I’m talking g about the paradoxical , contentious proposition of an increasingly roboticized and thriving economy run by progressively fewer people. — Joshs

Well, we aren't even out of the pandemic situation yet. So it's all very much in the air at the moment. God only knows what's coming our way next.

Just what I said. Something must have upset him. I wonder what it was:

they again don't know wtf he is — 180 Proof

I'm in favor of a two-state solution, — Xtrix

That was exactly what I said. Point 2 of my proposal says:

Creation of a Palestinian State and separation of Jewish and Arab populations. — Apollodorus

So, we agree at least on that point. But, as I said, it doesn't matter. I see no point in arguing over it.

I suspect populations will noticeably shrink over the next decades , which is a good thing — Joshs

Indigenous populations, maybe. But chances are they will be replaced with non-Europeans especially Africans once they've run out of water or other resources. Colonization by China is another possibility if Western economies decline.

They don't actually eat bats. The vector was supposedly some animal that was bitten by a bat. Maybe a scientist. — frank

It was supposed to be a joke. But we might be eating scientists instead, who knows?

I'd like to stir discussion on whether you think we are in decline, or in despair as modern individuals living in our times? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Well, the West is in decline in demographic terms to begin with. And as Western culture is apparently being replaced with multiculturalism, probably in cultural terms too. Quite possibly, we will be speaking Mandarin and eating stir-fried bats in the near future. But I can't say that I'm despairing to be honest.

I don't think I was "defending" anything. On the contrary, it was a suggestion of how to achieve peace. But if you aren't interested in peace, that's OK, it's not a problem.

It’s not that easy, of course, especially in a tyranny without a tyrant. — NOS4A2

I think there is tyrant alright but he is hiding behind Big Bucks, Big Tech, the Media, and George Soros.

Oh, and he'll quote himself. — bert1

But not before throwing a few invectives into it, just in case things don't go quite the way he wants them to, and then taking cover behind his supposedly intimidating selfie.

there are all kinds of people organizing right now, all around us, and all kinds of movements as well. And not just here but all over the world. — Xtrix

Of course there are. And have been for a long time. No one is disputing that.

It's just a matter of identifying the right ones according to one's own political outlook and deciding what to do about them.

I myself have suggested at least one:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10955/al-aksa-mosque-temple-mount-and-the-restoration-of-peace-to-the-middle-east/p1

True, we can also convince ourselves that there’s nothing to do and that nothing will happen. But I reject that. That’s defeatism, very passive, and exactly the reason nothing changes to begin with. — Xtrix

I don't think I was being defeatist. The way I see it, philosophy does have or should have an interest in politics. For, example, what if a new or existing political system decides to ban philosophy and philosophers?

I was simply trying to realistically analyze the situation. We probably agree essentially, but possibly hold divergent views in political terms.

Notice please that Planck 'regards', and not proclaims, his belief. He says it as a matter of science — god must be atheist

I don't think anyone disputed that. The quote or citation was simply to show that some leading physicists are inclined to accept the possibility of matter being a product of consciousness.

The famous quote is:

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

Which can’t help remind me of the famous Einstein quote along similar lines. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the quote. Yes, I suppose a lot of physicists would be prepared to go along with that. And, possibly, a few neuroscientists too. But, as I said, the "mind" or "consciousness" in question would probably need to be a universal one that creates both matter and individual minds or consciousnesses. And the question is, how do you access that by scientific means?

So what I think would be needed is

1) social upheaval/discontent. You need 'fertile ground' to be able to grow a political movement that wants to change things.

and 2) someone or some group of people giving direction to that discontent in the form of a political vision and political organisation. That's what was lacking for instance in the occupy movement or the Arab spring, — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but if you have neither 1 nor 2 then there is nothing you can do.

There will be no social upheaval/discontent because the state will find ways of bribing people or otherwise suppressing their movement.

If there is no appealing political vision, there will be no coherent or organized movement. That's why there isn't any.

You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. That's why you only get minority or single-issue movements like Occupy or BLM.

Why not mental/physical conversion? Why is it a one-way street? — RogueAI

I think Max Planck said that matter is a derivative of consciousness. Logically, you probably could make a good argument for it. The problem is how to find evidence that this is the case.

If consciousness does create matter, it is doubtful that it is the individual consciousness that does so. For if everyone’s consciousness created matter at will, there would be total chaos.

So, I think we need to posit the existence of some form of universal consciousness that actually creates matter as some monistic idealists (Platonists, etc.) have done. But universal consciousness is something that science has no access to - and has not been looking into - hence it can’t say anything about it.

You could say that both consciousness and matter consist of electromagnetic fields and construct a model as to how this actually works but it would remain just a hypothesis.

The corresponding effect of this progressive diminution of individual liberty is statism, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

Correct. But suppose we decide we don't want statism. That won't take us very far if we have no knowledge or ability to resist.

maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes — ChatteringMonkey

Do you mean like Trump's Capitol insurrection or something bigger?

I think that is a typical problem today. People thinking the right information and the right argument is what leadership is about, getting angrier and angrier when no one accepts them as a leader. This comes with education for technology but is not the result of liberal education. — Athena

Yes, liberalism is a strange thing. It’s supposed to generate liberty or freedom but more often than not the opposite seems to be the case.

Isn't that in line with Hitler's road to power? Except Hitler appealed to the people by going throughout the country and finding out exactly what made people angry and then used that information to gain their support. It was not all, his idea imposed on others, but more skillful emotional manipulation. — Athena

Correct. Not everybody is a Hitler or a Stalin, but politics is about power and most of the time to acquire or hold on to power you may have to manipulate public opinion. Different leaders do it in different ways but it can’t be avoided. It’s just bad luck when the leader turns out to be the wrong one.

And I think a recent leader was doing the same thing, only this time strongly opposing socialism, turning socialism into a strong playing card for the opposition. — Athena

Yes, most people may want some socialist policies but they certainly don’t want socialism. And even fewer would want even that if they realized what it entails and where it leads to.

Your explanation is interesting and I am impressed by what communism had to do with giving Hitler power. It is like the US push for socialism and the opposite party pushing against it. People are reacting against each other and excessively willing to follow leaders, like an emotional melee not really an intellectual movement. Hilter was against communism. — Athena

That’s right, communism or “Bolshevism” was a big problem in Germany. Germany had been invaded by Napoleon in the past and was occupied by the Allies after World War I. People knew that Russian Bolshevism was a murderous regime and were terrified. Communist Russia was a backward agricultural country that needed to incorporate Germany into its empire because it needed Germany’s strong industry and economy. Lenin and Trotsky had plans to invade Germany and so did Stalin. The German Right used that to its advantage but it’s hard to see what else it could have done in those circumstances.

Oh my goodness your highlight of this reveals the tragedy of what happened. The American Revolution was a revolution of consciousness. Not exactly all of it was a revolution of consciousness because not everyone was literate. However, many of the leaders were literate in Greek and Roman classics and the philosophy of their time and they did create a new form of government built on an understanding of Athens and Rome. — Athena

Yes, the American Revolution may have had its own flaws, but the Stalinists and Maoists were bloodthirsty savages who were barely human. In Maoist China, people were tortured and killed just for sadistic fun and in many cases they were eaten. Banquets were organized in which people were shot in the head and their heart and liver eaten in a gesture of loyalty to the regime. The Soviets were bad enough but the Maoists were far worse. Cannibalism, in which “class enemies” were killed and eaten for fun, was a widespread problem in Maoist China.

Guangxi Massacre – Wikipedia

That is sad and I don't think he was the only person with a personality/mental disorder that people have followed. Neitzche's superman is appealing to males, but really is that the thinking that is good for civilizations? — Athena

That’s why the Greeks and Romans believed in a sane mind in a sane body (“nous hygies en somati hygiei” or “mens sana in corpore sano”). You can never know what motivates someone until you find out. Personally, I have never understood what people found in Nietzsche and even less in Marx. Look at pictures of them and you instinctively know that something isn’t quite right.

This is what a German police report says about Marx:

“[Marx] leads the existence of a Bohemian intellectual. Washing, grooming and changing his linen are things he does rarely, and he is often drunk. He is frequently idle for days on end […] He has no fixed time for going to sleep or waking up. He often stays up all night and then lies down fully clothed on the sofa at midday, and sleeps till evening, untroubled by the whole world coming or going through [his room]. There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture. Everything is broken, tattered and torn, with half an inch of dust over everything and the greatest disorder everywhere ...”

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/karl-marx-was-pretty-bad-person/

This is confirmed by other witnesses including friends and collaborators.

Oh dear, that is really sad but so typical. Looking back on my observations of life it seems few people learn to handle power well. Of course, I am thinking of what happens in families where the head of a household may be a tyrant because he does not know better or when the woman dominates she may be the tyrant especially in her role as mother. When we do not learn better, we do not do better. This is tragic when the person is in a strong national leadership role. — Athena

Yes, ignorance is the root of all evil. People allow others to come to power without realizing what they are doing. The only antidote to this seems to be what Plato suggested: educate the masses and train leaders to be good and wise rulers. Whether this will ever be achieved is another story, but it seems that we need this now more than ever.

That explanation of the take over of the Soviet Union is fascinating. How many people are aware of the banking and business deals that actually rule the world? We think of our national leaders and perhaps what the masses believe, but the real power and control are not the subject of our news. That is not what the masses are directed to pay attention to. — Athena

It definitely is fascinating. And there is more to it. The Soviets were building a pipeline from Siberia to Europe to sell gas to Germany and other countries. Reagan stopped General Electric from selling the technology to the Soviets and apparently, US intelligence in 1982 sabotaged the project. This is something that even the CIA is supposed to have no knowledge of. What we do know is that the Soviets were running their communist system with technology stolen from America and other capitalist countries. In 1983 the FBI found that one in every three Communist Bloc envoys was a spy. Reagan expelled many of them and other Western countries followed suit. Soviet Russia was not only an “Empire of Evil”, it also was a parasitic entity that was totally dependent on capitalist aid and on economic espionage, as well as on exploiting smaller communist countries, i.e., begging and stealing. Reagan deserves a lot of credit for taking it out. Unfortunately, a lot of people are ignorant of history. They think Reagan was a “bad guy” and Communist Russia was “cool”.

Third of Eastern Bloc Envoys Are Spies, Head of F.B.I. Says - New York Times

Son of a gun, in all these years I have not come across anyone with knowledge of the oil-banking-economy reality. I learned of it through a geologist who wrote "Geodestiny". How did you come to that information? Why did you pay attention to it? — Athena

Well, the way I see it, philosophy teaches us how to think rationally and critically. It sharpens our power of observation and teaches us not to take a piece of information or knowledge at face value but always look at what is behind it. Even if we don’t find the ultimate truth, at least we’ll know more than before. If we follow that path we meet the right people and read the right books. A few good books can be worth more than ten university courses. This is because the education system teaches politically correct knowledge but life is not politically correct and this can result in a dangerous disconnect that puts us on the wrong course.

For Plato and other Ancient Greeks, philosophy was a practical discipline that included politics. Philosophers can’t ignore the real world and lock themselves up in an ivory tower. On the other thread we discussed the military-industrial complex. As I pointed out, the military industry is not an autonomous entity, it depends on resources like oil and steel and is often controlled by those who control the resources. If we look at who controls resources we will find who controls finance, the economy and politics. It isn’t rocket science.

When reading Platonic texts translated into English or some other modern language, it is easy to forget that what we are reading is just an approximate rendition and not the original text itself. Therefore, some caveats may be useful.

1. Platonic texts often have several levels of meaning, (1) literal (logos), (2) moral (nomos, typos or doxa) and (3) allegorical (hyponoia). This multi-layered interpretation originated with the Greek philosophers themselves who applied this method to Homer and other poets, so it was already common practice by the time of Plato.

Plato himself believed that the poets were divinely inspired on account of which they could attain to truth (Laws 682a) and quoted them by way of support or illustration for his own arguments. However, one must resist the temptation to allegorically interpret every single passage of either the poets or Plato.

2. Greek words do not always have exactly the same meaning or use as their English equivalents.

3. Distinctions between concepts that are possible or desirable in modern languages are sometimes absent in the Greek original. For example, ὄνομα onoma which strictly speaking means “name” may be used in the sense of “word” (e.g. Symp. 198b); “understand” and “know” may be used interchangeably, etc.

PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM

Although Plato is thought to have written some of his dialogues earlier, I like to begin with the Symposium – which is said to belong to Plato’s second or intermediate period – for several reasons. The Symposium is not only one of Plato’s most popular dialogues but it places the reader in the social and cultural milieu in which philosophers like Socrates and Plato were at home.

Of course, philosophical discussions could and did take place anywhere Athenians met, for example, in the town square or marketplace (agora) or, indeed, at philosophical schools such as Plato’s Academy. However, the symposium remained an important space where philosophers could mingle with non-philosophers, especially those who held positions of influence and power in Athenian society.

As already stated, the symposium was a key social and cultural institution of Ancient Greece. It was a ritual as well as festive occasion. It took place in a special dining room (andron) which the house owner used to entertain a small group of guests. Participants reclined on couches in the Persian manner (which was later adopted by Etruscans and Romans) and enjoyed a simple meal after which wine mixed with water was served from a krater, a large metal or pottery vessel, by one of the guests appointed to the task. Small snacks were consumed to counteract the effects of alcohol and inebriation was generally avoided. As with modern dinner-parties, it was considered polite for guests to stop drinking or leave before intoxication set in.

In fact, the Symposium highlights Plato’s views on the connections between drinking, singing (or reciting poetry) and philosophical discourse. It is it evident from his writings such as the Politeia that Plato was opposed to intoxication and anti-rational states in general. In the Symposium itself, it is said that “if it is done honourably and properly, it turns out to be honourable; if it is done improperly, it is disgraceful” (181a). Socrates who retains his soberness throughout is the ideal example of honourable symposiast.

Similarly, the Protagoras draws a clear distinction between the second-rate symposia of the uneducated where wine is consumed to the accompaniment of flute-girls and music, and those of well-educated men “where you will not see girls playing the flute or the lyre or dancing, but a group that knows how to get together without these childish frivolities, conversing civilly no matter how heavily they are drinking. Ours is such a group” (347d – 347e). In the Phaedrus, it is stated that true inspiration is attained by surrendering oneself to God and rejecting wine (249c – d; 238a).

Thus, although divine ecstasy is often poetically compared to the intoxication of wine, the two are strongly contrasted. In the Phaedrus, Plato recognises various states of divinely inspired “madness” or mania that are considered acceptable or desirable, such as the mania of divine prophecy, said to be inspired by the God Apollo himself; ritual mania induced by religious rituals, prayers and songs and inspired by Dionysus; poetic mania inspired by the Muses; and erotic mania inspired by Love (personified by Aphrodite and Eros).

Of these divinely inspired manias, the mania inspired by Love is said to be the best because it comes closest to “philosophical mania” (philosophon mania) or love of wisdom. Love induces the lover to remember the ideal Form of Beauty which is closely interlinked with the ideal Form of the Good. The Greek adjective kalos, “beautiful” itself, can also mean “good”. The term kalokagathos (kalos-kai-agathos, “beautiful and good”) was widely used in Classical times to describe the Greek ideal of a person who is both physically beautiful and morally good or virtuous.

Philosophy teaches us not only how to think well, i.e., how to construct thoughts in a rational and organised manner, but also how to live well and this means pursuing what is good, beautiful and true in all aspects of life. Platonism, therefore, affirms that philosophy is a quest for the Good (to Agathon), the Beautiful (to Kalon) and the True (to Alethinon) both in the world and within us.

Irrespective of the truth philosophy discovers, the question is who or what it is that knows or experiences that truth. The answer seems to be that to know or experience the truth is to be the truth. And this means that the ultimate object of philosophy is self-knowledge, that is, knowledge of one’s self, of the subject of all our experiences, both individually and collectively.

The Symposium is about a banquet in honour of the young poet Agathon who has just won his first prize for a tragedy and the principal symposiasts are Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, Aristophanes, Agathon and Socrates who take turns in making speeches. A drunk Alcibiades provides an element of comedy when he gate-crashes the party. He is an example of improper conduct in more than one respect but he is Socrates’ protegee and all agree to let him in.

Socrates later told the story to others and the narrative was handed down to Apollodorus who is now relating it to an unnamed friend.

The narrative contains all the usual elements of Platonic writing such as the soul, immortality, virtue, justice and wisdom. However, the central theme is desire (eros) in its many forms from the physical to the metaphysical and, as desire in this context is a metaphor for philosophical inquiry, the Symposium encapsulates Plato’s treatment of the philosophical method.

In his opening speech, Phaedrus cites the poets and philosophers who have declared that Love (Eros) is the oldest God. To demonstrate love’s power to inspire lovers to noble and courageous deeds he cites the example of Alcestis, wife of King Admetus of Therae, who surpassed the love of all the other members of her family and volunteered to die in his stead. As a reward for her noble deed, the Gods sent her back to the world of the living (179b – d).

The evening continues with the other symposiasts making their own speeches. Socrates’ speech is the last and the best. He tells the story of Diotima who taught him the philosophy of love.

Starting with love of a particular body’s physical beauty (209e), Diotima advises the philosopher to love all beautiful bodies and from physical love of bodies to progress to love of souls. The philosopher must next proceed with love of laws and institutions and from there to love of sciences and all forms of knowledge until he arrives at an experience of love of the Beautiful or eternal Beauty itself. Having attained this vision of the very soul of Beauty, and gazing upon the heavenly Beauty face to face, the philosopher becomes a friend of God (theophiles) and, above all men, immortal (212a).

Diotima also speaks of the need of a guide to direct the would-be philosopher on the Ladder of Love.

As this point, a great commotion is heard in the courtyard and Alcibiades makes his drunken appearance. He styles himself Master of the Mysteries and makes his own speech, not in honour of Eros, but in honour of Socrates himself, in which he makes some very important points.

Aristodemus has already related how Socrates remained absorbed in thoughts or contemplation on the way to the symposium and that this is a habit of his (174d ff.). Alcibiades now confirms this by relating how he himself witnessed Socrates standing motionless in deep contemplation from one sunrise to the next after which he offered prayers to the Sun and went on his way (220d - e).

Stressing the fact that Socrates is always sober and that his words always have a wondrous effect on him, Alcibiades makes the point that Socrates wears his outer persona like a casing, similar to a sculptured Silenus of the hollow type fashioned by craftsmen, whose exterior represents a drunk companion of Dionysus, but that can be opened in two halves to reveal the splendid images of Gods inside it (215b).

But if you catch him in a serious mood and look within him like within a Silenus-figure or temple with divine images:

“The images inside him are so divine and golden, so perfectly fair and wondrous …” (216e - 217a).

And:

“When these are opened, and you obtain a fresh view of them by getting inside, first of all you will discover that they are the only speeches which have any sense in them; and secondly, that none are so divine, so rich in images of virtue, so largely—nay, so completely—intent on all things proper for the study of such as would attain both grace and worth” (222a).

Alcibiades is being truthful. For although “drunk”, he speaks on condition that he be reprimanded by Socrates should he speak any untruth; he reminds his audience of the saying “wine is truthful” (oinos kai aletheia, the Greek equivalent of Latin “in vino veritas”); and Socrates himself concludes, albeit with seeming irony, that he “must be sober”.

What Plato seems to indicate through Alcibiades is that there is something very special in Socrates’ words and that they hold a deeper meaning that is of utmost importance to those who wish to attain something higher.

As Radcliffe Edmonds observes, the images Alcibiades sees in Socrates are like images in a dream, signs that point to something else in the same way the statues of Gods found within a temple are not the divine thing itself but only representations of it (Destree & Giannopoulou, 209-210).

However, although Alcibiades has seen the images within Socrates, he is not yet ready for the highest mysteries, hence Socrates rejects his advances. Alcibiades is an army general used to take possession and to command and control just as he does with the symposium which he takes over for his own purpose. Though clearly not ignorant or incapable of appreciating higher truth, he does not yet possess the required attitude. In his own words, he must look at the divine images or symbols within Socrates afresh.

The key words Plato uses are “open”, “see within”, and “look into, examine” which apply to external as much as to internal realities. The philosopher’s understanding of the object of philosophical pursuit depends upon his understanding of himself and on his attitude vis-à-vis the object. And this is something that must be constantly renewed until the final goal is reached.

Having started with an account of how Eros inspires a particular relation between lover and beloved, the Symposium may be taken to point to the relation between subject and object. The lover desires the beautiful and the good because he is unaware of the beautiful and the good in himself. He is not entirely ignorant, but not yet wise. He, literally, is only a “lover of wisdom” (philosophos). As Socrates makes very clear, the lover is “midway between ignorance and wisdom” (203e).

The situation changes in the Phaedrus where the soul desires the supreme Good not from a sense of deficiency but on account of its affinity with it. The conception of this affinity is already present in the Theaetetus where Socrates affirms that the goal of philosophy is “to become like God as much as possible” (176b). Even in the Symposium, Diotima suggests that the final object of love, or desire, or philosophical inquiry, is immortality. And to be immortal is to be godlike. The desire to attain the highest Good is accompanied by a desire to be as much like it as possible.

Thus the lover’s attitude towards the object of his love becomes increasingly contemplative while the object becomes more and more abstract yet at the same time more real and closer. And the closer the two are getting to each other, the more the subject sees itself in the object as in a mirror. If we carry this process to its logical conclusion, the object fuses with the subject and lover and beloved, subject and object, become one.

This is as far as Socrates and Plato take us. The guide who takes us further is Plotinus. For Plotinus, the ascent to the Beautiful is an ascent to the One and the ultimate experience is one of unity and identity. The identity of Lover (Erastes) and Beloved (Eromenos), of human soul and God, will become the central theme of Platonism including in its Christian, Islamic and other forms.

E. Anagnostou-Laoutides and A. Payne, “Drinking and Discourse in Plato”, Méthexis, 2021, 33(1), 57-79.
P. Destree and Z. Giannopoulou, eds., Plato’s Symposium: A Critical Guide, 2017.
W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 6 Vols., 1975.

And if we have estimated and considered that the triangle is perfect, then we ourselves are God. — SimpleUser

Maybe we are God on a higher level, as some monistic traditions claim. And as implied in the OP title.

Interesting. The "prima facie" is a disclaimer on their evidence though and after the study that said it couldn't have been engineered I'm going to say, let's wait and see. — Benkei

Yes. Different scientists seem to interpret the same data differently. But it's interesting to see the shift in the way the issue is being reported. It isn't "conspiracy theory" anymore but "maybe there is some truth to it after all". Quite possibly, they know more than we do. Or maybe not.

to find an objective party may be difficult... — 3017amen

... if not impossible.

I think the real debate ought to be on the safety of the gain of function research, — ssu

Gain of function research seems to now be the central argument. Even leftist papers like the Guardian are now beginning to concede (1) that they may be some truth in it and (2) that this time it isn't coming from the Trump camp.

Obviously, if it turns out to be true, this will have serious political and social implications, one of which will be that people will be even less inclined to trust politicians - or the media.

1. Lab leaks happen all the time.

2. In China the last six known outbreaks of SARS-1 have been out of labs, including the last known outbreak, which was a pretty extensive outbreak that China initially wouldn't disclose that it came out of the lab.

3. There is evidence that the lab in question, which studies bat coronaviruses, may have been conducting what is called “gain of function” research,

4. There seem to have been astonishing conflicts of interest among the people assigned to get to the bottom of it all

5. The news media, insisted that the lab-leak hypothesis was false false false, and woe unto anyone who dared disagree.

6. The social media monopolies actually censored posts about the lab-leak hypothesis.

7. A new study claims that researchers have found ‘unique fingerprints’ in Covid-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory.

8. Dalgleish and Sorensen wrote in their paper that they had prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China for a year, but were ignored by academics and major journals,

etc.

If the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis is true, expect a political earthquake - Guardian

Covid-19 created in Wuhan lab, has no ‘credible natural ancestor’, says new study

Transcript: Scott Gottlieb on "Face the Nation," May 30, 2021 - CBS News

1. WHO reports have suggested that the first Covid-19 infections may have occurred in November 2019

"The virus could have been introduced into the human population from an animal source in the market or an infected human could have introduced the virus to the market and the virus may have then been amplified in the market environment. Subsequent investigations into the first human cases have determined that they had onset of symptoms around 1 December 2019. However, these cases had no direct link to the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market and they may therefore have been infected in November through contact with earlier undetected cases (incubation time between date of exposure and date of symptom onset can be up to 14 days). Additional studies are ongoing to as whether unrecognized infections in humans may have happened as early as mid-November 2019. "

Origins of SARS CoV-2 WHO

2. Researchers at the Wuhan lab were hospitalized in November.

Three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China became sick with a flu-like illness and sought hospital care in November 2019, according to a U.S. intelligence report obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin – WSJ

3. Scientists are saying that a lab escape "would be no surprise".

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists says: “For the lab escape scenario, a Wuhan origin for the virus is a no-brainer. Wuhan is home to China’s leading center of coronavirus research where, as noted above, researchers were genetically engineering bat coronaviruses to attack human cells. They were doing so under the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 lab. If a virus with the unexpected infectiousness of SARS2 had been generated there, its escape would be no surprise”.

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

4. In the past few decades, dangerous viruses have escaped from labs around the world, including China, every few years which obviously isn't "extremely rare" as suggested by some.

5. China has been engaged in a massive disinformation campaign including the spread of conspiracy theories and the arrest of doctors, scientists, lawyers, journalists and others.

If we put all the facts together, how likely or unlikely is the lab escape?

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why. — Baden

True. However, just as interesting is considering who desperately wants it not to be true and why.

China would be one possible answer that comes to mind. I tend to doubt that the regime arrested 5,000 scientists, doctors, lawyers, journalists and others for no reason.

"The Chinese government has engaged in disinformation to downplay the emergence of COVID-19 in China and manipulate information about its spread around the world. The government also detained whistleblowers and journalists claiming they were spreading rumors when they were publicly raising concerns about people being hospitalized for a "mysterious illness" resembling SARS."

COVID-19 misinformation by China – Wikipedia

It's really just a softer version of capitalism, in the same way as Keynesian economics was still capitalism. But maybe that's the path that needs to be taken, who knows? I'd prefer to see much quicker reaction and, ultimately, the overthrowing of corporatism (and capitalism) altogether, in favor of real democracy — Xtrix

Overthrowing capitalism is easier said than done. Everyone can criticize but few can offer workable solutions. "Real democracy" remains a mystery, like "real capitalism" and "real socialism". The basic question remains what it was at the time of Marx and his Capital: what can we replace capitalism with?

The examples of Soviet Russia and Maoist China suggest that Marxist economies tend not to last without capitalist assistance and eventually are forced to reintroduce some forms of capitalism to avoid total collapse. By the way, some would describe Keynesian economics as "Fabian Socialism".

British intelligence or at least former bosses have always viewed the lab scenario as realistic.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-chinese-laboratory-wuhan-mi6-richard-dearlove-conspiracy-theories-a9547851.html

According to the Sunday Times they now believe the theory is "plausible."

But intelligence agents, according to the report, have few human sources of information in China, so they are trying to recruit them on the darknet, where they can speak anonymously without fear of reprisal.

In recent weeks information has emerged suggesting that the virus, which has spread across the globe, killing more than 3 million in the worst pandemic for generations, may not have developed from nature, as scientists initially believed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uk-spies-say-theory-covid-19-leaked-from-wuhan-lab-is-plausible-2021-5?r=US&IR=T

I fear the latter end of the spectrum because it approaches a degree of statism expressed in fascism and made concrete by a variety of totalitarian regimes. — NOS4A2

I think the main problem is that there are too many different views and too little time to test them. There are views held in common and views held individually and both sets of views are equally open to question.

With regard to statism, we need to determine certain principles on which we want society to be governed, direct government as to what it should do to realize them, how to organize itself to realize those principles, and find a mechanism that insures that this is achieved in a satisfactory way.

For example, in liberal democracy we elect a particular party for a few years. But we have no means of forcing the ruling party to govern in a way that is satisfactory to the majority or even that fulfills promises made during election campaigns. All we can do is to elect a different party next time around but there is no guaranty that the new party will be any better.

Additionally, when society changes at a very fast rate as is currently the case, we also need to very fast devise policies that enable us to keep up with those changes. And you can't make well-thought-out policy in a very limited space of time.

The danger is that people eventually give up and just accept their life being run by an increasingly powerful and intrusive state. Things can only change if society changes first. But this is difficult to achieve when society is subject to changes over which it has little or no control.

It seems that we are approaching a Tower of Babel situation where society becomes more and more fragmented on political, cultural and other lines and incapable of resisting the growing powers of the state.

You have turned a thread about the Trinity into an attempt to discredit a highly regarded Biblical scholar. — Fooloso4

The OP is indeed about the Trinity. But you decided to butt in and insert weasel words about Jesus not being the Son of God, etc. after which you adduced “proof” from your “eminent expert witness” Ehrman to promote your pet theories about Christian history.

Unfortunately for you, Ehrman turns out to be as slippery a fellow as a well-oiled eel whose every other sentence obliquely implies that the Christian texts are forgeries, i.e. texts written by unknown people in the name of others (or "in the name of God") for the purpose of “influencing Christianity”.

You yourself are implying, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Gospel of John is a forgery intended to falsely present Jesus as the Son of God.

You are claiming that the absence of references to Jesus as the Son of God in the other three Gospels “proves” that Jesus was not the Son of God.

By your own logic, the absence of references to Jesus in Jewish scriptures should be taken as “proof” that Jesus didn’t exist. But this you deny and thereby you contradict yourself.

These are your own words:

John 1:49 affirms that he was a rabbi. The fact that it also calls him the son of God does not mean John denied he was a rabbi. — Fooloso4

The counter-argument is that the fact that John also calls him a rabbi does not mean John denied that he was the Son of God. On the contrary, it expressly says that he was.

And, of course, none of your arguments have anything to do with the Trinity.

As to the question of proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I am pointing to the evidence in the books and evaluating it. — Fooloso4

If you are not trying to prove anything, then what are you trying to prove with your comments?

1. Ehrman regards Acts as a forgery because he sees contradictions between how the relationship between Peter and Paul are presented in it and how Paul speaks of Peter in his undisputed letters (p. 204)

Then he says:

“the one thing we know best about James of Jerusalem is that he was concerned that Jewish followers of Jesus continue to keep the requirements of Jewish law. But this concern is completely and noticeably missing in this letter. This author, claiming to be James, is concerned with people doing ‘good deeds’; he is not at all concerned with keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath and Jewish festivals, or circumcision. His concerns are not those of James of Jerusalem” (198).

So, Ehrman draws conclusions about James on the basis of Acts which he regards as “forgery”! A bit like yourself, actually.

2. Ehrman says:

“The New Testament emerged out of these conflicts, as one of the Christian groups won the arguments and decided which books would be included in Scripture. Other books representing other points of view and also attributed to the apostles of Jesus were not only left out of Scripture; they were destroyed and forgotten. As a result, today, when we think of early Christianity, we tend to think of it only as it has come down to us in the writings of the victorious party. Only slowly, in modern times, have ancient books come to light that support alternative views, as they have turned up in archaeological digs and by pure serendipity, for example, in the sands of Egypt.” (p. 183)

So, he suggests that the Gospels were just a few among many mutually contradictory Christian books which, on the face of it, implies that the authenticity of the Gospels’ content is questionable.

There are many other problems with Ehrman’s analysis of Christian texts as pointed out in this excellent review of his book:

Review of Bart Ehrman's book "Forged: Writing in the Name of God"
https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god

Even the book's title "Writing in the Name of God" is intentionally suggestive and implies forgery.

It is not that someone forged these works. Their authenticity is not in question. — Fooloso4

These are Ehrman’s own words:

“In my book, I do describe the whole range of motives for producing forgeries. Today profit is the most prominent motive. But that really wasn’t the motive I’m describing in the early Christian world. These forged books were promoted mainly because people wanted their voices to be heard in shaping Christianity—so they would put a famous name on their work. They weren’t doing this to take money to the bank. They wanted to influence Christianity.”

“I’m far from standing alone in saying, for example, that Paul didn’t write a lot of the epistles that claim they’re from Paul. Many other Bible scholars have made this point over the years. But I am arguing that this practice really was forgery and was condemned, if people realized it was happening.”

Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels

So, according to Ehrman, “people forged books to influence Christianity”.

Even you are denying the authenticity of the Gospel of John.

Ehrman's contention is that what are referred to as "pseudepigraphs" or falsely attributed works, was not an accepted practice in antiquity. That they would have regarded false attribution as forgery. — Fooloso4

Not at all. The article says:

"Falsely attributed writings are often referred to as "pseudepigraphs" but Ehrman maintains that the more honest term is "forgery". The book posits that 11 or more books out of the 27 books of the Christian New Testament canon were written as forgeries."

So, he is implying that forgery was involved in the writing of early Christian texts.

You yourself are implying that the Gospels are forgeries by claiming that the Gospel of John was forged to show that Jesus was the Son of God.

Anyway, whichever way you turn it, you can't prove your case. You are wasting your time.

You have not cited where he said this — Fooloso4

You haven't given me a chance because you keep frantically posting comments as if that's going to somehow "save" you.

Anyway, Ehrman is your “eminent expert” whom you keep quoting and you don’t know what he says about the Gospels???

His claims are a well-known fact:

Forged (book) – Wikipedia

Have you been living under a rock in the Gobi desert for the past eighty years? Or are you ignorant about who your own "expert witnesses" are and what they are claiming?

1. Using non-existent statements from Mark, Matthew and Luke does not prove your claim.

2. Why would anyone forge four different scriptures instead of just one?

Each Gospel is a collection of different eye-witness reports, hence the difference between them.

If they had been forgeries, there would have been just one text by one author. This is evidently not the case.

The claim that the Gospels are "forgeries" is totally unfounded and as I said, if they are forgeries, you can't quote them on statements by Jesus or their absence, because to do so would be illogical and absurd.

Here is your own statement:

Jesus would have been appalled to find that he was deified. He made a clear distinction between himself, a human being and God. — Fooloso4

1. You have zero evidence to support that statement.

2. You can’t use the Gospels as evidence (a) because there is nothing in the texts to support your claim and (b) because according to the anti-Christian “eminent scholar” Ehrman whom you keep quoting, the Gospels are “forgeries”!

The Gospels clearly say:

"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John" 5:18

"The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”" John 10:30-33

Edit If the Gospels had been "forgeries" trying to portray Jesus as God, then the texts would have been full of references to that. But you are saying that there aren't any. This actually suggests that they are not forgeries. And there is no evidence that they are.

What is at issue, as you know, is not whether Jesus called himself son of God, but whether the Gospels say that he is God. — Fooloso4

lol You do make me laugh, to be honest. If I were you, I would be quiet and just retire gracefully.

1. You claimed that Jesus did not call himself the Son of God.

2. You are quoting non-existent statements in the Gospels to "prove" your point.

3. You are quoting Ehrman who claims that the Gospels are "forgeries".

Do you realize the self-contradiction and total lack of logic of claiming to "prove" something on the basis of non-existent statements in "forged" texts? Are you well?

You are saying that because three Gospels don't mention Jesus's divinity the religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny — Gregory

Correct. @Fooloso4 uses irrational arguments and totally contradicts himself.

1. He is quoting Ehrman who claims that the Gospels are "forgeries".

2. He is quoting the Gospels to "prove" that Jesus didn't call himself the Son of God.

If that isn't self-contradictory and irrational, I don't know what is.

By the way, are you quite sure you are a Christian and not something else?

during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class. — Athena

Since you mentioned the 1970s oil crisis, I thought you might want to know how that came about.

Oil at the time was controlled by four major players: (1) the Rockefellers through Standard Oil (ESSO), Mobil, etc., (2) the Rothschilds through Shell and French-North African operations, (3) the Arabs trough the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), and (4) the Russians’ State Planning Committee (Gosplan).

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

In October 1973, the OAPEC which was controlled by Kuwait, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, announced an oil embargo on some Western countries including America. The embargo wasn’t particularly well-organized or effective. It was more symbolic. But OAPEC used its influence to increase world oil prices which put a huge strain on economies around the world and affected millions of people in America and other Western countries.

However, what was happening behind the scenes was that even before the embargo was imposed, major Western countries had reached an agreement with Arab oil producers to invest the surplus obtained from higher oil prices in Western economies via the banks controlled by the same people who controlled the West’s oil industries.

The Rockefellers played a key role in this, though they were by no means the only ones. Officials of the Rockefeller-controlled Arabian American Oil Co. (ARAMCO) actually encouraged the Arabs to raise their oil prices to justify the Rockefellers’ own price increase in the USA.

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

So, whilst millions of ordinary people were reduced to poverty and destitution, the Rockefelllers made billions and expanded their banking and petroleum empire throughout the Mid East as the Arabs and Iranians deposited their oil dollars in Rockefeller banks. By 1978, Iranian deposits with Chase alone exceeded USD 1 billion.

The Rockefellers’ Soviet partners (who were key military allies of the Arabs) also profited nicely by secretly buying Arab oil at discount prices and selling it at raised prices to the West as “Russian” oil.

Reagan did well to stop the Soviets. Unfortunately, he failed to stop the Rockefellers.

L. Rocks, The Energy Crisis

D. Rockefeller, Memoirs

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

From the early 1900s, leading international bankers and industrialists, together with their Fabian collaborators, had been planning to overthrow the Czars and make the Russian Empire into a Union of Fabian Republics run by Fabian Socialists that at the same time would serve as a big market for the bankers and industrialists who were funding the Fabians. This was what the Fabian leadership meant when it said that "Socialism is a business proposition".

The London Fabians maintained close contact with Lenin and other Russian revolutionaries through the Socialist International, the Rainbow Circle, and the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom. Wealthy Fabian Society members financed Lenin and his Russian Social Democratic Labour Party during their exile in London. The Fabian leadership, especially the Webbs through their writings like Industrial Democracy (which Lenin translated into Russian) also provided the ideology used by Lenin to win support for his revolution.

In 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution, Ford started mass-producing Fordson tractors. Because of the Civil War in Russia, it could only start selling them in 1920 after which it exported tens of thousands of Fordsons to the Soviets. After 1924 Ford licensed the production of tractors and trucks in Russia itself.

From then on, there was a steady transfer of US cash and technology to Russia into the 1980s. The groups involved were the Rockefellers (chief financers of Fabianism) and associates through banking and industrial corporations like Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Manufacturers Hanover, and Ford Motor Company as well as organizations like the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology (SCST) and the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC) which was headed by Rockefeller executives and associates.

David Rockefeller was the leader of the US financial assistance effort to Communist Russia. In the early 1970s he started to overtly finance Russia and China. In 1973 he opened a Chase Manhattan branch in Moscow and visited China to negotiate US-Chinese economic cooperation.

Rockefeller also started to promote a worldwide policy of East-West rapprochement through his close friend and collaborator and US Government adviser Henry Kissinger and through the Rockefeller-funded UN. Rockefeller’s activities saved Communist Russia and China from economic collapse.

Meantime, Ronald Reagan had been studying the Soviets for a long time and he knew that communist economy was not a functional system. When he came to power in 1981, he immediately ordered an investigation into how the Soviets financed themselves and this was when he found out that they were assisted by US finance and technology.

In May 1982 Reagan went public with his plan. Speaking at his alma mater, Eureka College, he predicted that “the march of freedom and democracy … will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

He directed his top national security team to develop a plan to end the Cold War by winning it. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives.

In particular, Reagan adopted a policy of attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources –financial credits, high technology and natural gas – essential to Soviet economic survival. Author-economist Roger Robinson said the directive was tantamount to “a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

When Reagan increased US military expenditure by 13%, the Soviets barely reacted because they simply could not afford to keep up.

The Soviets whose economy depended on oil exports also went through an oil crisis caused by a fall in oil production and prices.

The Soviets knew that they were finished and just gave up exactly as predicted by Reagan. After seventy years of communism or Fabianism, they were forced to reintroduce capitalism and feed themselves instead of relying on capitalist aid.

To get an idea of the situation, in 1970, the Soviet Union bought 2.16 million tons of grain. By 1985 this had risen to 44.2 million tons (a 20-fold increase). There were similar increases in meat imports and other products. Basically, the Soviet State had become incapable of feeding its own people.

D. Rockefeller, Memoirs

Fordson – Wikipedia

How Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War | The Heritage Foundation

Reagan’s Secret Directive NSDD-75 Federation of American Scientists (FAS)