Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy doesn't exist? Obviously, but not actively or often, I so very rarely to never think about it. If you've actually read the bible, in its entirety, in as short a period of time as you can manage, you would be insane to wish for such an entity to have any basis in reality, unless of course, you were some sort of immoral masochistic sociopath. — Seditious

Well, at least you seem honest enough to admit that hope is an element of atheism.

However, I would point out that the conception of God in the Christian Gospels is not the same as that of God in the Hebrew Bible.

I've got absolutely nothing against you. I just happen to disagree with your statements. I'm sure even you would disagree if you cared to look at what you are saying:

I don't believe you. I think you gave Marx because he's your boogey man and easy to paint. It's lazy. And to say he's "unthinking" demonstrates your dishonesty; either that or your ignorance. I'm no fan of Marx, but I'd never say he was unthinking. That would make me stupid. — James Riley

I never said "Marx was unthinking". I said "unthinking atheist", i.e. a person who was an atheist from the start, not as a result of thinking about it. That was precisely why I chose him as an example. You are confusing yourself. Or maybe you're just a bit tired.

Is there some length of time after which you say to the original inhabitants - “Yes, you were there first, but X number of years have passed - it’s time to move on”? Again I have no idea. — EricH

Personally, I would use a few basic rules (to which more can be added):

You or your ancestors would need to have either (1) been the first settlers or (2) lived in a particular place for many generations to lay a justified claim to that particular piece of land.

The original inhabitants would have rights in perpetuity to the said land.

The rights of newcomers would depend on the degree of consent obtained from the original inhabitants to settle on their territory.

So, for example, where a particular group has gained control over another group's territory by force of arms, the original group must be given precedence over the intruding group.

if the myth of recollection was true, none of this would be necessary. He would have simply recollected what he knew from being dead, the existence of Beauty itself, Justice Itself, the Good itself, and all the rest. — Fooloso4

I think you are missing some important points, e.g.:

1. Full recollection of past knowledge is not automatic. it needs training by means of philosophy, etc. and may require more than one lifetime to develop fully.

2. What you recollect in this life depends on what you knew in your past life or lives. If you were not a fully enlightened soul in your past life then you wouldn't have experienced Beauty Itself, Justice Itself, the Good Itself, and all the rest, and you couldn't recollect all that in this life.

I'm beginning to see where Tim Wood is coming from. If we are to tie the specific to the general, then you end up conflating the disparate. Please don't be so fundamentally stupid as to run to Marx when discussing atheism generally. That's like me running to Hitler when discussing Christianity generally. — James Riley

And I'm beginning to see that you're getting angry for your own inability to convince anyone, perhaps not even yourself.

I simply gave Marx as a well-known example of unthinking atheist.

Hitler and Christianity is a totally different story. If you were to run to Hitler in a discussion on religion that would be "fundamentally stupid" indeed.

And yes, most atheists are agnostics who refuse to admit that they don't know.

I thought that was an agnostic? — James Riley

No. The agnostic is an atheist who admits that he doesn't know.

Most atheists I know tried damn hard but logic and reason just wouldn't let them do it. Hell, many of them were raised deep in it, and were believers. — James Riley

I don't think Marx ever thought about it. Most likely he never believed. If you start from the unexamined premise that religion is "the opium of the people", then you don't think about it. It is like a religious belief that you accept on faith. In my experience, honest and thoughtful atheists tend to admit that, ultimately, they don't know.

Atheists are more likely to wish they were wrong than to hope they are right. — James Riley

I suspect most atheists just don't know. They certainly can't prove that there is no God and I doubt many of them have even tried. Most people are really lazy when it comes to these matters.

the best arm-wrestler in my JHS (of about a thousand students) eighth-grade class was a girl. — tim wood

I don't dispute that. But maybe she was training harder or her hormones allowed her to grow more muscle mass or something. There could be all kinds of explanations. But it does sound like an exception.

let's just say that there really wasn't any knowledge there....I was astounded. — 3017amen

Well, that seems to be the direction society is taking or is pushed these days. "Government by celebrity activists" who, having achieved fame in their own field, feel that the White House should be their next job for which they posses more than enough qualifications ....

Most atheists I know wish there was a god, thinking he'd come down here and spank the shit out of all his dumb-ass followers who violate his tenants on a daily basis. — James Riley

Sure. And let's not forget all those atheist saints like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and their millions of followers.

Maybe some such disbelievers can be found? An odd kind of wishful thinking?
Doesn't seem all that likely, though, or at least uncommon. — jorndoe

You'll be surprised at the amount of subconscious baggage some people carry around with them without ever realizing.

it's ultimately a waste of everyone's time and effort. — tim wood

That's what it is anyway. I rarely see discussions here leading to anything, to be quite honest. But I may be wrong.

A little care in your language, then, will smooth your travels on TPF, and likely everywhere else. — tim wood

I think that's wishful thinking. In my experience, if people want to attack you because you've expressed a view that is incompatible with their own ideology or mode of thinking they'll attack you no matter what.

As I said, I saw this as an informal exchange of views not as a formal discussion or debate. I wouldn't have had the time for that anyway.

I could have put my view in more precise or more technical language but I'm not particularly fond of jargon and I didn't feel that to be necessary. I still think that the OP term "hope" may be taken to imply fear in some form or other. Normally, when we hope something it means we fear that the opposite might happen. When we really like something we have, we consciously or subconsciously fear that we might lose it, etc. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter though. I don't think it's wise for people to hold a grudge against one another just for holding different views. That isn't what a philosophy forum, or any forum, should be about.

practicing philosophy in the right way means,
"in truth, moderation and courage and justice". — Fooloso4

I think that was already obvious. But practising moderation and courage and justice must be considered in the context of Socrates' belief in rebirth, etc. as discussed at 72a - 72d.

What are you trying to prove or establish? — tim wood

Nothing. I posted a comment expressing my personal view after which I was attacked for doing so as seems to be standard procedure here.

Asking provocative questions is provocative. — T Clark

All questions are "provocative" if you want them to be and if your intention is to suppress debate. So, I am right after all.

The political side of the Trans debate, is rather messy, and awaits further scientific clarification... I'm not interested in discussing the trans politics here. — Edy

That's where the problem lies. Science is clear that in physical competitions especially at top level a biological female is not the same as a biological male. So the issue seems to be political. Politics decides how science is applied.

You asked provocative questions intended to raise a ruckus among us loony lefties. — T Clark

Good to see some honesty there for a change. So, asking questions is "provocative" around here, after all.

Playwrights were big celebrities back then. I don't know, probably best to just drop it, huh? There's more important stuff in the world — frank

lol I think you might be right there. But maybe we should wait for the final verdict before we give up completely?

I only want to hold you accountable for what you say. — T Clark

You mean accountable for asking a question? And what exactly did I ask in your opinion that makes it imperative for me "to be held accountable"?

Wikipedia says this is from the Bible. That violent revolutionary Jesus said it — T Clark

It may well be from the Bible. I'm discussing it in the context of post-biblical activism

Sometimes the questions someone asks tell us more than the answers they give. — T Clark

And sometimes it's the other way round. The answers people give tell us much more than the questions asked.

But I forgot we aren't allowed to ask questions on this forum. Especially not in the Questions section. So, you're probably right.

There is a simple answer to this question: Ask it. It's usually asked like this "Are you threatening me?" — James Riley

I tend to see it that way myself. But when you ask that question it means that you perceive a potential or veiled threat in the slogan. And that suggests that the threat is implied in the slogan.

Plus, your question may be misinterpreted as a challenge or opposition to the activists' cause (whatever that happens to be on that occasion) and may identify you, in their eyes, as "enemy". In which case you may not be able to carry on the dialogue for much longer.

There is here, once again, a play of opposites. — Fooloso4

Of course there is. That is Plato's obvious method. But his play of opposites suggests that another reason for using humor may have been to provide a counterweight to the seriousness of the subject matter.

After all, spirit is light and joy. Humor is uplifting, while a somber mood may be depressing. And the purpose of philosophy is to elevate the spirit. Combining humor with metaphysical teachings does not seem to be a contradiction.

So it probably helps to put ourselves in Plato's shoes in order to understand him. — frank

Correct. And the crux of the matter is, are they the shoes (1) of a philosopher or (2) of an author of comedy? I think the evidence tends to suggest (1) as the correct answer.

I guess a verbal flourish can be difficult to translate. — frank

Sure. But he wasn't translating. He was reading Gallop's English translation.

1. How did he misread that?

2. Why was he so quick to read so much into his own misreading?

But, as the Phaedrus makes clear, Socrates was not opposed to divine madness. There is here, once again, a play of opposites. — Fooloso4

Well, if Socrates was not opposed to divine madness, why would he be opposed to the Bacchic rites?

And, anyway, at 72c and 72d he vindicates the doctrine of rebirth and of learning as recollection does he not?

So, the text does seem to have a spiritual message after all, and it isn't only "comedy"?

They have recalled the doctrine. They have not recollected. It remains something they have been told rather than knowledge they have attained. — Fooloso4

Yes, but they are vindicating the doctrine in 72c and 72d are they not?

If the living come back from the dead, this justifies belief in learning as recollection, as discussed at 72e ff

So, where is the "irony"?

Nietzsche said ... — Fooloso4

Yes. But on what grounds do we ignore or dismiss other views like those of later Platonic philosophers in favor of Nietzsche?

Ah, so this whole spiel about Gandhi and whether or not truely "peaceful" protest is possible was just some cover for you soapboxing about how BLM is bad and not actually interested in equality. Gotcha — Echarmion

That's your deliberate misinterpretation of it. I'm talking about slogans that imply a threat of violence. In my view they tend to encourage violence. I don't care who is using them. And neither should you if you look at it objectively.

The book analyzes specific instances of laughter and the comical from the Apology, Laches, Charmides, Cratylus, Euthydemus, and the Symposium to support this, and to further elucidate the philosophical consequences of recognizing Plato’s laughter. — Fooloso4

No one denies that there is humor in Plato's dialogues but to dismiss them as "comedy" is stretching it too far. Plus, even comedy may have a spiritual message. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the facts.

The Sedley and Long translation is slightly different. But in 69d it says:

For in fact, as those involved in the rites [mysteries] put it, "many carry the fennel-wand, but few are inspired". The latter, in my opinion, are none other than those who have pursued philosophy correctly. In trying to become one of them I left nothing undone in my life, at least as far as I could, but did my utmost in every way. Whether I did so correctly and achieved anything, I'll know for certain when I've got there, god willing, and I don't think it will be long. —

This and other statements would suggest that the speaker does see himself as a follower of the mystery traditions.

So, is this about protest movements in general or about specific protests? If the latter, I think it'd be helpful to know the context, as you see it, in more detail. — Echarmion

I'm talking about protest movements in which violence is more likely to take place and that use slogans of this type, for example BLM.

Instead of saying "no justice no peace" they could simply demand equal rights or whatever it is they are campaigning for.

Using language that amounts to threat of violence can not only result in actual violence, but tends to alienate those sections of the public that don't believe in political or racial violence, i.e. the vast majority.

I thought it was Christians and Muslims and such that feared their deities — jorndoe

Actually, that's an interesting statement. I tend to believe that fear can work in both directions. Some people believe in God as a result of fear while others may deny God's existence out of fear that he might actually exist.

Please give a citation. And could it be that you are confusing ordinary denial with clinical denial, which diagnosis being made, the individual diagnosed may have some issue with fear? — tim wood

The Ego And The Mechanisms Of Defense by A Freud explains exactly how defense mechanisms work. "Defense motivated by fear", etc.

"Denial is often a fear reaction" - The Essential Guide to Defense Mechanisms | Psychology Today

There is a fine line between "ordinary" and "clinical" that can only be established on a case-to-case basis.

But it is wrong to assert that denial can't be motivated by fear.

The very one we’re discussing! Socrates refers to ‘an ancient myth’ and also ‘the mysteries’. ‘The mysteries’ are a reference to the Greek ‘mystery religions’, notably Orphism (the cult of Orpheus) which taught a doctrine of re-incarnation very similar to ancient Hinduism (to which it was distantly related). It has been called the ‘ur-religion’ of Ancient Greece, ‘ur-religion’ being the ancestral indigenous belief system which originated with the ancient Indo-European peoples. (On a side-note, the original definition of a ‘mystic’ was ‘one initiated into the Mysteries.’ And if, as legend suggests, Plato was such an initiate, then he was literally ‘a mystic’). — Wayfarer

Plato is also said to have been initiated into Egyptian mysteries as was Pythagoras. But you are right, we can't ignore the mystic aspect of Platonism and try to force an exclusively atheistic or materialist interpretation on Platonic texts. Otherwise we take a dogmatic approach which to my understanding the discussion intended to avoid.

So to circle back to the other questions, "no justice, no peace" isn't an "incitement to violence" so much as a reminder that it's not an issue the protesters are willing to simply back away from without meaningful negotiation — Echarmion

I see what you mean. However, the problem I have with that is that most genuinely peaceful demonstrations do not tend to use that slogan. It tends to be found more in demonstrations that have a clear potential of turning violent and are accompanied by heavier police presence, etc.

The way myths are told in ancient literature - not only by Plato - they're often allegorical presentations of truths which can't be stated directly. Which is convenient for modern intepreters, because they can also be dismissed as 'merely myth'. — Wayfarer

Correct.

Since you asked, quite frankly it indicates that you don't know much about the setting of the work. You're prone to jumping to odd conclusions, and then you refuse to accept facts when they're presented. — frank

I tend to agree with that. Take the example of 85b where, on being asked who Socrates refers to (Apollo or some other master), he replied "I don't know" only to later claim that he "misread" the text and corrected himself after consulting other translations and even that only after I pointed out that his reading is incorrect.

How can you "misread" a text written in plain English?

But he goes even further and baselessly asserts:

But (and with Plato there is always more to it) he goes on to say: "... that I possess prophetic power from my master no less than theirs" Which indicates that it is not Apollo. — Fooloso4

So, he uses his own misreading to infer quite a lot from it. "It is not Apollo" (even when it obviously is Apollo) and, anyways, "with Plato there is always more to it" so let's turn the dialogues into something else, like a "comedy" for example. Plato, after all, was not a philosopher but a playwright.

Denial is not always a fear reaction, so atheism is not always a fear reaction. So associating fear based denial with atheism is fallacious. — DingoJones

I never said "always". I said "denial is often a fear reaction". That's an established psychological fact.