I suppose we could view Socrates as trying to block rational thought at these points of aporia, but I'm not sure that's his purpose — J

A bit more on this. The third level of the divided line, if we are working out way up, is dianoia, rational thought. Reason functions by way of ratio, that is, understanding one thing in relation to another. The singularity of the Forms means that they are not accessible to reason. They are grasped at the fourth or highest level directly by noesis, by the mind or intellect, as they are each itself by itself.

But to be fair, in this case Wayfarer asked you about metaphysics and mysticism. — Leontiskos

With regard to mysticism - there is a lot of different stuff called mysticism. If we regard mysticism as the experience of a reality that transcends our everyday reality, that is something I know nothing about. I have never had the experience of such a reality. I don't doubt that others have had an experience that they attribute to a higher reality, but I lack the measure by which to evaluate some of these claims as true and not others.

From a thread on Plato's metaphysics:

Plato’s metaphysics is not systematic. It is problematic. It raises questions it cannot answer and problems that cannot be resolved. It is important to understand that this is a feature not a defect or failure.

Plato’s concern is the Whole. Forms are not the Whole. Knowledge of the Forms is not knowledge of the whole.

In the Philebus, Plato raises the problem of the “indeterminate dyad” . The limited (peras) and unlimited (apieron) is, as Aristotle called it, an indeterminate dyad.

These dyads include:

Limited and Unlimited

Same and Other

One and Many

Rest and Change

Eternity and Time

Good and Bad

Thinking and Being

Being and Non-being

Each side stands both together with and apart from the other. There is not one without the other.

Ultimately, there is neither ‘this or that’ but ‘this and that’. The Whole is not reducible to One. The whole is indeterminate.

And yet we do separate this from that. Thinking and saying are dependent on making such distinctions.

We informally divide things into kinds. Forms are kinds.

Forms are both same and other. Each Form is itself both other than the things of that Form, and other than the other Forms.

The Forms are each said to be one, but the Forms and things of that Form are an indeterminate dyad, one and many.

The indeterminate dyad raises problems for the individuality and separability of Forms. There is no “Same itself” without the “Other itself”, the two Forms are both separable and inseparable.

Socrates likens the Forms to originals or paradigms, and things of the world to images or copies. This raises several problems about the relation between Forms and particulars, the methexis problem. Socrates is well aware of the problem and admits that he cannot give an account of how particulars participate in Forms.

Things are not simply images of Forms. It is not just that the image is distorted or imperfect. Change, multiplicity and the unlimited are not contained in unchanging Forms.

The unity of Forms is subsumed under the Good. But Socrates also says that the Good is not responsible for the bad things. (Republic 379b)

The Whole is by nature both good and bad.

The indeterminate dyad Thinking and Being means that Plato’s ontology is inseparable from his epistemology.

Plato’s ontology must remain radically incomplete, limited to but not constrained by what is thought.

The limits of what can be thought and said are not the limits of Being.

I think the grammatical and spelling mistakes are an indicator of what your thesis does to Fooloso's temperament. — Leontiskos

Wayfarer and I go way back. We often disagree, but not always. I consider him a friend. We have often recommended books and papers to each other. I know his positions well, and he knows mine.

Your comment about temperament seems to be projection. Both Wayfarer and I understand that the nature of philosophy involves dispute, but we also understand that there is a difference between disputes over matters of interpretation and personal attacks.

If the divided line isn't for would-be philosophers, I can't imagine who else it's for. — J

The lowest level of the divided line is not transcended or abandoned. It is our abode, the city, the cave. In the Phaedo Socrates calls Forms hypothesis. In the dialectic of the Republic too the Forms are hypothetical, and remain so unless or until one is able to free themself from hypothesis. In the dialogue Socrates is clear in stating that he has not done so.

In none of the dialogues do we find someone who has attained divine knowledge. Philosophy is, according to the Symposium, the desire for wisdom. They do not possess wisdom. The philosophers of the Republic stand in opposition to the philosophers of the Symposium.

... the idea that we are meant to go through aporia is so enticing. — J

Yes. And her Plato rivals the best of the poets in inflaming Eros. In this case the desire to be wise.

I suppose we could view Socrates as trying to block rational thought at these points of aporia, but I'm not sure that's his purpose — J

It is not that he blocks rational thought but that it has reached its limit.

We could look at specific dialogues for that, but we'd need a new OP. — J

If you do a search of the forum you will see that I started several threads that do just that.

I don't see this as being about the Forms themselves. — J

It is about knowledge of the forms, or lack of such knowledge.

But that there is some such thing to see must be insisted on. — J

He continues:

And should we not also insist that the power of dialectic alone would reveal this, to someone with experience in what we have been describing just now, and that this is not possible in any other way?

To which Glaucon agrees. Why does Glaucon agrees? Certainly not because this is something he knows. And Socrates does not know it either. He knows only how it looks to him. Why does Socrates insist? I think it is because he thinks that holding this opinion is better than the alternatives. It is a moment in the movement of dialectic, that is:

... making the hypotheses not beginnings but really hypotheses - that is, steppingstones and springboards - in order to reach what is free from hypothesis at the beginning of the whole.

They have not reached that point and will not reach it. They are thinking dialectically, via hypothesis.

With that said, we both know Plato well enough to be aware that, like the Bible, you can find support for diametrically opposed positions depending on what you quote! — J

Yes, but the goal is not simply to support a position but to consider different positions in order to find the one that seems best. But we may not always find one that seems best, and so, we leave things open and continue to think.

The scholars who have influenced my work attend to the texts themselves, not to secular culture or metaphysical assumptions. They take seriously Socrates' notion of human wisdom. Not being divine beings they do not presume to know anything about matters of divine wisdom or a reality that transcends reality hear and now in our comfy cave.

but I am thinking in terms of centuries and millennia. It helps prevent one from falling into fads. — Leontiskos

I agree. These scholars are well versed in the centuries and millennia. In fact they often point to the centuries and millennia of commentary in order to see beyond what you refer to as "the common view". I think it telling that you dismiss the work being done as a "fad" without having actually read any of it. Careful reading that does not treat a dialogue as if it is dressed up discourse is not a fad.

The rational part of the soul has proper authority because it can unify the soul, and move past what merely "appears to be good," (appetitive) or "is said to be good," (spirited/passions) in search of what is "truly good." — Count Timothy von Icarus

See my earlier response to J:

In the Republic after Socrates presents the image of the Forms Glaucon wants Socrates to tell them what the Forms themselves are. Socrates responds:

You will no longer be able to follow, dear Glaucon, although there won’t be any lack of eagerness on my part. But you would no longer seeing an image of what we are saying, butthe truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it really is so or not cannot be properly insisted on.(emphasis added)
— 533a — Fooloso4

This is the common view, and the way Fooloso reads Plato looks to be idiosyncratic. — Leontiskos

It is not at all idiosyncratic. There are many highly regarded scholars who support this view. Stanley Rosen and Seth Benardete have led a generation of Plato scholars to part ways with the common views. Anyone paying attention to the scholarship for the last fifty years or more knows that that there have been significant changes in the way Plato has been interpreted. See, for example, Christopher Rowe's Methodologies for Reading Plato for a good overview.

That "flow" from the past towards the future with a nothing that divides the two as the present is very much what he's getting at rather than a continuous series of instants. — Moliere

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but Descartes claim of life being divided into separate independent moments seems suspect to me, especially given his claim about the mind or soul being indivisible and immortal. I think it has something to do with his defense against accusations of atheism.

Yes. I like that view, it's a spin on one of Aristotle's proofs of God. — frank

But Sartre doesn't like it.

In other words, we aren't using any writings of Descartes as the limit to the discussion. — frank

Sartre references Descartes and the infinitesimal instant. The passage from Descartes is about that. Sartre says:

... the cogito, must not be limited to the infinitesimal instant. Moreover this conclusion could be drawn from the fact that thought is an act which engages the past and shapes it outline by the future. — Being and Nothingness, p 156

In other words, Sartre is saying that thought is not a series of discreet infinitesimal instants. The thinker, the cogito, according to Descartes essentially a thinking thing and not simply a thing that thinks, is then not a series of discreet moments created anew .

I don't think these two are in conflict. If change is inherent to thought, it doesn't matter much if that change produces discreet moments or comes as a stream, does it? — frank

According to Descartes existence occurs in discreet moments. It requires a cause, namely God, to create it moment to moment.

aporia as a possible gateway to something better. — J

Aporia means impasse, the opposite of a gateway.

the Socrates (or Plato) of the Republic — J

A major key to understanding the Republic is the making of images, including the image of a transcendent realm of Forms. Or, in other words, philosophical poiesis.

Here we specifically examine the difference between knowledge and "how it looks to us." — J

In the Republic after Socrates presents the image of the Forms Glaucon wants Socrates to tell them what the Forms themselves are. Socrates responds:

You will no longer be able to follow, dear Glaucon, although there won’t be any lack of eagerness on my part. But you would no longer seeing an image of what we are saying, but the truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it really is so or not cannot be properly insisted on.(emphasis added)
— 533a

I see him advocating a positive doctrine about knowledge that is meant to be independent of what Athenians, or anyone else, think of it. — J

He does advocate a positive doctrine but it is made to persuade the Athenians not would be philosophers.

Most schools have a policy prohibiting a relationship with a student that goes beyond coffee,but it happens. Since it is your teacher who must deal with the consequences of violating the rules it is the teacher who should make the decision.

...the reflective achievement of Descartes, the cogito, must not be limited to the infinitesimal instant. — Being and Nothingness, p 156

In the Third Meditation Descartes says :

For a life-span can be divided into countless parts, each completely independent of the others, so that from my existing at one time it doesn’t follow that I exist at later times, unless some cause keeps me in existence – one might say that it creates me afresh at each moment.

I take it that it is in response to this that Sartre says:

Moreover this conclusion could be drawn from the fact that thought is an act which engages the past and shapes it outline by the future. — Being and Nothingness, p 156

If I am a thinking thing, and if thinking is not something that exists anew from moment to moment but rather extends from the past to the future, then as a thinking thing I do not exist anew from moment to moment and thus do not require some cause to keep me in existence.

I think Socrates and most philosophers since are committed to the idea that there is an ideal convergence point, involving rational inquiry, where we can reach consensus based on what is the case, not simply on "how it looks to us." — J

I don't think the Socratic philosophers agree with this. Certainly it involves rational inquiry, but where do they affirm anything like an ideal convergence point or consensus that is not provisional? Without knowledge I do not see how we can get beyond "how it looks to us." In many cases inquiry ends in aporia.

At least in part because they too chose change. She did not do a good job of articulating how her administration would differ from his. At one point she said she would not have done much differently She later attempted to walk that back.

Trump painted her as a radial progressive. In response she attempted to appear as a moderate maintaining the status quo.

And what you quoted from me was written with Socratic practice in mind. — Srap Tasmaner

But an examination of opinion is not an attempt to find a view from nowhere. It is an attempt to find the opinions that seems best. It is the view from where we are, in our ignorance of transcendent truths. The questions remain open, to be looked at again from another limited point of view.

The view from nowhere is a forgetfulness or disregard for the human. If, however, the unexamined life is not worth living then surely it cannot be a view from nowhere.

I don't really know what happened. — Tom Storm

Neither does anyone else.

perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok — Tom Storm

For many the economy is a matter of what they can and cannot afford. For some there is real hardship and financial insecurity. For others it is being able to afford a house or what their parents had. And for still others it is resentment that they can't afford a big house or fancy car or luxury vacation.

Unfortunately Trump will take credit for an improving economy, just as he did last time around.

I don't think payback for liberal elites, transgender issues, and "wokeness" are that important. It is more a matter of what people see and hear in the media than these things having a significant effect on their lives.

embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard. — Tom Storm

Yeah, I agree. What they don't think about is what happens after the destruction. What replaces it.

To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? — Tom Storm

I think people are fickle. The Founders were well aware of this and tried to minimize it.

... intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews? — Tom Storm

It certainly seems as if this is the case, but I think the whole thing might be to a greater or lesser extent exaggerated. People are growing weary of it. The sport of "owning the libs" is getting old and tired. It takes time to adjust to change, and things continue in significant ways. Often acceptance comes with a new generation.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked.

Whatever the case, grannies cramping themselves into an aneurysm is just sad on multiple levels. — Tzeentch

Tzeentch, you are clueless.

the politicians' trick? — Tzeentch

What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?

If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads.

What pot do you suppose I'm boiling in? — Tzeentch

You don't seem to understand the metaphor. The pot is not yet boiling. At this point it may seem welcomingly warm.

The pot is the USA. It is not about you, its about us.

Said the frog in the water slowly coming to a boil: "Come on in the water is warm".

It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now.

So will the DNC learn this lesson? — 180 Proof

What is the lesson? Not to nominate a woman?

Do you think a man would have won?

.

the political pendulum — frank

What are the forces behind the movement today? Dissatisfaction and the desire for change play a role, but is authoritarianism the only option? Of course one man's authoritarianism is another's New Deal. From that perspective some see MAGA is a correction.

Is the demagogue or a plutocracy or kleptocracy the natural consequence of democracy?

Or is our system robust enough to self-correct?

Right = grassroots media & free speech. — Leontiskos

Free speech?! You are being gaslighted.

America’s right-wing forces would have you believe that they are the courageous entities standing up for free speech.

But, as they try to claim that mantle, many of those same forces in media and politics are behind a disturbing wave of book bans sweeping the nation.
PEN America, a non-profit organization committed to protecting free expression, published an alarming report Tuesday indicating that the “book ban crisis” is only getting worse. The bans are “speeding up,” the organization warned in its report, a troublesome trend that is impacting public school systems from coast-to-coast.

“There were over 4,000 instances of book bans in the first half of this school year—more than all of last school year as a whole. This is a marked increase in comparison to the last spring semester, in which PEN America recorded 1,841 book bans,” the group said in the report, aptly titled “Banned in the USA.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/media/right-wing-book-bans-accelerating/index.html

A link to the PEN report.

In public libraries:

Suddenly book bans and other forms of censorship in schools and libraries are ascendant across the country, led by organized groups and politicians. Last year saw a record-breaking 1,269 efforts to censor books and resources nationwide, nearly twice as many as in 2021, according to the American Library Association (ALA). The ALA used to receive 300 to 400 reports a year of efforts to ban books, says Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, “but in 2020 we suddenly began receiving a growing number of reports — from one to two a week, if any, to five or six in a single day.”

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/23/11/book-bans-and-librarians-who-wont-be-hushed

According to Fox News:

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service and has been the number one network in basic cable for the last eight years and the most-watched television news channel for more than 22 consecutive years, currently attracting nearly 50% of the cable news viewing audience according to Nielsen Media Research. Notably, Nielsen/MRI Fusion has consistently shown FNC to be the network of choice for more Democrat and Independent viewers, with the most politically diverse audience in cable news. Additionally, a 2023 New York Times/Siena College poll found FNC as the leading single source of news for voters across the country. Owned by Fox Corporation, FNC is available in nearly 70 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top 10 programs in the genre.

https://press.foxnews.com/2024/10/fox-news-channel-sees-second-highest-rated-october-in-network-history-during-an-election-year#:~:text=FOX%20News%20Channel%20(FNC)%20is,audience%20according%20to%20Nielsen%20Media

wise and sagacious universities — Fire Ologist

New College of Florida, the small liberal arts college historically ranked among U.S. News and World Report’s top 75 institutions, has fallen 24 places. Now it risks dropping out of the top-100 category entirely.

This double-digit tumble is due in part to Governor Ron DeSantis’ overhaul of the school to transform it into a decidedly right-wing institution—a “Hillsdale of the South,” in reference to the conservative college in Michigan. DeSantis appointed right-wing activists to the board of trustees, replaced the college’s president and other administrators with political allies who have no experience in higher education, and gutted one-third of the faculty along with the diversity and equity department. The board has even relocated students to hotels to accommodate incoming athletes’ use of campus living spaces.

This type of college takeover is a new, more sinister development in a longstanding conservative practice. The right has spent decades creating parallel and competing structures in areas including political news, social media, and even consumer goods. This time, instead of offering students a conservative alternative in higher education, DeSantis and his allies are gutting an existing institution from the inside.

https://time.com/6319108/conservative-universities/

Right = grassroots media & free speech. — Leontiskos

When it comes to the airwaves, this is factually wrong. The truth is just the opposite. Fox News is not and never has been grassroots. It was started by Rupert Murdoch and is controlled by the Murdoch family. Sinclair Broadcasting is the second largest television operator in the US. When tuning in to there local TV station many might think that the news is reported by independent anchors, but they are reading from scripts with a conservative bias prepared centrally by Sinclair that goes out to all of their affiliates nationwide. iHeart Media is the largest owner of radio stations. This conservative group is hardly grassroots growing through mergers and accusations.

When it comes to X this is factually wrong. It is neither grassroots or free speech.

When it comes to podcasts this is factually wrong. Right wing shows dominate. It is not even close.

Relativist, I am sure I am not alone in applauding your efforts to bring truth to light, but NOS is a true Trump believer for whom facts and truth only matter to the extent that they can be used selectively in an attempt to defend him. To this end lies and falsehoods serve him just as well and usually even better. Like Trump he relies on the childish argumentative strategy of "I know you are but what am I?" accusing others of what he is accused of.

Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues ... — Mikie

They would not be nearly so successful if not for Fox and more recently the proliferation of podcasts that cynically treat politics as a rule free, fact free competitive sport.

Then if the essence of Christianity is strict adherence to its rules, I suppose any claim to membership requires acceptance of the ressurection. — ENOAH

There is no mention of resurrection in the sermon. There is no mention of resurrection in Mark when the good news is announced. Then again, the term 'Christian' does not appear either.

In the end, I think the strings attached end up twisting and strangling the thing being promoted. But that is admittedly me — ENOAH

Despite the efforts of the Church Fathers and the self-appointed gatekeepers in this thread, there is no single, coherent, agreed upon concept 'Christian' or teaching regarding Christianity. Odd as it may sound, Jesus was not a Christian. There is much in Christianity that I think he would not have approved of. The religion is the invention of Paul for the Gentiles and developed in ways that I think Paul would not have approved of through the influence of paganism.

Is the essence of Christianity the salvation of the individual or the strict adherence to its rules? — ENOAH

Perhaps the law of Moses is not about personal salvation or adherence to its rules. The social and political aspect of Deuteronomy should not be overlooked:

Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.

(1:8)

So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. And I charged your judges at that time, “Hear the disputes between your people and judge fairly, whether the case is between two Israelites or between an Israelite and a foreigner residing among you. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.”

(1:15-17)

The law is for the people, for the nation, not for an individual.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that he has come to fulfill the Law. Fulfilling the Law is not simply obedience to it. It is something to be accomplished. (5:18)

There is in the sermon no promise of personal salvation, but rather to be part of the kingdom of heaven. Here too there is a political or social dimension.

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (7:12)

So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here. — BitconnectCarlos

If the Sermon on the Mount is accepted as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teaching then he does not break from the Torah:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished ...

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:17-20)

Paul, however, says that "the believers" the followers of "the way" are not under the Law. The dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples colors much of the NT. In Acts, for example, we find:

God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

(Acts 15:8-11)

The issue here is circumcision (brit milah, the covenant of Abraham. It is not simply a custom or tradition of the elders to be accepted or rejected, as the Law is sometimes treated in the Gospels. It is a fundamental part of the Law.

According to Acts:

... the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

But according to the Sermon it is Jesus who says to keep the Law of Moses.

I think what it means is 'beyond the vicissitudes of existence' i.e. not subject to birth and death and arising and perishing. — Wayfarer

The Forms do not come to be or pass away, but it is affirmed that they are. Unlike the Good they are all said to be.

But since this thread is not on Plato and the Good, I will leave it there.

Well thank you for mustering enough courage to address this point. Is it expecting too much of you to address what Mark says about the good news.

Just so I am clear, are you referring to Acts where Peter says:

You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news

(10:36)

The same good news about which you said?

... proclaiming the "good news of Jesus Christ" was the good news (gospel) ... — Leontiskos

The term gospel does not refer exclusively the written documents. As I said:

. I think the gospels are a combination of stories that were in circulation, changing somewhat in the telling, and inspiration — Fooloso4

Fooloso is not aware of Peter's revelation — Leontiskos

Unfortunately, you lack to courage to address me and my questions to you directly. Instead you make broadside attacks against me lacking in substance. Or else you choose not to respond at all, as is the case with regard to what the "good news" means in Mark. I understand. Addressing it means undermining your claim about the connection between the good news and [correction: resurrection].

The Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of Peter is a non-canonical gospel. It was included in the Muratorian Canon but not in the present canon. In early Christianity there was no official canon. It was not until 367 that Athanasius of Alexandria compiled what is now the official canon.

When Socrates asks for a definition of a term that he and all the interlocutors believe is important but disagree about, he is surely trying to find the view from nowhere, the place where we transcend doxa and perhaps, eventually, dianoia as well, and can see the Good itself. — J

There are a few points that I disagree with. Socratic philosophy is rooted in opinion. The examination of opinion does not mean the transcendence of opinion. I take seriously the Socratic notion of human ignorance.In Plato's Apology he says that he does not know anything noble (or beautiful) and good. (kalos kai agathos) (21d)

From the Phaedo:

One day I heard someone reading, as he said, from a book of Anaxagoras, and saying that it is Mind that directs and is the cause of everything. I was delighted with this cause and it seemed to me good, in a way, that Mind should be the cause of all. I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best. If then one wished to know the cause of each thing, why it comes to be or perishes or exists, one had to find what was the best way for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is best.

(97b-d)

Plato shifts between mind as the cause of the order of the cosmos and mind as what order and directs human inquiry. In our inquiry we must be guided by consideration of what is best. Accordingly, we accept those arguments that seem best. The question of what is best is inextricably linked to the question of the human good. About what is best we can only do our best to say what is best and why. The question of what is best turns from things in general to the human things and ultimately to the self for whom what is best is what matters most. The question of the good leads back to the problem of self-knowledge.

In another thread Socratic Philosophy I argued that because the Good is beyond being it cannot be known.

Yes, and so far no lines are crossed. — Christoffer

Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line.

Yes, there are circumstances that can change how a statement is understood, so instead of making up stories look at the circumstances. Trump is about to meet Arianne Zucker for the first time.

Arianna Zucker:

Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

Talking about her on the bus prior to meeting her Trump says:

I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her.You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

If he were to just start kissing her or grab her by the pussy what she might or might not let him do is irrelevant. There is no indication that she would "let him", he is already doing it. She is just a shiny object to him that he thinks he is entitled to do what he wants with.

Socrates doesn't offer a distinction among types of arguments, but among people who hear them or make them. — Srap Tasmaner

Right. That is a major reason why Plato wrote dialogues.

Another point is how radically different Socratic philosophy is from "the view from nowhere".

It also cuts across the division between philosophy and psychology that developed.

It's reminiscent of that Wittgenstein quote about "working on yourself." — Srap Tasmaner

A passage that I have quoted here several times.



.

It fits very well with the above speculations about the ethics of philosophical discourse — J

The "trinity" of Socratic philosophy, the just, the beautiful, and the good guides the inquiry of all of Socratic philosophy, which includes Plato and Aristotle.