That's an interesting interpretation, but I think it's an example of anachronism. — Ciceronianus

It has been said that each generation has its own Plato. Cited here:

For, as Plato liked and constantly affected the well-known method of his master Socrates, namely, that of dissimulating his knowledge or his opinions, it is not easy to discover clearly what he himself thought on various matters, any more than it is to discover what were the real opinions of Socrates.
– Augustine, City of God, 248

some have considered Plato a dogmatist, others a doubter. . . . From Plato arose
ten different sects, they say. And indeed, in my opinion, never was a teaching
wavering and noncommittal if his is not.
– Michel de Montaigne, Complete Essays, 377 (2.12)

It seems to me that Plato is a profoundly conservative figure — Ciceronianus

A few points to be considered. In a period of tumultuous political upheaval, to be conservative is not to support any particular regime but to support the ancestral. Plato is writing in the shadow cast by the trial and conviction of Socrates for impiety and corrupting the youth, that is, for the danger he posed to the ancestral. Plato had to be cautious so as not to suffer the same fate either for himself or for philosophy itself. And yet, in the Republic the poets are banned. That is a profoundly anti-conservative act.

But I think Plato was being an advocate — Ciceronianus

Yes, but of what? As I read him not for certainty and perfection. He provides the image, and it is one that has inspired philosophers and theologians, but as an image of what to aspire to it is at the same time an image of how far we fall short of its attainment.

The irony should not be lost that it is the same Socrates who professes his ignorance who speaks go grandly and eloquently about the very thing he does not know. In the Republic he plainly states that he is not certain about the myth of Forms he creates.

He may have understood that the terrible state he envisioned wasn't likely to arise, but he envisioned it nonetheless, and not merely as a kind of stalking horse. — Ciceronianus

It is not simply that it was not likely to arise but that he did not intend for it to arise. The city in speech is intended to illustrate the problem of justice in the soul writ large. The Republic is fundamentally about the politics of the soul.

As to actual cities, it points to the irreconcilable tensions between the private and the public, between one's own and the demands of the city. If the family is a natural unit, then given the central importance Plato gives to nature and in particular human nature, then the "solution" proposed in the Republic is clearly not tenable or to be taken seriously. It is the problem, which goes to the root of what it is to be human, and not this solution, that must be taken seriously.

The dialogues should be read in the Socratic spirit in which they are written. Nothing should be simply accepted as Plato's opinion or conclusion on a matter but rather everything should be subject to question and challenge. This is what is meant when he says in the Second Letter that 'no treatise by Plato exists or will exist".

The quest for certainty is poisonous, and Plato valued certainty and perfection. — Ciceronianus

In Socratic terms, what is poisonous is not the quest for certainty but the assumption that one knows, and not knowing that one does not know. Dialectic is a method of hypothesis. The goal is to be free of hypothesis, but Plato is clear that the Forms themselves are hypothetical. See the discussion of hypothesis in the Phaedo.

I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer — Ciceronianus

Both Aristophanes and Xenophon portray Socrates as a skeptic. But what is at issue here is not Socrates but Plato, and more specifically, the Republic.

Plato's Socrates is not intended to be a portrayal of the man himself. As Plato says in his Second Letter, the Socrates of the dialogues is a Socrates made "young and beautiful" (314c), or alternatively translated as "new and noble". I won't speculate as to why he thought this necessary, but in any case, he is the creation of Plato.

I understand, though, that after he humiliated himself by trying to make a philosopher-king of Dion — Ciceronianus

It was not that Plato tried to make Dion a philosopher-king but that with the urging and help of Dion to first make the tyrant Dionysius and later his son the king Dionysius II more philosophical. Even if Plato had been more successful in improving their character, this is a far cry from making a king a philosopher.

What should be understood is that the philosopher-king of the Republic is a philosopher in name only. He is not one who desires wisdom but one who possesses it. The philosopher-king is to rule, not because he is a lover of wisdom, one who desires wisdom, but because he possessed divine wisdom. Since no one is divinely wise, there can be no philosopher-king.

But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise. — Ciceronianus

The two are connected. The education in the Republic occurs at two levels, the image of one who escapes the cave and the instruction the aristocratic Glaucon and Adeimantus, brothers of Plato, receive through Socrates. The philosopher-kings of the Republic are an aristocratic class, but the political and philosophical education of the aristocrats Glaucon and Adeimantus in the Republic are markedly different from the education of those who escape the cave and acquire transcendent knowledge of the Forms. In other words, part of their education is knowledge of their ignorance. If the best regime is aristocratic, then aristocratic education must include education of their ignorance and the desire to know. The best regime is one in which the rulers are zetetic skeptics.

Since the topic is not Plato, I will keep this brief.

Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. The dialogues often end in aporia. When compared one to another we see that they bring into question and problematize claims raised in other dialogues. Those like Popper who see the Republic as a form of Totalitarianism, fail to understand Plato. Plato makes it clear that the just city made in speech is not intended to be a model for any actual city. Rather than offer solutions, it points to the problematic nature of political life; in part by showing how radical and unacceptable the proposed solutions, such as the breeding program, are.

Plato does not reject poetry. His works are themselves a form of poesis. We should not be so dazzled by the image of transcendent knowledge in the Republic that we fail to see the importance of the imagination, the making and use of images. The Forms are images of knowledge. The Timaeus points to several of the inadequacies of the Republic, including the idea of the Forms.

A while back he was arguing for a metaphorical interpretation, but despite repeated attempts to get him to explain the meaning of the metaphors, was unable or unwilling to do so.

He attempts to root out the influence of Paul, but fails to see the influence of and on the author of John and how what he takes to be the teachings of Jesus are actually the teachings of John, or how John differs significantly not only from Paul but from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

As to his thought experiment: on the one hand he seems to be arguing that it does not matter whether these are the words of Einstein or the fictitious scientists, what matters is not who said it but what is said. But this seems to imply that what is important is not whether Jesus actually said the words attributed to him, what is important is the "underlying concepts".

As far as I can see, he accepts the underlying concepts found in John and rejects those found not only in Paul but also those he suspects come from the influence of Paul. One obvious problem is that in the thought experiment the actual words of Einstein are preserved and transmitted, but we have no idea the extent to which the words of Jesus have been preserved and transmitted.

It stands to reason that the further we get from the source the less likely it will be that there will be an accurate transmission. There is then good reason to suspect that what @ThinkOfOne calls "HIS" word is the word of the pseudonymous John not Jesus.

Why should anyone take you seriously? — ThinkOfOne

The fact of the matter is that many members do take him seriously. Over the years he has demonstrated why he should be taken seriously.

You make the sophomore mistake of confusing disagreement and disregard.

In the short time you have been here, however, you have amply demonstrated that you cannot be taken seriously. If you cannot address the questions and problems posed then you cannot be taken seriously as someone capable of reasoned discourse.

Present a cogent argument that isn't a straw man and I'll be happy to address it. — ThinkOfOne

I have not presented any argument, cogent or otherwise. I asked a question. You did not answering it.

Someone else @ThinkOfOne is now clawing his way to the top. Same tactics.

Why do you keep taking everything out of context? — ThinkOfOne

Why do you keep evading the issues?

I did read what Tom wrote. He made the point that we do not know whether or not Jesus actually said the things attributed to him. You lay emphasis on:

the importance of HIS words. — ThinkOfOne

The words He spoke while He preached His gospel. — ThinkOfOne

But you go on to say:

From what I gather, the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are the only extant records. — ThinkOfOne

The words attributed to Jesus are not records of what he actually said but records of what these anonymous gospels writers said he said.

You then introduce your thought experiment, the point of which seems to be that it does not matter who said these things, that what is important is the quality of what was said. There is a shift here from "HIS" words to the words themselves.

And this brings us back to my question:

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own? — Fooloso4

Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. — ThinkOfOne

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own?

Seems like a good argument for demanding free universal healthcare for all from cradle to grave.
The human invention called money seems an unsatisfying reason given by those who don't support such. — universeness

I am in favor of universal healthcare, but the fact is we do not have it in the US. In the absence of what should be we must act on the basis of what is.

Where there is not universal healthcare the accumulation of wealth is a reasonable defensive strategy. This does not mean that more is always better, but how much is enough to pay for medical bills and loss of income in the case of serious illness? Even with health insurance life savings can be wiped out.

Thanks Michael. What prompted me to ask is the connection to Trump.

There have been an extremely unusually high number of American agents murdered or missing since Trump left office. — creativesoul

Can you provide a source?

Do you find Hegel's positions convincing? — Tom Storm

I think he made an important contribution to philosophy with the idea that thinking is cultural and historical. I do not accept his metaphysics though. I do not think the movement of thought is teleological.

If I understand Hegel correctly, then he claims that the philosopher's task is to understand history. — 64bithuman

To understand history it to understand the development of geist - spirit or mind. This is not simply a matter of an individual studying the past as a subject matter separate from or other than the individual, but to know it from within as part of this development, to know it from the standpoint of the "universal individual".


From a thread a few years ago on the Phenomenology

The quoted material is #27 and #28 from the Preface. The quotes are followed by my attempt to explicate the text. There are earlier posts in the thread that also address your questions.

27:

Knowing, as it is at first, or, as immediate spirit, is devoid of spirit, is sensuous consciousness. In order to become genuine knowing, or, in order to beget the element of science which is its pure concept, immediate spirit must laboriously travel down a long path.

Immediate spirit is devoid of spirit because it is consciousness of something other, that is, it is not self-consciousness. The path from consciousness of what is other to self-consciousness is the development of genuine knowing.

28:

However, the task of leading the individual from his culturally immature standpoint up to and into science had to be taken in its universal sense, and the universal individual, the world spirit, had to be examined in the development of its cultural education.

The universal individual, the world spirit, is not any particular individual:

... the particular individual is an incomplete spirit, a concrete shape whose entire existence falls into one determinateness and in which the other features are only present as intermingled traits.

The universal individual is one formed by the development of Western culture. Although genuine knowing involves both subject and object and is in that sense subjective, it is not a matter of whatever any particular individual declares or thinks or believes. It is universal subjectivity. But it is not simply a matter of consensus, that is, what is true is not so because most or all at any given time take it to be true.

In any spirit that stands higher than another, the lower concrete existence has descended to the status of an insignificant moment; what was formerly at stake is now only a trace; its shape has been
covered over and has become a simple shading of itself. The individual whose substance is spirit standing at the higher level runs through these past forms in the way that a person who takes up a higher science goes through those preparatory studies which he has long ago internalized in order to make their content current before him; he calls them to mind without having his interest linger upon them.

Each stage of development is secondary to the completion of the movement of spirit. By way of analogy, one's first steps are of momentous importance but cease to be important as one learns to walk and run. Hegel is not minimizing the importance of what those before him have accomplished. Their accomplishments, however, have become internalized, part of one's cultural education. However great the accomplishments of Plato or Kant or Newton or anyone else, they are only moments in the development of knowledge and the world spirit. Although we may never accomplish what they did we are able to see further than they by standing on their shoulders.

In that way, each individual spirit also runs through the culturally formative stages of the universal
spirit, but it runs through them as shapes which spirit has already laid aside, as stages on a path that has been worked out and leveled out in the same way that we see fragments of knowing, which in earlier ages occupied men of mature minds, now sink to the level of exercises, and even to that of games for children. In this pedagogical progression, we recognize the history of the cultural formation of the world sketched in silhouette. This past existence has already become an acquired possession of the universal spirit; it constitutes the substance of the individual, or, his inorganic nature. – In this respect, the cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view consists in his acquiring all of this which is available, in his living off that inorganic nature and in his taking possession of it for himself.

Our inorganic nature is our spiritual nature. We are as we are not because of some timeless and invariant human nature or individual particularity. It is as it is because our spiritual nature is cultural and historical. The " cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view" appears to be a matter of what he or she acquires on his own, but:

... this is nothing but the universal spirit itself, or, substance giving itself its self-consciousness, or, its coming-to-be and its reflective turn into itself.

It is not the individual person but the instantiation or indwelling of spirit manifest in the individual.

If you are referring to home prices, the fact is home prices rose. This is true whether or not home ownership also rose. But in fact, the increase in homeownership led to higher home prices [edit: supply and demand], which in turn led to even less affordable housing.

Do you really not understand any of this?

You cite inflation as if that gives us an accurate picture of the health of the economy and quote the Heritage Foundation's questionable claim that:

... families can no longer afford to live in Biden’s America.

The weasel here is the term "families". Under both administrations it is true that there are families that cannot afford to live. The question is, are there more or less families in poverty under Biden than under Trump?

The Heritage article failed to mention is that poverty rates have gone down significantly. Why did they neglect to state this? The answer is simple, it undermines their rhetoric about the financial condition of families in America.

According to Washington Monthly

Americans are also significantly wealthier than before Biden took office.

In June 2022, the average working American earned $74,643 in wages and salaries, compared to $74,624 in January 2021 and $70,274 in February 2020. Even with 9.5 million more people working, the average working person earned as much in June, after inflation, as when Biden took office. And compared to just before the pandemic, when employment was comparable to today, the average person earns 6.2 percent even after inflation.

This report was published in June, inflation rates have slowed since then. But the numbers alone do not tell the whole of the story.

We are in a global economy. It is basic economics that when supplies cannot keep up with demand prices go up. Global supply chains are not controlled by Biden or the United States.

The proof is in the pudding. — NOS4A2

During Trump's presidency:

The economy lost 2.9 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3%.

The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016.

The number of people lacking health insurance rose by 3 million.

The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.

Home prices rose 27.5% — https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/

Trump attempted to take credit for an economy that was greatly improved under Obama, claiming, contrary to the facts, that he had inherited a "disaster".
Joint Economic Committee

While it might be true that inflation has risen during the Biden administration that does not mean that the Biden administration is responsible for the current world economic situation. The article says nothing about the two major causes: the pandemic and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. In both cases Trumps failure to act decisively bears some responsibility.

The question as to weather a president can declassify at will or has to follow a process are addressed in the quotes I cited, all of which contradicts your assertions saying otherwise. — NOS4A2

It is not my assertion, it is what is clearly stated in the executive order. What happens when a president disregards the procedures in place is not so clear cut.

That you’d shift focus to their opinions on an impeachment strategy in order to avoid this accounting is obvious. — NOS4A2

A distinction must be made, and was made in the article you cited, between criminal law and high crimes and misdemeanors. This is why the authors of the article "shifted focus", or more accurately, moved to the actual focus of the article.

The current case, however, does involve criminal law. From the NYT

Can a president secretly declassify information without leaving a written record or telling anyone?

That question, according to specialists in the law of government secrecy, is borderline incoherent.

If there is no directive memorializing a decision to declassify information and conveying that decision to the rest of the government, the action would essentially have no consequence. Departments and agencies would continue to consider that information classified and so would continue to treat it as a closely held secret, restricting access to records containing it.

“Hypothetical questions like ‘What if a president thinks to himself that something is declassified? Does that change its status?’ are so speculative that their practical meaning is negligible,” said Steven Aftergood, a secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists.

He added: “It’s a logical mess. The system is not meant to be deployed in such an arbitrary fashion.”

What about obstruction and disobeying a subpoena?

Even if evidence emerged that Mr. Trump technically deemed the documents declassified before leaving office, that would also not help him with other legal problems arising from his hoarding of government documents despite repeated efforts to retrieve them.

The other two criminal laws cited in the search warrant affidavit — concealing or destroying government records, and concealing documents as part of an effort to obstruct an investigation or other official effort — do not have to involve national security secrets.

In May, the Justice Department obtained a grand jury subpoena for all sensitive documents remaining in Mr. Trump’s possession. His representatives turned over a few while falsely saying that no others remained. Notably, it demanded all records “bearing classification markings” — not classified records — so the claim that the former president had technically declassified them would also seem to be irrelevant to whether he unlawfully defied the subpoena.

So far neither Trump nor his lawyers have repeated in court his claims that he declassified everything.

Michael’s reasoning attempts to make us believe that a President must follow “established procedures” as outlined by another president’s executive order ... — NOS4A2

Once again, executive orders have the force of law and can only be overturned by another executive order.

...and that the lower courts get to decide what the leader of the entire American military can and cannot declassify. — NOS4A2

What is at issue is not what can and cannot be declassified. What is at issue is HOW documents can and cannot be declassified. A president can declassify by executive order, but Trump did not sign an executive order declassifying the documents in his possession.

No doubt Trump has been told this, but when he goes on Hannity he is not making an argument that would hold up in a court of law. He is playing to that segment of the court of public opinion that watches Fox.

As Lawfareblog determined: — NOS4A2

In typical fashion, you fail to read or cite crucial information in the article you cite that undermines your claims. From the article:

There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the President’s oath as a standalone basis for impeachment—a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself. This is particularly plausible in a case like this ...

In short, Lawfareblog determined that there was plausible evidence in that case to impeach.

In addition, what is at issue here is not whether Trump was authorized to disclose information in that meeting in 2017, but rather his now having documents in his possession now that he is no longer the president. Documents bearing on national security. Documents that unless found to be otherwise remain a matter of national security. Documents that unless determined to be otherwise he as a private citizen should not have in his possession.

I’m aware that the case has to do with the inadvertent declassification of documents, and said as much. — NOS4A2

It is what you didn't say that is important. Which is the more charitable conclusion, you did not read or understand the document or you willfully ignored and misrepresented what it says?

The power to declassify at will is satisfied by article 2 of the US constitution — NOS4A2

Article 2 says NOTHING about classified information.

What article 2 does say is:

... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...

He is not obligated to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed. — NOS4A2

According to Executive order 13,526, which established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified, he is obligated to follow procedure. Executive orders have the force of law. Only a subsequent executive order can overturn an executive order. Trump did not do that and could not do that by thinking it.

It is evident that you did not read the document or did not understand it.

The statement you quote begins:

Finally, as the district court recognized, the suggestion that courts can declassify information raises separation of powers concerns. In light of the executive branch’s “compelling interest” in preventing declassification of highly sensitive information ...

What is at issue in this case was not Trump's ability to declassify simply by thinking about it, but, rather, whether his remarks on another occasion could be construed as "inadvertent declassification". It was the executive branch in this case attempting to prevent declassification, not Trump declassifying inadvertently or at will.

More importantly, in the paragraph above this one states:

Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures.

and the footnote:

As explained above, Executive order 13,526 [Order] established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified.

This detailed process is not satisfied by:

declassify anything at will — NOS4A2

In my opinion, the problem is not too much thought but too many opinions lacking careful, insightful, imaginative, informed thought.

In order to achieve better thinking, there should be less internal monologue and more internal dialogue.

But sometimes we would do well to quiet the mind.

I feel rather strongly that we need to move away from an expression of profit solely in terms of money. — Benkei

This is one of the things Xenophon talks about. What is of profit is not the money or the possessions, but their right use.

If it doesn't improve the world we're living in, why should we be bothering? — Benkei

Another of Xenophon's themes. He discusses it in terms of the estate. Those who deplete it, those who maintain it, and those who increase it. There is a turn from the estate being beneficial to the manager to the manager being beneficial to the estate.

The simpler the writing is, the more difficult it is to understand it. — god must be atheist

What is true in the case of Xenophon is not true in general. His writing is deceptively simple. There is much more there than meets the eye.

Teacher: This rock exists.

Student: What about that rock?

Teacher: That rock exists.

Student: And these others, do they exist.

Teacher: Yes, all these rocks exist.

Student: Then do all rocks exist?

Teacher: No.

Student: Which rocks don't exist?

Teacher: Um, none of them.

Student: So, all rocks do exist!

Teacher: Er, yes.

Student: Then why are you telling me that this rock exists?

According to the research done by Frans de Waal, the differences are not exclusive to humans.

The Gendered Ape, Essay 3: Do Only Humans Have Genders?

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2022/09/the-gendered-ape-essay-3-do-only-humans-have-genders.html

The only sensible answer is to keep turning around, faster and faster, until you puke.

To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. — hypericin

I am wondering more about what it is saying about the person who says it and in what situation saying it would be of any use.

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else — Art48

Why?

Yes, many years ago.

If you are reading from perseus.tufts.edu it is corrupted. After the first page it switched to his Apology.

The difficulty of reading Xenophon lies in its simplicity. He was a favorite of Machiavelli.

As the White Queen tried to explain to Alice when Alice said she didn't want any jam:

"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"

Ask me tomorrow.

You seemed to claim that it cannot be, — noAxioms

My claim was with regard to what Hawking said, which had to do with rules and equations formulated by physicists. With regard to your hypothesis, what evidence or arguments do you or others have to regard this as more than speculation?

He seems to exactly be addressing a problem that I also see. — noAxioms

Where does he claim anything like the idea that existence is a property? The universe exists and there are properties of the universe, but that does not mean that existence is a property of the universe.

Did he also not presume some kind of realism in the asking of his question? — noAxioms

A great deal of confusion arises when certain assumptions are made on the basis of terminology -

Hawking is a realist
Realists claim that existence is a property
Therefore Hawking claims that existence is a property of the universe

What does he say to indicate that he presumed that existence is a property? The idea that existence is a property makes no sense. Something must exist in order to have properties.

And yet this fairly famous quote is purely philosophy. — noAxioms

Do you mean this famous quote:

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

The following from "The Grand Design" makes clearer what his criticism is about:

Model-dependent realism short-circuits all this argument and discussion between the realist and anti-realist schools of thought.

This speaks directly to what is at issue.

There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

The claim that the rules and equations are prior to and give rise to the world is a hypothesis.
Yes, it is. — noAxioms

Okay, so I will respond as you did to me. Can you demonstrate that this hypothesis is correct?

In any case, this is not what Hawking was talking about. Why reference him when you are addressing something different?

As to the problem of existence as a property, this is a good example of why Hawking held philosophy is such low regard.

Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato and student of Socrates, wrote a Socratic dialogue called "Oeconomicus", on household management.

Rules and equations do not give rise to the universe.
— Fooloso4
Can you demonstrate this? — noAxioms

Both the human beings formulate rules and equations and the world they describe exist. The claim that the rules and equations are prior to and give rise to the world is a hypothesis. No set of rules and equations formulated by human beings has given rise to a world. Or do you think that if we keep at it long enough we will?