What this all has in common is the observer itself which leads me to think there is some kind of observer bias which gives the illusion of time. — Tiberiusmoon

In my view, "time" is merely a description of changes observed to be taking place in reality. Therefore, it has a lot to do with the observer.

However, I don't think time is an "illusion" unless reality itself is an illusion. But reality can't be an illusion. We call it reality because we perceive it as real.

I haven't been here for very long but as a general impression, I think there is too much philosofizing and arguing and not enough philosophy.

Discussions should be less politicized and more balanced between the political "right" and "left". People shouldn't be attacked for criticizing Marxist political philosophy, for example. Otherwise, the forum becomes a generally left-wing to far-left enterprise and there is no real dialogue.

Also, I don't seem to find any info on where this forum is located or who exactly owns or controls it. Does anyone know?

During the Cold War, the CIA ostensibly justified the arming, training, and funding of Neo-Fascist terrorist cells as "stay-behind networks" to prevent a projected Soviet invasion of Europe. — thewonder

The projected Soviet invasion was just a ruse to justify defense expenditure and to promote liberal or social democracy (a.k.a. Fabianism) of the kind backed by the Rockefellers as an "antidote" to Communism.

The Mujahideen did have some impact on Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. But what finished off the Soviets was Reagan stopping US banks from providing loans to them. The Soviet Union collapsed in a matter of weeks after that.

I think you just made Banno's point about "property is owned with the agreement of those involved, and hence enforced in virtue of that agreement" — ssu

Property isn't always owned with the agreement of the rightful owners. That's why we need to distinguish between legal and moral rights of ownership.

I'm not offering a solution, just pointing to the cause. — Banno

Sure. But we don't need to agree with that.

Unlike the former Soviet apparat, I can't quite make sense of why it is that the CIA continues as such. — thewonder

But it makes lots of sense for China to keep and expand its own intelligence services. So, maybe the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. should just let the Chinese take over. That would create a global Chinese intelligence agency and would solve the problem once and for all.

I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Science may well be good but it's got bad elements too. Wasn't science used to exterminate millions of people?

Anyway, check out the thread if you want to revisit it... — 3017amen

Will do, thanks.

Perhaps, but history shows it's you guys with the serious murderous cred. And the capacity to deny every bit of it. — tim wood

I wouldn't say that's an objective statement. Atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot murdered more millions in one century than Christians did in the whole history of Christianity.

For example, Imperial (Christian) Russia's government executed 3,932 people for political crimes between 1825 and 1910 (nearly a century). Stalin's atheist regime executed 681,692 people for "anti-Soviet activities" in one year alone, 1937-1938.

Soviet Russia murdered more than 20 million and Maoist China more than 60 million of their own people.

In this admittedly narrow situation do the descendants of the original owner have a legitimate claim to the land. And it so, how do we resolve things? E.g., what happens to the current title owner? They may be many generations removed - is it fair to deprive them of their home due to something that happened centuries past? — EricH

That would need to be decided on a case-to-case basis. There is a general legal principle to be (1) followed as a general guideline and (2) applied differently in different cases as required by the specific circumstances of each particular case.

But your opinion is insufficient. — Banno

Of course it is. You asked me for my opinion and I replied. My opinion is based on tradition, on religious and legal precedent. This is how justice has been historically understood. But it's not for me to decide.

Further, do you suppose that these are consistent? That what is legally right is what is morally right? How do you decide, if they were to be in conflict? — Banno

That's the thing. Legal and moral justice need to be balanced or harmonized, with moral justice ideally overriding legal justice. That's what we have legal experts for. The principle that Africa belongs to Africans is morally and legally sound in my opinion.

What's that then? — Banno

Justice is the implementation of what is legally and morally right, the principle that people receive what they deserve or what is rightfully theirs.

Greek dike, Latin justitia, Hebrew tsedaqah

In the British East Africa example given above, justice provided that the land belonged to the African natives, not to Europeans or Indians.

: Anger management does not seem to be popular with the fanatical atheists here! — 3017amen

Very true. That's an idea for a new thread: Does atheistic philosophy foster fanaticism, paranoia, and mindless violence?

So if current owner obtained the title deeds by killing a previous owner (or forcing them off the property) - the descendants of the previous owner have no legitimate claim? — EricH

Good point. JUSTICE is an essential factor that we can't afford to ignore if we don't want to return to the law of the jungle. Justice must be the very foundation of national and international law at all times.

So I propose to you to answer this: Are you in fact ImmanuelCan from the other forum? Yes, or no, it actually is neither here nor there, I'm just curious. — god must be atheist

Well, to be quite honest, this forum has always looked to me more like a social club for the retired and the unemployed, no offence intended.

In particular, what I've noticed here is that some members tend to read an awful lot into other people's comments that just isn't warranted by the original comments. Your comment seems to belong to this category.

Personally, I very rarely frequent online forums. I happen to work from home at the moment so I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here. However, my colleagues and I will be back in the office in June and I don't think you'll hear from me again. Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am.

I do agree that I tend to be outspoken and "impervious to other people's arguments". But this is only because I believe in freedom of speech, I allow others to present their views and I expect the same in return. It's as simple as that. So, I wouldn't be quite so paranoid if I were you.

It is significant that those who have opposed my interpretation have not said anything about the details of what Socrates says in the dialogue about myths. Instead they point elsewhere. — Fooloso4

Well, Socrates says many things in the dialogues. He certainly seems to agree with traditional Platonic concepts such as soul, immortality and rebirth as at 72a - 72d etc.

Incidentally, although the structure of the Platonic texts has been compared to that of a drama or play, the true setting of Plato’s dialogues is more akin to a symposium.

Symposium - Wikipedia

Symposia (“drinking together”) were central to the Greek cultural context in which philosophers like Socrates and Plato operated. They were the part of banquets after a communal meal held in honor of the gods, when drinking of wine tempered with water (hence the Greek term κρασί crasi, literally "mixed" for wine) was accompanied by games, music and discussions among the men. There were big differences between symposia. Philosophical symposia naturally revolved around philosophical discussions (and not around sexual or other such activities as sometimes erroneously assumed).

The dialogues taking place in works like Phaedo are very much like conversations that would have taken place in a philosophical symposium, from which satire or humor would not be lacking.

So, the dialogues may be seen as a combination of dramatic performance and symposium.

In terms of the dialogues' function of stimulating thought, though they may not provide a "dogma" as such, they do provide moral and metaphysical concepts such as justice, immortality, rebirth, etc. that can guide the reader's thought in a moral and metaphysical-mystical direction, should the reader be so inclined.

Platonic metaphysics, that backbone of historical Platonism, also looks comfortably at home in an ethical context, insofar as it places a reconfigured goodness, beauty, and justice within the very structure of things—however it may be that Plato thought that trick could be pulled. Indeed, without that context (and without its inventive elaboration and re-elaboration by successions of Platonists and idealists), it can look as unmotivated as it appeared to an unsympathetic Aristotle — Amity

Well, we understand that. But I think that what needs to be established is whether metaphysical concepts such as "forms"/"ideas", "soul", "rebirth", etc. occur in the dialogues. If they do, then it is legitimate for traditional Platonists to extract metaphysical teachings from the dialogues irrespective of Plato's actual intention that, incidentally, is impossible to determine beyond reasonable doubt.

In other words, if the true and only intention of the dialogues is to stimulate thought or reason, how can we claim that they should stimulate the reader exclusively in a materialist sense? It seems to be a self-contradictory claim.

I don't think we want to pay a woman who keeps having children so she can live on welfare, so there needs to be a disincentive for not doing that unless a low population rate means there is a need for more people. Then we might want to pay mothers more to encourage their reproduction. — Athena

Correct. The welfare system especially in Fabian-dominated societies like England has encouraged the emergence of thousands of families living on state support for generations. (I'm not talking about people who might occasionally find themselves out work, but about professional scroungers.)

At the same time, the Fabian insistence on women joining the workforce has reduced the number of women willing to devote their lives to raising children.

Fabian influence has also drastically reduced the number of married couples. Marx in his Communist Manifesto boasted about communism aiming to abolish the family. G B Shaw and other Fabian leaders were outspoken opponents of the family. The Fabian-Labour regime of 1997-2010 deliberately neglected the family and its importance in the development and progress of children so as to not appear "discriminatory or judgmental" toward unmarried and single parents. Under Fabian rule in 2009 married couples in England became a minority for the first time in history.

Interestingly, in the past, the head of the family (the man) used to earn enough to support himself and his family. Nowadays both partners often need to work to earn enough and very few can afford to buy a house.

This has contributed to a stagnation or fall in the general population and to the need for entire industries to import employees from abroad. Hence the Fabian and Labour policy of encouraging mass immigration.

Mass immigration in turn has led to a shortage of housing (= higher house prices and rent) and to stagnant wages that aren't keeping up with the rising living costs.

Fabian control of the education system has not led to higher standards of education, but to the opposite. Universities like the Fabians' LSE often have more foreign students than British.

In 2009, at the height of Fabian-Labour rule, independent opinion polls found that many young people were unemployable, lacking skills from reading and writing to punctuality, presentation and communication.

This again has further increased the need for importing "skilled workers" from other countries, etc. and has created an economy dependent on migrant workers who are gradually replacing the local working class.

The question that arises is, How does the British working class benefit from being replaced with others?

So, Fabianism may look "attractive" on the face of it but it comes with many problems of its own.

This is why people in general have decided that they want some Fabian policies such as national health service but not Fabianism, and this is what the ruling Tories (Conservatives) are now trying to offer, and have been since 2010.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Fabianism has anything attractive to offer but whether, on balance, Fabianism's good points outweigh its bad points. Closer analysis suggests that the opposite is the case.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in Communist China just for the sake of public health service and unemployment benefits. And I definitely don't fancy being replaced. But this is just my view.

within the last ten years, even the analysts have began talking about the dramatic form of the dialogue — Fooloso4

That's what I'm saying, "drama" or play with a moral and spiritual content.

Of course. Have you read any books about Meister Eckhart? — frank

Yes, I have. I think Eckhart's teachings come very close to the mysticism within the Platonic tradition.

The purpose of the text is to stimulate the reader to think, and it does that by being an intricate construction with many implications, some of which are indeterminate in the sense that you can’t be sure of what Plato meant and what Socrates meant, but they are intended to make you, the interpreter, do your thinking for yourself ... I think that it would be better to emphasize that the dialogue has as its primary function the task of stimulating the reader to think for himself, not to find the teaching worked-out for him. — Fooloso4

That happens to be correct. But works of this type were not meant to be studied on your own because in that case you could reach any kind of conclusion that might be diametrically opposed to the author's own outlook. These texts were normally read under the guidance of a qualified teacher.

In any case, precisely because the dialogues are intended to stimulate the reader to think for himself, it doesn't seem proper to tell him from the start to stick to a materialist interpretation of the text. Let the reader decide for himself.

And of course there are many (maybe most) real world situations that are much more complex than simply A vs. B. — EricH

I totally agree with that. The British had to deal with very complex situations throughout the empire but especially in East Africa where natives had to compete with intruding Europeans, Indians, etc.

The solution suggested by the Colonial Office at the time was "native paramountcy" which meant that the rights of the native population were paramount in relation to the rights of other groups.

Personally, I tend to believe that this wasn't a bad idea.

I don't see a spiritual message. I see the expression of ideas that will course through philosophy for the next 2400 years. — frank

You don't have to see anything. The dialogues can be interpreted on many different levels, such as literal, allegorical, etc.

Platonism, by which I mean the philosophical and mystical tradition that regards itself as closely following Plato, does see a spiritual message in the dialogues, though.

But, as you say, "to each his own".

There's no comedy or tragedy because it's not a drama. There's no story arc. — frank

"Drama" in the sense of "play". Obviously, not a conventional one. But it does contain elements of tragedy and comedy and has a spiritual message to convey. So, maybe something like the mystery plays of antiquity only more complex and sophisticated?

Look at your own picture, you will immediately understand what I mean. Or maybe not. In which case it's probably too late.

The record speaks for itself and it's says your are a liar. — James Riley

Not at all. The record doesn't say that. You say that. And we've seen what your statements are worth. As I said, you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse.

The problem may be that others are only too quick to proclaim what is all too obvious and not pace themselves slowly enough to attend to the details that can turn the obvious into something quite different. — Fooloso4

Have you considered that "others" possibly includes yourself?

The OP says “The question arises as to whether this [Phaedo] is a comedy or a tragedy”.

IMO the discussion so far has failed to show that Phaedo is a “comedy”.

If anything, it is a tragedy (τραγῳδία tragodia) in the traditional sense of drama invoking an accompanying catharsis, or a "pain [that] awakens pleasure", for the audience, with a very clear spiritual message.

In your own words, "Plato did write and he is a very capable storyteller, capable of the greatest music. His dialogues are akin to the work of the poets’ plays".

The fact is Plato is far greater than a "very capable storyteller" or "poet", as stressed time and again by later Platonists. So, the real question is for what reason you choose to deny this.

No. The relevant portion is this:

"Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy [God] doesn't exist? Obviously "

Hope that God (or "sky daddy") doesn't exist is not only factual but "obvious" to atheists like Seditious.

That's what that statement means to the rest of us. But maybe you are Irish or something. Which is not my fault.

No, you said "God". He didn't say God. — James Riley

He said "sky daddy". "Sky daddy" is a well-known slang name for God:

"The use of the mundane sky and extremely familiar daddy in place of lofty terms such as God in Heaven or God the Father is intended disrespectfully, mocking (and potentially offending) those who might believe in such a figure" sky daddy Wiktionary

You can tell as many lies as you wish, Mr Riley. That won't change the facts.

People don't choose to be transgender. They choose to transition, but not to be transgender. — Michael

You could be right there. I don't know much about transgenderism to be honest, but I've read articles about normal people undergoing surgery or taking medication to transform them into the opposite sex because they were encouraged by their school teachers or activist groups to do so. In any case, I think it should be for society to decide not for minority or special interest groups to dictate to the rest of us. But that's just my opinion.

Horse racing. — Michael

Well, opponents might protest and say that their human brain puts the rest of the competing horses to an unfair disadvantage, etc.

What I'm saying is that society can't always accommodate those who deliberately choose to be different yet at the same time insist on being equal.

Because there are far, far fewer transgender athletes than cisgender athletes. According to this "less than 1 percent of the NCAA’s student-athlete population is transgender." — Michael

But that seems to be the transgenderists' problem not society's.

For the sake of argument, suppose someone decides to be a horse and successfully undergoes surgery to become as horselike as possible. Which tournaments should we allow them to compete in?

According to the trans movement, hormone therapy has nothing to do with it. They believe in gender fluidity. Someone can change their identity from day to day. And if you don't agree, then you are a bigot. — Edy

Correct. There seems to be a growing number of minority groups that try to impose their views on the rest of society. And if you disagree for any reason you are instantly branded "bigot", "Fascist", "Nazi", "racist", "capitalist", "Christian", reactionary", "enemy", etc. and you are lucky to come out alive from any "discussion" or "debate". There is zero dialogue, just pure fanaticism and hatred.

Are transgender women only tournaments even feasible? — Michael

Well, there are men or women only tournaments, so why not?

I think the root of the problem is that there are some men who want to be considered women.

However, it should be for society, not for those men/women to decide how society sees them. Otherwise, you have a small minority dictating to the vast majority what to think. Additionally, governments may select to side with those men/women and try to impose their views on the whole population, etc. So, I would say that politics does come into it.

One such slander is that atheists are all secret believers. Another is that they are Communists (very popular in the 1950's). Another is that they are afraid of God and therefore repressed theists, living in denial. Yet another is that they are egomaniacs who don't have room in their lives for someone more powerful than them. That's my favorite one. — Tom Storm

I see what you mean. But why is it "slander" to try to find an explanation for atheism? Most people do believe in God. Atheists are an exception. Therefore it is legitimate to find an explanation for this exception. Psychology does that all the time.

I think precisely because atheists come in many shapes and forms we shouldn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that at least some of them have a conscious or unconscious hope or desire for God not to exist. In fact, as we have just seen, to atheists like @Seditious this is "obvious".

But I agree that most "discussions" tend to end in ad hominems and that shouldn't be the case, especially on a philosophy forum.

Seditious admitted no such thing. He said he doesn't "want your terrible magic sky daddy" to exist — James Riley

That's a blatant lie. Seditious said exactly what I said he did:

Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy doesn't exist? Obviously — Seditious

So, the BS is entirely yours Mr Riley. Anyway, I think you should calm down. There is no need to foam at the mouth just because you've failed to convince people. You're beginning to sound like Nation of Islam or the Taliban.

didn't create a narrative. I just cited some Wiki crap about Marx's early years, showing you that he wasn't in some secular, unthinking vacuum — James Riley

You cited it from Wikipedia and in so doing you made it your narrative. What's the point in saying "he was born Jewish"? His father had already converted to Christianity before he was born. So, what?

You have no idea what my religion is. You're making it all up. And why are you defending Marx? You must be either some sort of neo-Marxist or something along those lines.

And anyway, @Seditious has already admitted that he is an atheist who hopes that God doesn't exist. So, that already answers the question. There is nothing more to be said unless you want to start a new thread.

As I said, take a better look at your own statements:

He was born Jewish, the family changed to Christianity, he was baptized, and grew up in a secular environment of philosophy which, I'm pretty sure, did not make him an unthinking atheist. — James Riley

No logic there at all. You're constructing a narrative there from unrelated bits of information.

Young Germans at the time were often atheists because that was the new fashion in that period, not because they had analyzed religion and found it to be unscientific or whatever. The same happens even today. Atheists aren't any more intelligent or thoughtful than theists.

.

he was baptized, and grew up in a secular environment of philosophy which, I'm pretty sure, did not make him an unthinking atheist. I'd say the burden would be upon you to show that he was. But you've got nothing. — James Riley

It's the opinion of historians and scholars. But if you think you know better, that's OK with me.