Ah yeah, the age-old difference between living philosophically and making a living from philosophy (or philosophers and sophists). — 180 Proof

Thoreau talks about this in Walden:

There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.

Well, not all activities on here are called 'philosophy' are they ? — Amity

So as not to give offense to the illustrious philosophers on this forum I will leave this question unanswered.

Why? Why not an infinite chain of recollectors? — frank

But this is not Socrates argument. See Meno 81c-d:

Since the soul has been born into this world many times, and has thus been seeing
the things of this world and the world below, there is nothing it has not learned. No wonder then that it can recollect about aretê and other things, since it knew about these things before; for all nature being akin, and the soul having learned all things; nothing hinders someone, recalling (or, as people call it, learning) one thing only, from discovering all the rest himself, if only he has some courage and does not completely weary of seeking; for the whole of seeking and learning is recollection.

The argument requires having at some time previous to this life learning what is to be recollected.

Why do you keep calling anamnesis a myth? — frank

See 81a-b:

For I have heard from men and women wise in divine
matters…
MENO: Saying what?
SOCRATES: True things, it seems to me, and kalon.
MENO: What was it and who were the speakers?
SOCRATES: Some of the speakers were priests and priestesses, who had studied
how they might give an account of the holy things in their care: Pindar speaks of it also, and many other of the poets are in touch with divine things. What they say is this (consider whether it seems to you that they speak the truth): They declare that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time it has an end, which they call dying, and at another time is born again, but it is never completely destroyed.

Mythos is something told without logos, that is, without providing an account or defense. This is part of Socrates criticism of the poets. They are the mouthpiece of the Muses, reporting what they have heard but being unable to explain it.

I don't think the infinite regress would make knowledge impossible. — frank

The problem is that if we start with the premise that knowledge is recollection then there would never be a time when knowledge was learned. But it cannot be recollected if it had not at some time first
been learned.

It's that Plato's argument implodes, not that knowledge is impossuble. — frank

The failure of the argument indicates that knowledge is not possible if knowledge is recollection. Plato offers no way past this aporia. This is not to say that knowledge is impossible, but that it is not possible based on the premise that it is recollection.

With regard to reincarnation it means that if there is reincarnation the myth of recollection does not support it since it cannot even support its own claims.

Once again, you're telling me what I told you. — frank

This is what you said:

If your innate knowledge comes from a previous life, then either the chain of people is infinite, or there was an 'Adam' who learned without previous lives. — frank

Now it may be clear to you but based on what you said it may not be clear to others that an infinite regress makes knowledge impossible.

There can be no Adam who gained knowledge without previous lives if knowledge is recollection from previous lives. This too makes knowledge impossible.

"Eternal" sometimes means atemporal. Are you familiar with that idea? — frank

How can there be atemporal recollection of what is learned in a previous life? How can there be a previous life that is not in time? What does previous mean atemporally?

You suggest an Adam, but if knowledge is recollection there would have been no previous life to recollect. Hence knowledge cannot be recollection.

I don't see how there can be recollection without some prior life that is recollected.

Anamnesis is that connection to the eternal. — frank

This would mean an eternal regress to past lives, there could be no life that was not a recollection from a previous life, so no life in which knowledge of the Forms first gained.

It is instructive to compare the myth of recollection of the Forms with intellection of the Forms. It is curious that in the Republic knowledge of the Forms occurs through direct apprehension of them with the mind in the present, but the discussion of past lives in the Republic says nothing about knowledge of the Forms through recollection.

If your innate knowledge comes from a previous life, then either the chain of people is infinite, or there was an 'Adam' who learned without previous lives. — frank

Good point. But if there was this Adam then the myth of anamnesis cannot be taken too seriously, because it would not then rely on recollection from a previous life.

The single best work on this is Jacob Klein's Commentary on Plato's Meno. It is a powerful example of how to read a Platonic dialogue.

Nevertheless, the prevailing view of the Phaedo is that Socrates accepts, and argues in favour of, the immortality of the soul, even if he admits he doesn't necessarily understand the soul's destiny. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is the prevailing view and it had a strong influence on Christianity, but follow the arguments rather than prevailing opinion if you want to see what is really going on. But if you are going to do so I suggest you use a good translation such as West's Four Texts on Socrates. His commentary is pretty good too.

Nevertheless, the prevailing view of the Phaedo is that Socrates accepts, and argues in favour of, the immortality of the soul, even if he admits he doesn't necessarily understand the soul's destiny. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is the prevailing view and it had a strong influence on Christianity, but follow the arguments rather than prevailing opinion if you want to see what is really going on. But if you are going to do so I suggest you use a good translation such as West's Four Texts on Socrates. His commentary is pretty good too.

@180 Proof

That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone. This is the whole of Torah and the rest is commentary. Go study it. — Hillel the Elder, 1st c. BCE

I thought you might post this.

Confucius — 180 Proof

And glad to see this as well.

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

This is the question, and it has no philosophically satisfactory answer.

Nothing has changed since Socrates addressed this in the Phaedo. He gives two answers. The first is the one that will quiet the "childish fears" of his friends by presenting myths, metaphors, and arguments that appear to prove the continued existence of the soul after death. Only to those who can follow the arguments carefully enough he also points out how all the arguments fail. This leads to his second answer, which has two parts: a) we do not know what will happen, and more troubling to those who wish to preserve hope, b) there is no coherent idea or concept of the individual soul that is not tied to an actual individual. The question itself then is incoherent.

The same problem arises with those who replace soul with energy or consciousness.

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

Yes, I can understand how it might appear that way to you when you shut your eyes and ignore the refutations that have been given.

You are like the person who has been checkmated but thinks he has not lost because he continues to move pieces around.

Mathematical objects were for Plato hypothetical. This does not mean that he denied they existed but that the mathematician does not know them directly. She relies on reason, images, and the imagination.

Plato's mathematicians do not ask about the ontology, that is, the existence of mathematical objects. The mathematical Platonist asserts their existence.

I was merely explaining theory of state formation — NOS4A2

You have not presented a theory of state formation.

... formed by conquest and confiscation — NOS4A2

This is not a theory of state formation. It is what a band of marauders do.

... tacitly threatening me if I was to act on it. — NOS4A2

Pointing to the consequences of your actions is not a threat. The fact that I would play no part in those consequences means that I am not threatening you, tacitly or otherwise.

you submit what I wrote to contextomy — NOS4A2

This is a common retreat tactic when the argument fails.

... while avoiding any and all arguments I present. — NOS4A2

I will let the record speak for itself.

I never suggested disobedience to the state. — NOS4A2

Really? You said:

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that you too are obedient to questionable authority, but it is not apparent? Is it that your obedience is not apparent? Why are you obedient when law and authority mean nothing?

I never suggested all conquest and confiscation in history was the result of the state. — NOS4A2

No, you didn't. You presented your "theory" about the formation of the state. I pointed out that these things predate the state. In other words, if they already occurred then how can they explain the formation of the state?

So I no longer care about your analysis of what I wrote. — NOS4A2

Okay, we can leave it here.

Let's look back to what you previously said:

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

And prior to that:

I don’t want my governments to be efficient and effective—welding people in their apartments is efficient and effective. I just want them to leave me alone. — NOS4A2

And:

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others? — NOS4A2

Once again you shift from one thing to another. We were talking about what occurs today, here and now, your desire to be left alone, your disregard for how this might affect others,"my governments", the laws and authority as they exist today, how they are abused and lead to injustice. Rather than defend those claims you shift to what happened in the past.

Conquest and confiscation is a significant part of human history and is not the result of "the state". Such activities predate the state.

Do you imagine that through disobedience to the state you are rectifying the wrongs of the past? That somehow you are making restitution?

That was my poor writing. I was trying to say your conclusion about my conclusion was absent any example or reason, implying you were guilty of that which you accused me of. — NOS4A2

I think it is more a matter of your poor thinking. You made a claim about all states. It is up to you to defend that claim. You did not.

More examples ... — NOS4A2

Once again, more examples are not examples of every state.

Any counter examples? — NOS4A2

Sure. The United States.

This shows the problem with the question about the purpose of philosophy. People are engaged in different activities, and the only thing they all have in common is that they are called philosophy.

Do you conclude from this that all those professors getting paid to teach and write are not doing philosophy?

I provided one example after you concluded it was a resentment-filled fantasy absent any example or reason altogether. — NOS4A2

You will be able to give a more reasoned response if you change my words, but I said nothing about your fantasy being "absent any example".

The absence of reason is evident in the assumption that what holds true for one state holds true for all.

You claim:

I didn’t make the conclusion from one example. — NOS4A2

So what is it that led to your conclusion about "the state" and "all states"? One example is not sufficient. Examples are not sufficient unless you include the example includes all states.

I suspect you are right. Drilling down on the word "love" might cause some discomfort. — James Riley

It may be the word "wisdom" that they have a problem with.

Philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom. — James Riley

If you were to visit most university philosophy departments the faculty would regard this claim as quaint.

So please, explain the logical fallacy. — NOS4A2

Do you really not understand or are you just being obstinate?

You said "the state" and "any state" These are all inclusive claims about all states, each and every state. To conclude something about any state from one state is a logical fallacy. We cannot conclude that all dogs have three legs because Tripod does.

You went from:

We probably have different conceptions of the state. I see any state system as ... — NOS4A2

to the Islamic State. Is it necessary to explain the logical fallacy to you?

I've never been quite sure how to interpret this 'love of wisdom'. — Tom Storm

Plato's Symposium is about eros or desire. Socrates talks about the desire for wisdom, a passionate pursuit for something you do not possess.

We probably have different conceptions of the state. — NOS4A2

Yes, mine is based on actual regimes, your's on a resentment fueled fantasy. If that is far as it goes then that is your problem. If you act on it it becomes our problem. And then you may lose whatever precious little freedom you now have. You no doubt will call this injustice but I call it justice.

But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

It means that we work from within the system to make necessary corrections to promote justice. Justice, as I understand it, goes beyond your desire to be left alone or the absolute protection of every right you might claim.

If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs

One of the most important movements in political philosophy was ushered in mid-twentieth century by the work of Leo Strauss. He is not easy to understand but very easily misunderstood. For this reason opinions about him are all over the place. He is deceptively simple. His language is jargon free. He returns to the works of Plato and Aristotle, but as a corrective rather than a viable alternative. He is critical of political science and value free social sciences in general, favoring instead political philosophy and the recognition of irreconcilable tensions of political life.

Obviously I have no authority. — NOS4A2

Then I would tell you to report it to the proper authority.

As is your habit you shift from one thing to another when you are no longer able to defend a position. You were talking about:

my governments — NOS4A2

not someone without authority showing up at your door.

Would my extended parking be a violation of the laws of the state or municipality? Are you authorized by a government agency to collect fines?

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others? — NOS4A2

It depends on what I am doing and how it affects others.

↪bert1

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

I don’t, though I tend in that direction. — NOS4A2

He is your standard run of the mill myopic libertarian.

I don’t want isolation. By “leave me alone” I mean I want them to quit meddling in my life. That’s what you fail to recognize. — NOS4A2

Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others.

Philosophy's sine qua non "purpose" I've found is both (meta-cognitively) hygenic & fitness-maintaining, that is, to unlearn self-immiserating, unwise (i.e. foolish, stupid ~ maladaptive) habits through, at minimum, (1) a regimen of daily reflective exercises (akin to yoga, tai-chi, krav maga ...) as well as (2) occasionally participating in dialectics (or seeking reflective equilibrium) with other contemplatives. — 180 Proof

This is close to my own practice and to how philosophy was practiced in the Socratic schools, but, as I am sure you know, this does not describe the practice of philosophy for much of the history of western philosophy or what is most commonly taught in academia.

I have not found a description of philosophy that is all inclusive of what it is that those who are called philosophers do. And so, there is no single answer to what the purpose of philosophy is that will be agreed on.

I just want them to leave me alone. — NOS4A2

What you fail to recognize is that you are not alone. What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is possible to live in isolation, but you choose not to, and so you cannot at the same time choose to be left alone.

Luke I'm not seeing a point to this conversation. — Banno

The point is that it is a flaccid designator.

It seems as if there are three different issues under discussion here:

1) Whatever distinction the OP is making. 2) The distinction I am making. 3) Kripke's a posteriori necessities.

I do not know anything about all possible worlds and very little about the actual world we live in, but
I see no problem with this: a molecule of water = H20. Or molecular grade water = H20.

You want to use "water" for impure H₂O. Go ahead. Pure water is necessarily the very same thing as H₂O. — Banno

It is not a matter of how I want to use the term water, it is the common usage for the stuff that comes out of the tap, the stuff in lakes and rivers and rain. It is not pure H20. Generally potable water is considered pure but it contains minerals and so is not H20, it is a mixture of H20 and other stuff.

You're perhaps using H₂O as a description rather than as a rigid designator, — Banno

I don't think so. From Stanford:

A rigid designator designates the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists and never designates anything else.

My claim is that H20 is not in all cases the same object as water. The molecular structure can differ. H20 always has the same structure. Water does not. Water contains minerals and contaminants. H20 does not. A chemical analysis will reveal this. If they are the same object then they could be used interchangeably in all possible situations. They cannot.

So let's use Hesperus and Phosphorus instead. — Banno

But that missed the point. Hesperus and Phosphorus designate the same object. In many cases H20 and water also designate the same object but not in all cases.

the denial of basic human rights is another, — NOS4A2

How about the denial of the basic human right to life by those who have no regard for the lives of others and refuse to follow simple safety precautions and wear a mask?