new metaphysics often compete with old metaphysics. — Olivier5

With regard to this, banishing the poets from the Republic means banishing the myths of the gods.

2.

In the Republic Socrates does not present the Forms merely as a premise, but rather as the things that are, the unchanging beings. They are said to be seen by those who have ascended from the cave to the sight of the Forms and finally to the Good itself. But Socrates never claims to have seen the Forms or to know anyone who has. He presents an image of what knowledge of the things must be like. In other words, he has not now turned back again away from speech to the things themselves. But he does turn the soul to the idea of something more than the changing and confusing things of this world. He provides an image of an unchanging reality governed by the Good. An image of the hypothesised Forms. Another turn. A reversal, for Forms are not what they are in his philosophical poetry. They are not those unchanging beings of which things in this world are images. They are themselves images made by Socrates.

The ability to create such an image of knowledge beyond the cave is not to have escaped the cave. To be told of such things, as if the mystery has been revealed, is not to have escaped the cave. Plato, through the character of Socrates, is, like the poets, a maker of images on the cave wall. We cannot escape the cave, but some can break the shackles and turn around in order to see the images themselves rather than their images, images of images, shadows of the images on the cave wall. In addition they see the image makers, the “puppeteers and the production process of images, the puppets, paraded in front of the fire.

What is said is at best an approximation of what is, but without knowing what is we cannot measure how close an approximation it is. Like the philosopher who is forced to return to the cave, Socrates must return to earth from his flight to the hyperuranion beings. The Forms are an arrangement of things, not an order discovered in nature, they are how things are ordered according to mind. More specifically, according to Socrates’ mind. That they are hypothetical means that they are not caused by Mind rather by a human mind. Socrates’ philosophical poetry unlike the poetry of Homer, Hesiod, and the others, is not inspired by a muse.

Since we do not know the Forms themselves, we must turn back to speech:

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. (Phaedo 97b-d)

Just as the Good is to the Forms, the hypothesis of the Good is to the hypothesis of the Forms. The hypothesis of the Good is that in light of which hypothesis of the Forms come to be and to be understood.

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.

Have you envisaged the possibility that Socrates' accusers could have had a point? Not saying that they were right to sentence him, but that they may have had legitimate points. — Olivier5

Good question. Aside from the political motivations, I do think they had a point. The tension between philosophy and the city is a major theme of Leo Strauss. In so far as philosophy questions traditions, ancestral ways, and questions of justice it is a threat to them. The larger question is whether the old and established is the same as the good. If the answer is no, and I think Socrates would say no, then in order to improve things things much change. Those who resist such change would see this as harming rather than helping the city.

It seems pretty clear from the Republic that Plato's Socrates is antidemocratic, and holds a sort of Sparta ruled by a philosopher class as the ideal system. It is quite possible that the real Socrates was doubtful of democracy. — Olivier5

One thing that should be kept in mind is that the Republic is a "city in speech" intended to make it easier to show that justice is, for the city is the soul writ large. The soul, according to Socrates, should not be democrat, it should be ruled by reason. As to actual regimes, the best city is the city with the best laws and the best laws are not arrived at democratically.

More probably, Anytus thought that Socrates had corrupted his son. — Olivier5

We are in agreement. Turning his away from the vicious ways of his father would have been seen by Anytus as corrupting him. If he did not become a man of action, playing his role on the political stage and winning through ruthlessness he would have been corrupted.

Maybe I can take that. The end of Euthyphro is best understood as ironical, a tone frequently associated to Socrates. — Olivier5

Socrates' irony is an important aspect of the question of how to read Plato. There are, of course, different opinions about how Plato is to be read. Certainly the Euthyphro would be read differently if one assumes he is what he claims to be. Socrates quickly shows that he is not. His irony, as well as Plato's, is on full display here. After telling Socrates that he is laughed at for saying things about the divine things he is laughed at and thought mad, (3c) Socrates says:

Heracles! Surely the many, Euthyphro, are ignorant of what way is correct. For I don't suppose that it is the part of just anyone to do this correctly, but of one who is no doubt already advanced in wisdom.

Euthyphro: Far indeed, by Zeus, Socrates.(4b)

Euthyphro, being convinced of his advanced wisdom, that is to say, his divine wisdom since it is wisdom of divine things, is not at all concerned that he is doing something wrong. We are left to ask whether by the end Socrates succeeds in helping him gain enough self-knowledge to know that he is ignorant of such things.

Being ignorant of divine things Socrates shifts the focus from assumptions of what the gods love to considerations of justice.

... therefore that justice should not concern itself with piety. — Olivier5

I take it to be the other way round, piety should concern itself with justice. Claiming that doing this or that is doing what the gods love is insufficient.

I will sit on my back deck and toast you with a beer.

What do you make of the theory that Socrates and Plato were connected to the Thirty, and that Socrates was sentenced to death because of that, in defense of democracy? — Olivier5

The connection was through Critias, who had been a student of Socrates.

It is generally thought that Anytus was behind Meletus. He was a leader of the democratic regime that overthrew the Thirty Tyrants. His son had been a student of Socrates and Anytus thought that Socrates had turned him away from the vicious ways of his father.

Another student of Socrates, Alcibiades, had fled Athens for Sparta, Athens enemy.

I don't know where you live but in the US look at the numbers in two states, Massachusetts and Florida, for example.

Sounds like an accurate description to me.

See Christoffer's post above.

Please have short, and often selective memories;


From the BBC, 5/1/20:

At the White House on Thursday, Mr Trump was asked by a reporter: "Have you seen anything at this point that gives you a high degree of confidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the origin of this virus?"

"Yes, I have. Yes, I have," said the president, without specifying. "And I think the World Health Organization [WHO] should be ashamed of themselves because they're like the public relations agency for China."

He also told reporters: "Whether they [China] made a mistake, or whether it started off as a mistake and then they made another one, or did somebody do something on purpose?"

This is typical Trump bullshit - "I know but a can't tell you". He does not go so far as to claim it was released on purpose, but by raising the question he suggests it was. If he really did know what happened then it seems likely he would know whether or not it was released intentionally.

This is a very different picture than simply inquiring about its origin and denying the lab origin based on the evidence available at the time.

Let be established that 180 Proof has not proved The Logic of Atheism as being coherent. (3017)

3017 thinks he can we by decree "let it be established". He really has done a very poor job of it.

But perhaps some here think that he has won or is winning.

3017 is having a very hard time of it. He is trying to avoid his responsibility to show what he had first claimed he would show, that atheism is illogical. He has no argument to back it up and is trying to shift the burden of proof. To use his own boxing analogy, rather than the knock out he promised to deliver, he is clenching.

Given the affirmative stance you've taken with respect to the debate proposition, you must demonstrate that "my atheism" is not logical (i.e. not valid). On other hand, in order to defeat the proposition at issue, I must express "my atheism"s" logical form only to show its validity and not to demonstrate that its conclusions are also sound (i.e. true). It's not "my preference", 3017, but what the terms of the debate require. (180 Proof)

180 has given his argument valid logical form. Of course the argument is empty. As they are both aware, valid does not mean sound. But note that 180 inserts "not valid" as a parenthesis. It is still up to 3017 to demonstrate that the major premise is not only false but illogical. It remains to be seen if or how he will do this.

From Merriam Webster.

Piety:

1: the quality or state of being pious: such as
a: fidelity to natural obligations (as to parents)
b: dutifulness in religion : DEVOUTNESS
2: an act inspired by piety
3: a conventional belief or standard : ORTHODOXY

This is not particularly helpful. 1a points to the problem of Euthyphro's actions. Is his obligation to the city, his parents, the gods? He thinks his obligation is to the gods, but by prosecuting his father he neglects his obligations to family and the city. Defining the term does not tell us what piety itself is, it does not tell us whether Euthyphro was acting piously.

Come to think of it, Aristophanes may have had his own (hidden) agenda in painting Socrates as a sophist. — TheMadFool

Aristophanes' plays were social satire, they made serious fun. He recognized that philosophy was a threat to the ancestral, the traditional. The relationship between Socrates and Aristophanes is a long story that I won't get into. Although Socrates talks about Aristophanes in the Apology, I think Aristophanes would have disapproved of changes being brought against Socrates.

'Sophist' was not originally a derogatory term. Plato held some sophists in high regard.

Socrates was mostly concerned with definitions - piety, justice, to name a few. — TheMadFool

When Socrates asks: "what is piety?" or "what is justice?" he is not simply asking for a dictionary definition. The question "what is X?" is the question of what it is by which we can know that in all cases something is or is not X. If we know what a triangle is then we are able to identify whether a particular figure is a triangle. If Euthyphro knows what piety itself is then he will be able to determine whether what he is about to do in the name of piety is pious or impious. If we know what justice itself is then there would be no dispute as to whether some action is just or not.

But it is not so straight forward. In the Republic it is agreed that justice is "minding your own business" (433b). What is and is not your own business? Plato does not provide complete answers to the "what is X?" questions. Instead he guides our own inquiry.

Could it be that Socrates was actually a sophist who didn't charge the usual exorbitant fee for his wisdom sophistry? — TheMadFool

In some ways the philosopher and the sophist are the same. I think the key difference is with regard to intention.

I recall reading somewhere in Wikipedia about how some Greek thinkers thought of Socrates as a sophist par excellence. — TheMadFool

In his comedic play The Clouds, Aristophanes makes Socrates the leader of a group of sophists at his "thinkery".

I do not think that this is what Socrates does. What Socrates is tasked to do in the Republic is to show that justice is in one's own best interest. This is Thrasymachus claim, but in Socrates' hands it comes to mean something different than what Thrasymachus intended.

Disruption for sake of disruption is no joy, but I'd say disruption can have a role and has a long history in dialectic. — Cuthbert

Good point. I agree. But Thrasymachus was not disrupting for the sake of disruption. He was a sophist who was paid to teach. He attempted to demonstrate his strength, his superiority over Socrates who talked to anyone free of charge. In addition, he played a key role in the theme of the dialogue, the question of who should rule and by what claim.

Generally, I think the lesson is one of humility, of self-emptying, what is later called ‘kenosis’. — Wayfarer

The Greek term skepsis means investigate. Another term with similar meaning is zetesis. The zetetic philosopher is one who inquires. His knowledge of his ignorance leads him to inquire, to investigate.

The Apology gives a good example of this. When he heard that the Pythia, the priestess who delivered Apollo's oracles at Delphi, said that no one was wiser than Socrates, he took this to be a riddle (21b) and investigated it by way of inquiry, by talking to those who were reputed to be wise, only to find out they were not.

Socrates' irony should not be overlooked. He is on trial defending himself against charges of impiety and he tells a story of how he set out to refute the oracle (21c). In addition, he changes what the oracle said:

This man is wiser that I, but you declared that I was the wisest (21c)

The oracle did not say that he was the wisest, it said that no one was wiser, that is, that others might be as wise as him.

Thanks. I would think that anyone who challenged the numbers would first look to see what they are. It is not as if this information is not readily available.

But I failed to point out to him that, of the two contemporary philosopher-authors of Socrates, Xenophon is the least esoteric. — Todd Martin

But as the commentaries by Bloom's teacher Leo Strauss show, Xenophon was deeply ironic. that is to say, he cannot not simply be taken at face value. But Strauss said:

The problem inherent in the surface of things, and only in the surface of things, is the heart of things.

To get below the surface you have to be able to see the surface.

A funny story told by Seth Benardete a friend of Bloom's and fellow student of Strauss:

He was heading home after a conference with Stanley Rosen and Allan Bloom in the car. Bloom spotted some deer by the side of the road. They stopped the car. Bloom wanted to get out to see them. He asked: "Do you think they'll attack if I got out and approach them?" And Rosen said: "I don't think they've read Closing of the American Mind".

The knot of Gordius. Occam's Razor can be utilized here; cut the knot with one decisive swing of the razor. — god must be atheist

Those friggin' Phrygians. But the solution is simply yet ingenious.

Kleptomaniacal school of Holikarnassosi Hortacles, — god must be atheist

I got a good laugh from this!

You are extraordinarily well read! I am quite sure that no one else here has ever heard of the Kleptomaniacal school of Holikarnassosi Hortacles. They kept their activities well hidden, for obvious reasons.

One thing I wonder about is what they did with all the extra parts.

Sure, but I think major parts of his philosophy is still out of harmony with today's zietgeist, pretty much as Demos says. — Wayfarer

The Demos essay was published in 1929. I don't think the zeitgeist then, either in general of in philosophy, is today what it was then. But perhaps you are right about today. I don't keep up with the journals. I used to read Richard Marshalls interviews on 3 AM though, and my impression is that there is that things are pretty eclectic these days. I tend to look at what interests me, which is probably not representative of the mainstream if such a thing still exists or of current trends.

Now, in Plato's works, we have not the manufactured article, but the real thing; we have the picture of a mind caught in the toils of thinkings ... — Rafael Demos, Introduction to Plato: Selections

This surprised me. The dialogues are mimesis, an imitation of act of thinking. The dialogues are highly crafted wholes.

Recent years have witnessed a powerful reaction against Plato

Times have certainly changed. There is now a great deal of attention being paid to Plato. There is a difference, at least with regard to one approach to the dialogues. These scholars reject "Platonizing".

As to a "theory of knowledge", I have started a new thread "Socratic Philosophy. I will be discussing this in light of his "second sailing". Bottom line, Plato does not have a theory of knowledge.

What more do you think there is to approximating the complete truth or making progress other than ruling out the things that are in error? — Pfhorrest

I do not think there is such a thing as approximating complete philosophical truth.

Work on philosophy – like work in architecture in many respects – is really more work on oneself. On one's own conception. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them). (Wittgenstein, Culture and Value)

Please present comparative statistics. — Janus

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/massachusetts-covid-cases.html

The same thing happened on the Euthyphro thread. I think it has something to do with an existential vested interest. I am sure that if you are wrong you'll be able to cope, but if they are wrong ...

If you get the serious negative side effects of the vaccine, how will you cope with them? How will that affect your trust in science? — baker

If you get coronavirus and get seriously ill, how will you cope with that? How will that affect your trust in antivirus fear?

If I got seriously negative side effects from the vaccine I would cope as best I could. I would still think I made the right decision.

a history of being exploited by colonialists — baker

So which is it, a history of being exploited or there is not injustice in the world? Or do you think the exploitation is just?

The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow. — baker

There is a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

On the basis that God is typically defined as just. — baker

Well, if you want to take that as a matter of faith, then okay, but you can't at the same time make an appeal to logic. It does not follow logically from a definition that something is as defined.

What do you know of God's justice?
— Fooloso4
Whatever can be done by syllogism. — baker

You mean like this?

A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just

How do you account for the injustice in the world? It is not enough to say that injustice is the work of man, for then God's justice seems indifferent to man's.
God's justice is above man's justice. — baker

That does not obviate the claim that God is indifferent to man's injustice. If you mean that we cannot understand God's justice then on what basis do you claim that God is just?

This is what makes you an atheist: not taking pleasure in God's justice. — baker

What do you know of God's justice? How do you account for the injustice in the world? It is not enough to say that injustice is the work of man, for then God's justice seems indifferent to man's.

My judging something to be in error does not mean that we are approximating the complete truth. And neither does your's or anyone else's. It is part of the question of whether philosophy makes progress. I don't think it does.

In that case, for a particular person, the probabilities can only be calculated theoretically, not empirically. — baker

The probabilities are statistical based on empirical evidence.

Which makes for a lot less optimistic numbers. — baker

On the contrary. In places where vaccination numbers are high new cases, hospitalization, and death has dropped dramatically.

More importantly, people don't make decisions based on a risk/benefit analysis, but based on their values, ie. what they consider important. — baker

What they consider to be the risks and benefits is based, at least in part, on their values.

Always blame the person, eh? — baker

If you do not understand how the terms are being used then it is up to you to understand them before denying that the vaccines are safe and effective.

Medicine is ignoring the very people it is supposed to help. — baker

Medicine, used in the broad sense of medical research, development, and availability, is helping people.

Informed consent is not all or nothing.
— Fooloso4
What do you mean? — baker

I means that one does not have to be an expert in the field to be informed.

I'm talking about the discriminatory practices that are already taking place: such as being required to get vaccinated, or else get fired. — baker

It is a safety protocol. We will have o wait and see whether it is ruled discriminatory.

As long as it is possible that one ends up with a stroke and paralyzed and homeless after getting vaccinated, this is all that matters to one. — baker

What matters to one is not what matters to all.

What do you think “the one true philosophy” means above and beyond the conjunction of all philosophical claims that are not in error? — Pfhorrest

In my opinion there cannot be one true philosophy without complete knowledge of the whole. I don't think that is possible.

Surely you can have only one such set of claims, since it’s the set of all such claims; and being true is being not in error; and “a philosophy” is a set of philosophical claims. — Pfhorrest

The problem is, we have no way of determining what that set would be and that it would be complete. What we have are competing opinions which are taken to be true by those who hold them or at least seem to be true or better than the alternatives.

And the conjunction of all the ones that are not in error is ... ? — Pfhorrest

And the conjunction of all the ones that are not in error is ... a set of claims that are not in error. They do not amount to "the One True Philosophy".