we can no longer access except if we start from an attitude of faith. If I understand Christianity correctly, Jesus reveals himself to those who have faith in him.

That's why πίστις pistis or "faith" is central to Christianity and the Creed of the Apostles starts with the words "I believe (πιστεύω pisteuo)".

Crikey! Did I really do that? I only commented to try to make polite conversation and because I know how much Banno appreciates my comments. But now that I will be banned shortly for posting comments, I'd better stop before they ban me.

Oh wait. I don't care about this topic. — Ying

I fully understand that you don't care. If I were you, I wouldn't care either. However, Frank and I do care. Indeed, we are very caring are careful people. And I suspect, so is Banno. So, let's suppose for the sake of argument, you did care. What would your considered (and caring) view be on this particular topic?

:grin: Yeah, that has been my experience, too. Their accent can be hard to understand sometimes which makes discussion rather difficult. The ones I speak to tend to see the Hong Kong situation, for example, as "stirred up by the West". And in general, I think there is a certain degree of national pride that makes it difficult for them to see or admit any faults that to Western eyes may seem obvious. I doubt that will change any time soon though. Maybe, as others have said, we'll just have to start seeing things through Chinese eyes rather than the other way around.

And that's why it's fun for me to pick on Banno about China's dominance of Australia. — frank

True. That's why I thought they started the thread to promote the Chinese view for the sake of a bit of controversy. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've got too many genuine Chinese to discuss the issue with ....

Dianoia is the discursive thought that intellectually "grasps" an abstract or metaphysical concept.

Noesis is a more direct form of perception in which the subject actually perceives or sees what the intellectual concept can only describe.

The whole point of philosophical training in Plato, Aristotle, and other Platonists is to enable the philosopher to actually see the Forms and other metaphysical realities in a higher form of perception.

The true telos of Platonic philosophy is to fine-tune and refine man's intellectual faculties whereby he can perceive realities that are imperceptible to the untrained intellect, in a similar way a trained wine taster can identify flavors and scents that are imperceptible to an ordinary person, or a trained tracker can read animal trails that are invisible to the untrained eye.

Weaker entities congregate around stronger ones voluntarily. — frank

I think the "voluntary" bit is the key to the problem. It is hard to imagine Tibet voluntarily submitting to Chinese occupation, suppression of its religion and culture, exploitation of its resources, etc.

The same applies to Hong Kong, Taiwan, "disputed" parts of India, and other places. I know very few Americans, Australians, and Europeans that would be happy to "voluntarily" submit to Chinese rule.

China has been accused by many countries of deploying hundreds of fishing vessels in large-scale operations that are illegal under international law. So, not everything that China does is happening with the approval of other nations concerned.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/02/fishing-fleets-go-dark-suspected-illegal-hunting-study

https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet/

I agree that sometimes smaller nations may congregate of their own accord around larger ones, but other times they may do so under economic, political or military coercion. This is the main distinction I would make, not that China is "Marxist", though it is officially run by a Marxist-Leninist party.

Well, I don't usually trust mainstream papers either. I only posted the DM link because I thought it presents the issue in a clear and convincing way without resorting to too much speculation. There are other articles in National Geographic, Biblical Archaeology and other publications.

The point has been made by other historians and Egyptologists who have observed that when two populations share a geographical and cultural space, their national memory may to some extent coalesce to form a common narrative and in most cases the smaller and less powerful population tends to adopt the narrative of the larger and more powerful or influential one.

Certainly, the sumptuous palaces and temples described in the OT are more consistent with what you would find in Egypt than in a small Hebrew kingdom. King Solomon's legendary wealth, his many wives including the Pharaoh's own daughter (1 Kings 3:1), etc., tend to lend credence to an Egyptian interpretation of some OT accounts.

But I agree that philosophers, and people in general, should try to see what is behind the surface of mainstream narratives and in many cases the findings are very interesting and enlightening. And I believe that this is what philosophical inquiry is about, even if sometimes it takes "detours" to the general bus journey to realize it.

Anyway, I have now deleted the bat soup comment even though there is no evidence that it was offensive.

Would you like me to delete my other posts as well?

Edit. In the meantime ltlee1 has responded to my comment:

Your comment did not bother me at all.
Chinese do eat all kind of animals. — ltlee1

So, the alleged 'offense' was neither intended nor taken, from what I see.

BTW my joke about bat soup couldn't have been offensive to ltlee1 because as explained in my posts I didn't believe that ltlee1 is Chinese. Plus, ltlee1 did not complain. If he thinks it's offensive, then I am prepared to delete the remark. But he/she never objected. In any case, no offense was intended.

So, am I also allowed to flag posts that I find offensive and "bullying", or is it one rule for some and another for others???

And you haven't answered my question, how was my asking a question about Socrates' supposed statements on Forms in the Phaedo "offensive"?

One other tradition which I find interesting is the legend of the grail, but I do believe that this is probably a symbolic quest. — Jack Cummins

I agree. I think The Bloodline of the Holy Grail by L Gardner makes interesting reading.

But, in historical terms, no evidence has been found that can conclusively link archaeological remains to King David or Solomon and this has led some historians like Ralph Ellis to suggest that as Canaan was under Egyptian rule for several centuries and the OT says that the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt, there is a strong possibility that many of the early Hebrew kings were in fact Egyptian pharaohs.

I know you are very busy at the moment but here is a very good article that takes less than 5 minutes to read:

Are tales about legendary king Solomon completely made up? – Daily Mail

And, of course, the Christian belief in divine judgement after death resulting in resurrection in paradise for the righteous and eternal damnation or death for the unrighteous, was an Ancient Egyptian belief rather than OT-based Jewish religion.

So, it can be clearly seen that Christianity is a fusion of several strands of spiritual wisdom that blended together in the cosmopolitan culture of the Hellenistic Middle East. If God or anyone else wanted to found a new, universal religion, then Christianity was ideally suited for the purpose and Greek the ideal language through which to promote it.

A consistent and continuing pattern of behaviour that is not always obvious, especially to mods who can't follow all threads. — Amity

Well, if it's "not obvious", then maybe it's not there? Have you considered other people's posts calling Christians, Platonists, and other theists "liars"?

I simply asked Fooloso4 to provide some evidence, which I believe is a reasonable request to make in a normal conversation. Instead, he gets offended and interprets it as a "personal attack".

It was him that repeatedly asked me to join the discussion:

If you want to discuss it further I will do so here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1 — Fooloso4

How can I discuss something if I'm not allowed to even ask a question?

What have I said about Plato's Forms that was offensive?

According to Plato In The Republic, the philosopher gets a glimpse of the good, enough to know of its existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Aristotle, who understood Plato sufficiently well, speaks of contemplating divine realities.

But Greek "contemplation", theoria, is not mental ideation, it is the act of observing something that you actually see. The Platonic Forms are "that which is seen" (eidos), they are not ideas or assumptions.

Yep. If somebody asks for evidence that the Timaeus teaches atheism, that is definitely "narcissism".

And what would you call other people's refusal to back up their claims with some evidence?

As already pointed out, Gerson and other respected scholars have conclusively shown that Plato does not teach atheism.

The US is moving out of their way, so there will be two superpowers, which the political realist favors as the most stable global scenario. — frank

I do agree that ideally, there should be an international balance of power. Unfortunately, China is applying the Maoist principle of defense, equilibrium, and offense, according to which (1) you start from a position of strategic weakness, then (2) you increase your own power until it matches that of the opponent, after which (3) you go over to the last phase in which you overpower and finish off your opponent.

There is not going to be a balance of power because China is spreading its influence in the Pacific, Europe, Mid East, and Africa and this will put the West in a defensive position. This is already the case economically. We are now in the phase where economic influence begins to be backed by political and military influence and power.

I thought you might finally be ready to discuss things honestly and openly. — Fooloso4

In that case, all you need to do is to start discussing things honestly and openly and show us how it's done.

What you are actually doing is imposing a 20th-century neoliberal interpretation on 5th-century BC texts.

It is obvious that what Plato actually does is to reinterpret traditional beliefs and integrate them with his own religious and philosophical system. This makes him a religious reformist at most, not an atheist or nihilist.

I don't know of any serious scholar who has successfully shown that the views expressed in the Timaeus, for example, constitute atheism and nihilism. Do you?

Sorry, but you invited me to join the discussion, did you not? Here is your statement:

He has no knowledge of the Forms and has never seen them. He says as much in the Republic.

If you want to discuss it further I will do so here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1 — Fooloso4

Did you post this or was it someone else? Maybe your alter ego or something?

You wanted to discuss Plato's Forms. And when I asked you a few questions about Socrates' statements on Forms, you refused to answer and called for help.

No offense, but I find this very odd to say the least.

You're all over the shop. — Banno

Shop? What are you selling?

Give them education and hope for a better life: now you have a problem. — frank

Correct. And China's communist rulers know this. Hence the regime needs economic, political, and military expansion abroad to keep the developing internal tensions as well as international pressure under control.

Surely, Chinese "democracy" is directly linked to Chinese militarism and expansionism?

1. In order to keep the populace under control, the regime needs to guarantee a certain standard of living.

2. For this it needs a stable and rapidly expanding economy, and this means economic and political expansion abroad.

3. In turn, this needs to be backed by military power, hence militarism, expansionism, and neocolonialism.

In addition, the West is putting pressure on Russia, driving it closer to China, thus increasing Chinese power on the global stage.

They didn't have any experience with being underdogs. — frank

Oh, they did. The Egyptians went through invasions and occupations like everyone else. Not to the same extent as the Hebrews. But they certainly had kings fighting to reestablish righteousness in the land and foreign kings opposed to them. They also had gods fighting evil, etc. who served as models for righteous kings.

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

One of Egypt's righteous kings who fought the Hyksos invaders was Ahmose I

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ahmoseI/

It seems to me to be entirely possible that the Chinese do not want the sort of representative democracy we take for granted. — Banno

Sure. But I think the real issue is China's foreign policy, i.e., militarism, expansionism, and neocolonialism. Unless the thread is pro-China, after all.

That's such an extraordinarily twisted response that it doesn't warrant a reply. — Banno

I wonder why that is. British colonialism was bad, German and Japanese expansionism was bad, American hegemony is bad, but Chinese colonialism, expansionism, and hegemony is good?

Early antichrist folklore centered around evil Roman emperors such as Nero — frank

I'm sure the Egyptians had their own savior kings or Messiahs and their adversaries or Antichrists.

But I doubt that Jesus is in any way comparable with Nero.

Americans complaining about Chinese expansionism is the pt calling the kettle black — Banno

I'm not sure it's about "complaining". If German and Japanese expansionism was bad, why is Chinese expansionism good?

Which is exactly what is happening in this thread. The inability to see or perhaps unwillingness to see what is being said — Fooloso4

Yes. And if you don't mind me saying so, you seem to be a prime example of that.

And this brings us back to where we started. You are accusing others of regarding Plato as a Platonist without realizing that your own insistence on seeing Plato as an atheist and nihilist isn't any more tenable, in fact, quite the opposite.

You seem convinced that even the slightest critique of traditional religion automatically and necessarily equals atheism. But, if you think about it, how many atheists and nihilists among Plato's direct disciples can you name? Is Aristotle one of them?

@ltlee1 appeared soon after this thread. — Banno

I thought it was lightning quick. But as you say, if a substantive post can be coaxed from them, why not?

OK I was just wondering how @ltlee1 came across the thread and whether he/she is actually Chinese or something else. But it isn't a major problem either way.

I didn't say it is stupidity. I said it is ignorance and lack of political experience which is to be expected after living in a dictatorship since 1949.

But if the thread is intended to promote the Chinese view, that's fine by me.

@ltlee1's participation here is welcome, and important if we are to develop any understanding of what "democracy" might be form a Chinese perspective. — Banno

I did think that might be the purpose of the thread.

BTW the bat soup comment was meant as a joke. @ltlee1 didn't complain. Maybe he isn't Chinese?

Here is a sample of China's activities for you:

Uncovering Chinese Espionage in the US – The Diplomat

American universities are a soft target for China’s spies - NBC

Chinese Malicious Cyber Activity – CISA

China Is Stoking Racial Tensions In America – Newsweek

The Pauline Church (Christians) was Gentile. The latter survived to become the victor — 180 Proof

Well, such is life. Jews kept their religion and Christians founded their own. Isn't that what the Jews did before? I can see nothing wrong with that. It's called religious freedom.

Well, as I said, you are at liberty to invent your own religion. Either that, or you could always convert to Judaism. Who is stopping you?

Regarding Tibet, China annexed it illegally. There was an uprising against China in 1959.

https://freetibet.org/tibetan-uprising-1959

It is obvious to anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of China that the regime has expansionist ambitions in the Pacific and has a clear plan to extend its influence into Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and other parts of the Mid East to grab oil fields and use the region as a launching pad for attacks on Europe as a preliminary step to attacking America.

Incidentally, it's a well-known fact that a lot of Chinese visitors to the West are spies and agents of the Communist Party sent by the regime for purposes of industrial espionage, infiltrating research universities, etc.

Anyway, my constructive suggestion is to first see how Plato's contemporaries read the dialogues, after which we can look into how that compares with neoliberal interpretations. How about that?

Well, I'm afraid that's the only NT we've got. You are at liberty to write your own if you so wish. Maybe in 1st-century Hebrew or Aramaic ....

More evidence of your ignoring the evidence and scholarly opinion. Have you got anything else to say on the subject or have you run out of ideas?

I've just told you:

Mark 7 says very clearly:

"5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” — Apollodorus

Jesus' disciples did not live according to Jewish tradition. Mark says so.