What do you mean by 'perceives them differently'? — Tom Storm

'Perceive' is one of the synonyms of the word 'discern', but i think I should not go down that rabbit hole. Use which ever one you choose. To me it is still a yes or no question. Do you perceive/discern the speaker's intent differently if you think of them (the speaker) as usually conservative or usually liberal?

While there is probably some wisdom in all the replies in this thread at best I expected to get a few replies that mostly consisted of yes or no. I was naive, I thought I was asking a simple question about other people's opinions. I see now that many consider the question as much more than that and in some cases inflammatory. I do not. I am trying to figure out how I should have asked it instead. I am searching for a way to make the question simpler/plainer. Even so, there may yet be some useful information about perception/discernment in the replies but I will have to study them.

This is a yes or no question. My answer is no.
— David Hubbs

I’m not sure it is, unless I’m missing something. — Tom Storm

if one perceives them differently, the answer is "yes". If one does not perceive them differently, the answer is "no". What am I missing?

They are politically fluid. — Tom Storm

How does politically fluid differ from politically nonbinary? This is not a rhetorical question. i do not know the difference. I am really trying to learn.

This is a yes or no question. My answer is no.

The distinction between logical reality and physical reality is an important one. Although humanity is not done, we recognize today that more of our view of physical reality is consistent with logical reality. I am hopeful that someday we will discover more laws of nature and not fall into the abyss of superstition. As Richard Feynman said, “I would rather have questions that can”t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

...the ancient Hebrews were presented by Moses with a compendium of ethical rules, that were supposed to be accepted as divine Laws. And violations would be punishable by real-world experiences, up to and including death & genocide. — Gnomon

If I jumped off a building I would splatter on the street as a result of gravity, not as punishment by an omniscient entity for believing I could fly. Elbert Hubbard said, “We are punished by our sins, not for them.”

Plato’s dialogues are meticulously rational albeit with some mythological elements. — Wayfarer

In Plato’s era belief in the Gods was assumed. It was normal. Although he teetered on the edge of normalcy I like to think he knew better than to alienate/insult his audience nonchalantly.

I read the first and last pages of this thread and would like to contribute. If any contributor thinks I would learn significantly more by reading some other pages before I post, please just say so. If you choose to do so, please include the relevant pages (even if its all of them) in your recommendation.

I must confess that at times, as I read, I was not sure if I was reading a rebuttal or an agreement. Sometimes the language is fairly obtuse to me. I am familiar with Platonic forms but it has been nearly fifty years since I read Plato and it’s possible I was mistaken about how well I understood it then. Today, I only loosely understand many of the posts here and have considerable uncertainty whether my ideas are relevant or appropriately expressed. If you think my post is not relevant, it’s okay to stop reading at any time and just skip/ignore this post.

In my view the Platonic forms are not dependent on physical manifestation to be real. Their existence is demonstrated/proven mathematically (at least enough for me) as an ideal that we can compare physical objects to. When concepts cannot be understood mathematically, it is difficult for me to consider them real. For example, I cannot prove mathematically or observationally that a teapot is not in orbit around Mars. I require such evidence before I would concede the teapot’s existence. I apply the same principle to string theory and multiple universes. Perhaps some physicist have proven them to their own satisfaction but they have not persuaded me. I am not suggesting that I have to be persuaded of something for it to be real, just that I have to understand the proof or have enough confidence in the claimant to accept the claim.

When Cro-Magnon hunted with spears (perhaps in groups), they understood arc and force enough to kill large animals so they could have lunch. If they failed in their effort they would either go hungry or become lunch themselves. Newton, demonstrated that arc and force could be understood mathematically (Calculus). Even though Co-Magnon did not do Calculus they understood how much force and angle to apply to be successful hunters. I call this Analog Knowledge.

I am of the camp that holds that accomplishments in mathematics are discoveries, not inventions. In other words, the mathematics to understand arc and force existed in Cro-Magnon’s time but was discovered by Newton. In this way, it is the pursuit of the ideal that allows us to calculate the behavior of objects in motion sufficiently enough to visit other bodies in space. In my view, by doing so humanity clearly demonstrated that the ideal was real.

I watched the original Cosmos series in the early 80’s. It was profound.

The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.