I am in general agreement, but would not characterize the statis as "disguised".

Even if NOS believes it not possible for the judge and jury to be objective, he could, still evaluate the evidence and help assess what an objective judge/jury would decide, if it were possible. This would then be a better basis to judge whether or not the process was, or wasn't, fair - in the end. — Relativist

I am not sure he could. There is a peculiar disjunction is conservative circles, especially among the MAGA faithful. On the one hand a profound distrust of Democrats, American institutions, and the people who run them, but on the other hand, a blind acceptance of whatever Trump says and does. Evidence is suspect and disregarded when it contradicts Trump.

We're talking about the thesis that philosophy has a determinate pull (link). Saying, "There will always be points of divergence and points of convergence [among philosophers]," doesn't seem to help us in addressing that thesis. — Leontiskos

My first post was in response to your claim that:

there is an important sense in which philosophy was never relevant. — Leontiskos

In so far as there is divergence it might seem as though the pull would be in opposite directions and where there is convergence the pull would be in the same direction, but this is not an argument I would make or defend.

It seems clear to me that Plato moved society in a particular direction when his exoteric teachings were appropriated by Christianity, but his salutary public teaching is not the same as his philosophical teachings. Put in simple terms, the former provides the appearance of answers, and the latter problems and questions.

Nietzsche writes at a time when the accepted answers are no longer acceptable. He recognizes this as a crisis. His solution is in some respects like that of Plato - the creation of new values. Behind this is the problem that values are not ultimate. Philosophy contains what he calls 'deadly truths". How can one be willing to live and die for something that we know from history will in time be rejected?

In part he appeals to the innocence and forgetfulness of the child and the need for a "sacred yes" (Zarathustra, "The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit"). To this end he too sees the need for a new religion for the benefit of the people. But the probity of the philosopher demands something else.

The "real philosophers", the commanders and lawgivers, do not give philosophy to the people. They give the people "noble lies". It is not that:

... philosophy produces a cumulative effect on society, — Leontiskos

or that

...the world moves in that "philosophical" direction. — Leontiskos

but that the philosopher moves society in ways that differ from the ways in which it moves those who are to be philosophers.

Pantagruel is right when he points to:

... the diremption of philosophy and science since Bacon ... — Pantagruel

Bacon wrote:

Science discovery should be driven not just by the quest for intellectual enlightenment, but also for the relief of man’s estate ...

The same force of knowledge is behind Descartes "provisional morality":

My third maxim was to try always to master myself rather than fortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world. (Discourse on Method)

It is provisional because his method will allow man to master fortune. Man will no longer have to accept things the way they are. This power marks a fundamental change from ancient philosophies. The modern philosophers gave themselves a task not entertained by the ancients, to master nature. Philosophy was no longer about the problem of how to live but to solve problems by changing the conditions of life.

This entails trying to objectively evaluate the evidence and the laws, and (I suggest) assuming an objective judge and jury. — Relativist

But this is something that Trump and NOS deny is possible. Trump wants to move the trial to West Virginia not because a jury there would be more objective, or in his words 'unbiased', but because he won West Virginia in 2020 and they would more likely be biased in favor of him.

Trump made his thinking clear back in 2016 when he attempted to discredit Judge Gonzalo Curiel in the Trump University fraud case because she is Mexican.

It seems to me that if the becoming has no end then there can be no ultimate convergence. — Leontiskos

The dyad divergence and convergence is not resolved or reduced to convergence. There will always be points of divergence and points of convergence, points of disagreement and points of agreement with regard to the whereto of mankind.

Of course not everyone agrees with this. Some envision progress as the movement toward universal agreement.

But isn't the essence of culture its values? — Pantagruel

Yes, but value change. Although not the first, the case of Socrates gives us a vivid picture of the dynamics at play. He was guilty as charged. He was a threat to Athenian culture. But we tend to see Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as the height of Greek culture, even though the gods did not survive.

But the celebration of pluralism essentially defines universal consensus as an archaic concept. There is no longer any interest in an "overarching truth". — Pantagruel

The whither and why of mankind takes pluralism into account. It is in line with Nietzsche's notion of the creation of individuals. The whereto is not oriented to be being but to becoming. This might mean not only divergence but convergence.

However the technologization of our culture is in danger of fatally marginalizing philosophical values. If it can even be called a culture anymore. — Pantagruel

Knowledge brings change. This acknowledgement is at the root of our hybrid culture. This hybrid is not the culture of either of its roots. Technology changes culture. In doing so it some of the old culture is destroyed, but I don't think that means the end of culture.

Is asking universal questions irrelevant, for example? I don’t think so. I think we need it more than ever.

How philosophy is thought of today, as one academic subject of many, taught by those with Ph.D.s, who mainly discuss the history of the great thinkers and great books…yeah, this professionalization is basically irrelevant today. — Mikie

The history of the great thinkers and great books can be taught in such a way that it is about universal questions. It is in this way relevant today. After all, it is with these great thinkers and great books that these questions arise.

But Nietzsche's "real philosopher" would "set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers." — Leontiskos

The first part of that statement reads:

They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby ...

The question then is whether in determining the whither and why of mankind the philosophers would pull in the same or different directions. As he determines this the pull would be to the ubermensch. This determination is diagnostic.

Does this mean we can't really 'know' unless we are engaged in an active process of transformation? — Tom Storm

Yes. As I understand it to know yourself you must become who you are. Nietzsche likens it to the art of the sculpturer, removing all that part of the work within.

I prefer Plato to Nietzsche. — Leontiskos

I prefer Plato to Platonism. And Nietzsche plays a role in making that distinction.

there is an important sense in which philosophy was never relevant. — Leontiskos

I think this overstates the case. We still read Plato and Aristotle. They played the long political game and made significant advances for freedom of inquiry and thought.

The philosopher has established his place in the cave alongside the poets, theologians, politicians, and sophists. The relationship between the philosopher and the city rests on two things: the return to the cave and their being able to mind their own business. The former is done in part for the sake of the latter. If the tension between the city and philosophy is to be managed the philosopher must prove to be of benefit to the city. The extent that this is no longer a primary problem is a testament to the success of philosopher. While Plato created a civic religion, its effectiveness depends on the appearance of being something else, namely the truth.

I agree with Nietzsche:

THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . . (BGE, 211)

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. This is not a matter of discovery but of creation. Nietzsche takes the exhortation to become who you are from the Greek poet Pindar. For both Plato and Nietzsche philosophy is a form of poiesis.. Their knowing is creating. The "ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry" is an interfamilial matter.

Studying and teaching philosophy does not make one a "real philosopher". Like Plato, Nietzsche is an elitist. The real philosopher is the rare exception. Whatever light the philosopher brings to the cave it remains a cave. The transformation brought about by philosophy is self-transformation.

I think it more helpful to determine what someone making the argument for or against materialism or naturalism or metaphysics means. Rather than the meaning of terms, what assumptions about the world, our inquiries, and our understanding are at issue.

With regard to Sam's claims, it seems to me that at the root is a set of beliefs about consciousness:

My belief is that consciousness is at the bottom of reality. It's a brute fact of reality. — Sam26

Of course there are many who hold to this belief without the added belief that individual consciousness is at the bottom of reality or that individual consciousness endures.

Juries can be wrong. — NOS4A2

Yes. And so can you. Do you want to do away with trial by jury?

As you said:

I’m not sure he did so fraudulently. — NOS4A2

So how is that to be determined if not by a jury based on evidence?

This shows just how deeply anti-democratic you are. It also shows a disregard for the legal system.

[Deleted]

I’m not sure he did so fraudulently. The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. — NOS4A2

What if the jury finds him guilty based on evidence? Would that be enough to convince you that he did so fraudulently?

I'll have to hunt this paper down; — Dermot Griffin

here

Update I was not able to find a free PDF

The movement of Geist (Spirit/Mind) is the movement of the whole to its self-realization, its consciousness of itself. The movement has come full circle.

From the preface to the Phenomenology:

18: The true is not an original unity as such, or, not an immediate unity as such. It is the coming-to-be of itself, the circle that presupposes its end as its goal and has its end for its beginning, and which is actual only through this accomplishment and its end.

20: The true is the whole. However, the whole is only the essence completing itself through its own development. This much must be said of the absolute: It is essentially a result, and only at the end is it what it is in truth.

With an online forum, on the other hand, silence is highly ambiguous. — Leontiskos

Yup.

He is a being beyond being — Gregory

Does Hegel say this?

The whole and not just individuals comes to self-consciousness. The death of the individual is not the end or death of self-consciousness itself even though the realization of self-consciousness comes about through individuals within the whole.

I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %) — javi2541997

I don't think that the decision to respond or not divides in this way. Since the same topics come up over and over again, some members don't want to rehash it. And some topics are simply not of interest or too much work will be involved trying to disentangle things. In some cases it is not a matter of being friends but of having a good idea of where a member stands and how they will respond.

But I have said enough about why I think a post or poster might not get responses.

The article says "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible", not everyone. — Alkis Piskas

The statement was a direct quote from the section "participation".

One needs only to follow and apply the elements — Alkis Piskas

I don't agree, but will leave it there.

One is pragmatism, in which the location of your sock draw can never be known — Banno

I would think that the pragmatist, or some subset of pragmatists, would say that opening the drawer and finding your socks where you claim they there is sufficient for knowing where they are.

It is an article about "elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one". — Alkis Piskas

According to the article:

A goal of a discussion if to have everyone involved and participating in the discussion.

This is a common but questionable assumption in the philosophy of education, a vestige of a factory model. A way of measuring productivity.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? For one, there is no requirement for someone to pretend to be interested in a thread or to say something in order to count as participating. In addition, there is no expectation that members know enough about a topic to have something to say.

these are not guidelines or rules of conduct that one must abide to. — Alkis Piskas

They are presented as a measure of a good discussion:

... there are several elements in the process of discussion which serve to distinguish a good discussion from a poor one

For both classroom and forum discussion I don't agree.

Sure, there may be. But you can;t do anything about it, can you? — Alkis Piskas

You can. You can change your assumptions and attitude, which might change what you say and how you say it.

The question is how applicable/workable and effective these rules or elements are in practice. — Alkis Piskas

Hence my questions.

Self-consciousnsss is not preserved. — Gregory

If you mean individual self-consciousness, it is aufheben. A moment in the self-movement of the whole. In this way self-consciousness is preserved.

activity depends on the number of replies — javi2541997

Right, but what is the connection between activity and importance? It is easy to post something that will generate a lot of response, but this can be a poor measure of the significance of the thread.

it can end up in absolute forgetfulness, passing one page and another, and then disappearing in the endless information stock of this forum. — javi2541997

Perhaps, but it is possible, and I would like to believe common for some posts to reemerge at some later date when someone researches a philosopher or idea or question or problem. At least this is what I tell myself.

I bet that if one of the famous and common "philosophers" of this site ... — javi2541997

I was not aware that there are any. But famous or not, I agree that some members grab attention and others go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored. Those who are ignored certainly play some role in this. In some cases, especially with members who have been here for a long time, it is not worth the time and energy to rehash the some things once again. In addition, some members do not handle disagreement well. Speaking personally, when this becomes evident I tend not to respond to them.

Added: I am speaking in general terms, not about the author of this thread, with whom I have had some interesting discussions.







.

Two philosophers who influenced Hadot are Thoreau and Wittgenstein.

He wrote a paper on Thoreau: "There are nowadays Professors of Philosophy, but not Philosophers". The title is taken from a quote by Thoreau on philosophy as a way of life.

Hadot is credited with introducing Wittgenstein to France. The affinity can be seen in passages such as the following from Philosophical Investigations:

There is not a single philosophical method, though there are indeed methods, different therapies, as it were. (PI 133d)

First, it should be noted that the guidelines were written for teachers leading classroom discussion. I think the following claim is questionable for both classroom discussion and forum discussion:

It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. — Alkis Piskas

Why is this desirable? There are several questionable assumptions underlying this, including:

1) Everyone has something of value to contribute.

2) Those who say nothing are not participating.

3) What is important is the process not the substantive content.

4) A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off.


The first is based on a pervasive egalitarian prejudice that underlies popular educational philosophy. One problem with this becomes apparent when we consider the third assumption. In my opinion it is better to have enough self-knowledge to know when to stop talking and listen.

I am reminded of the following advice:

When you’re teaching always assume there is a silent student in the class who knows more than you do.

To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say.

With regard to 4), when it comes to philosophical discussion the first rule to follow is this:

...wherever the argument,like a wind, tends, thither must we go. (Republic 394d)

This does not mean endless discussion of claims that go nowhere, but it is not always clear ahead of time where it will go. This is not to say that going off topic is never a problem, but that preemptive attempts to prevent that from happening may result in bigger problems. It may be that a tangent is self-limiting, not pursued beyond a few posts, but in other cases it can circle back or expand the initial inquiry in a useful way. One thing leading to another, something new may arise that would not have otherwise. In my opinion, it is best to allow a bit of messiness. If we knew ahead of time where an inquiry will lead the inquiry itself would not be necessary, and strict control of where it goes will surely prevent it from going to places that may be fruitful and interesting.

Because you do know stuff ... It takes training in philosophy to deny this. — Banno

This is similar to the affliction many suffer when the first read psychology and convince themselves that they have various dire psychological disorders.

Socratic skepticism became a victim of its own success. On the one hand, contrary to what Plato's Socrates says, some come to believe that we know nothing, but others come to believe there is a realm of transcendent knowledge, and still others that the problem is methodological, that with the right method all will be revealed.

The whole.

From the preface to the Phenomenology:

... the whole which has returned into itself from out of its succession and extension and has come to be the simple concept of itself. (#12)

And:

In my view … everything hangs on grasping and expressing the true not just as substance but just as much as subject. (#17)

He continues:

At the same time, it is to be noted that substantiality comprises within itself the universal, or, it comprises not only the immediacy of knowing but also the immediacy of being, or, immediacy for knowing.

The universal is unity of the immediacy, direct and unmediated, of knowing and being, of knowing and for knowing.

With regard to Spinoza he says:

However much taking God to be the one substance shocked the age in which this was expressed, still that was in part because of an instinctive awareness that in such a view self-consciousness only perishes and is not preserved.

Hegel thinks Spinoza shocked the age not because, as is commonly assumed, it threatened the status of God as distinct and separate, but because it threatens the status of man as distinct in his self-consciousness.

It’s Biden’s DOJ. — NOS4A2

Those who favor autocratic rule would have us believe that the DOJ does not and should not act independently.

Trump is quite transparent in his intention to put the unitary executive theory into practice. Agencies like the DOJ would not longer be able to act independently. All would be under his control, demonstrate their loyalty to him, and have as their purpose to do his bidding.

Trumpsters would have us believe that there is nothing radical or dangerous about this. That it is established practice. Hence, "Biden's DOJ". They are playing both sides, claiming special treatment for Hunter Biden while supporting Trump's attempt to establish a unitary executive.

Of course if Trump loses to a Democrat then there would be a 180 degree turn around and Trumpsters would accuse Democratic leaders of wrong doing by doing the very thing that Trump has set out to do.

Those 'dwelling in the cave' only know the appearances — Wayfarer

Those dwelling in the cave are just like us:

... you should compare our nature, in respect of education and lack of education, to a condition such as the following.

When Glaucon says how strange this image is Socrates replies:
They are just like us ...[/quote]

and the 'education in the truth' is described in the following — Wayfarer

This does not describe our education, the education of the dwellers:

“Now,” I said, “consider what liberation from their bonds, and cure of their ignorance, would be like for them, if it happened naturally in the following way. Suppose one of them were released, and suddenly compelled to stand up, crane his neck, walk, and look up towards the light.

How can the bonds that keep the prisoners from turning around release "naturally"?

A bit further on:

“And,” I said, “if someone were to drag him forcibly from there ...

If this someone forces a prisoner out of the prison then it does not occur naturally.

There is no suggestion that this is something he himself hasn't seen. — Wayfarer

In that case he would not say:

God knows whether it happens to be true, but in any case this is how it all seems to me.

It would not be how it seems to him, he would know that it is true. He would have divine knowledge rather than the human knowledge he professes. He would have the cure for his ignorance.

For the plutocrats America was great before Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Your interpretation is at odds with the text, though, and every interpretation of the meaning of the Allegory of the Cave that I've read. — Wayfarer

My interpretation is in line with both the text and well known and well regarded interpretations of it.

So the education in question, is the education necessary to overcome their attachment to the illusory domain and to perceive the real (i.e. be closer to 'what is'): — Wayfarer

Quoting from the text:

... an image of our nature in its education and want of education ... (Republic 514a)

The nature of the education of the cave dwellers, that is, our education, is that:

... such men would hold that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of artificial things. (515c)

What is wanting is an education in the truth.

“Then, dear Glaucon,” ...

Note that in the middle of this passage you quote Socrates says of the story:

A god doubtless knows if it happens to be true.

A god would know if it happens to be true, but Socrates does not. And we do not.

Once seen, it is reckoned to be the actual cause of all that is beautiful and right in everything ... — Wayfarer

But this is not something that Socrates has seen and not something that we have seen. For us it too is an image, a story about something we have no experience of.

Anyone who is to act intelligently, either in private or in public, must have had sight of this.

And so, based on our education and want of education we do not have the knowledge to act intelligently. Such knowledge cannot be given to us by this or any other story.

“I also hold the same views that you hold,” he said, “after my own fashion, anyway.”

Glaucon makes the same mistake that you do. He holds a view about something he has not seen. He takes an image to be the truth.

I think 'the realm known by reason' — Wayfarer

If we follow the divided line this in not the realm known by reason. The realm is not known by reason (dianoia) but by nous. It is the realm of what is seen by the mind, not something known by reason. Not something that can be taught. Not something we have seen and not something we know to be true.

Added: I don't know which translation you are citing but the Bloom translation does not say "the realm known by reason".

the parable of the cave — Wayfarer

The irony here is that although with the image of the cave Plato is warning against the persuasive power of images he does so using images. And this is often taken to be not an image but the truth itself.

The cave story is, as Socrates says when telling it:

... an image of our nature in its education and want of education ... (Republic 514a)

The escape from the cave is an escape from the bonds of our education, an escape from the images of the truth. Replacing an image with another image, one of a transcendent realm of Forms, is not to escape the cave, but to remain bound within it. The image makers, the educators, that is, the poets, are not replaced by all knowing truth telling philosophers, but by the image maker Socrates.

In the Apology Socrates denies having knowledge of "anything very much or great and good or beautiful" (21d). And yet in the Republic he tells this story of transcendent knowledge, a knowledge he does not possess. In the Phaedrus he says he has an 'erotic art' (257a). And in the Symposium he claims to know nothing except things about eros (177d). It is this knowledge of eros or desire that informs his story of transcendence. The philosopher desires, but does not possess, transcendent knowledge.

The education of the philosopher living in the city, which is to say, the cave, is an education is how to educate those he must educate if there is to be any possibility of justice for the philosopher. Socrates does so by imitating the theologians, those who claim to have knowledge of divine things. But in doing so he replaces the willful capriciousness of the gods with the Forms.

I very much appreciate this insight. — 180 Proof

And I very much appreciate your appreciation.

I just reread Phaedo last week so I will be curious to have a look at the thread. — Leontiskos

A couple of years ago I started a thread on Phaedo. When I completed it I compiled my separate posts so that they can be read through without having to read the whole thread. I would be interested in your comments.

1. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1


2. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534860


3. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535343


4. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924


5. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536573


6. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537114


7. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537698


8. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538481


9. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/539501


10. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540733

Fooloso4's reading of Plato generally deprecates the widespread view that the knowledge of the forms corresponds to insight into a higher realm of truth. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the warning not to kill the messenger is apt. How well the widespread view holds up in light of the passages I sighted is up to the reader to decide.

But to disagree would require re-visiting and re-reading many a dusty tome, so I think I'll regard his as one among other possible interpretations. — Wayfarer

I can understand this, I feel that way about some philosophers, but for me Plato is not dusty tomes.
In my opinion, one must learn how to read Plato. Given the topic of this thread I will only say that the dialogues to not present the argument from reason. Certainly they contain reasoned argument, but if they

arrive at a true understanding — Wayfarer

it is an understanding of ourselves and our limits. It is not an understanding of a disembodied rational being. The dialogues are imitations or images of actual human beings known to Plato's first readers. Particular human beings with their various and particular ambitions, desires, and limits. In short, the true turning of the dialogues is not to an imagined realm of unchanging truths, but to the development of self-knowledge.