American conservatives actually are 21st Century liberals — frank

Yes, there was a discussion of this on this or another thread a few days ago.

Well, some leftists believe in "permanent revolution" — Apollodorus

Yes, that is true but I that does not describe most who consider themselves on the left. Some on the right/conservatives/Republicans will label them "leftists", but that is a rhetorical ploy.

Sure, but these are just spurious correlations, therefore, no, there is no meaningful value in identifying them. — Maw

I have not done or read about what those correlations might be, but I would think it worth identifying them before declaring them spurious.

You changed to liberal/conservative. That's not the same as left/right, is it? — frank

The change was not intentional. I do not think there are hard and fast definitions of these terms. There may be a useful distinction between liberal and left or conservative and right, but I did not have one in mind.

However, by definition, the left represents opposition to the status quo. — Apollodorus

The problem with that definition is that to a greater or lesser degree the status quo is the result of the work of the left, and so, to that extent opposing the status quo would mean opposing themselves.

Is it possible that there are some personality traits that are statistically more commonly shared by liberals than conservatives and others more common to conservatives? If so, is there any value in identifying them?

Plato (and originally Socrates) had no argument to defeat the counter argument, that there are no unique qualities, but combination of qualities. — god must be atheist

But what about those qualities that they are combinations of? Are they just combinations of qualities too?

Although many, perhaps the majority of scholars and all textbooks treat the Forms as Plato's ontology, in my opinion, the Forms are themselves images, part of Plato's philosophical poesis. He takes over the cave and the images and their images, the shadows on the cave wall.

This argument by Socrates is a school-case example of the clearest, most obvious case of Ad Hominem. — god must be atheist

Socrates calls himself a physician of the soul and a midwife to ideas. In this case he helps Protarchus give birth to his idea regarding his preference of pleasure over wisdom and memory (Why memory? After a night of drunkenness one does not remember.). The analogy to a sea urchin certainly is not flattering, but a life of intemperate pleasure does not make a pretty picture. Socrates argument is not simply against this person but all those who would choose a life of unbridled pleasure. For Socrates philosophy is about the examined life. It is not about abstract valid logical arguments but a way of life.

"If that is your opinion, you are a sea-urchin, not a human. And since that is your opinion, you are a sea-urchin." — god must be atheist

It is not the opinion but the way of life that is analogous to that of a sea urchin. He was not against pleasure but against a life of unchecked pleasure.

One might do well to keep in mind that Meta rejects the notion of instantaneous velocity. — Banno

I have heard that he lives in mortal fear of spontaneous combustion.

This question is not relevant because "grammar" does not necessarily imply "rules" — Metaphysician Undercover

This thread is on Wittgenstein. It is clear that you have not read him carefully enough, or did not understand, or have forgotten what he says about rules and grammar, and logic. I know you were present a few years back for the discussion of PI, so I am not going to rehash it.

It may be though that you simply do not agree with him. But you cannot disagree with what you do not first understand. Nothing you have said leads me to believe you do understand.

One also needs to accept certain assumptions about what enlightenment consists in, and whether it can really can tell us anything about the nature of reality and of life and death. — Janus

The Buddhist would say that the assumptions are things you must do away with, one must be able to see past there mental constructs.

My opinion is that Buddhism makes the same demand as other religions, you must first buy into it, commit yourself to it, if one is to gain what it promises. It is not a commitment that I am willing to make.

it is clear that the argument employed here was of an Ad Hominem fallacy. — god must be atheist

On this we disagree. The argument obviously refers to the man but I do not see it as a fallacy.

This is not a fallacy, but a huge and fatal omission of defeating the opponent's view. Socrates acts as if he won the argument, but he never did. — god must be atheist

In my opinion the best interpreters do just this sort of thing. Only they do not leave it there. Plato did not write dialogues to show Socrates winning an argument. What would be the point of that?

If the person came back and insisted on the type of fact that the sum of a thing is greater than sum of its components — god must be atheist

The Forms are not sums, they do not have components. They are each one, singular and unique.



.

On a second thought, maybe it was not in the Republic, but the teacher was reading it up, and giving us on-the-go commentary. — god must be atheist

Mystery solved!

Socrates does seem a bit harsh on Protarchus. I don't know the dialogue well enough to say more. I took a brief look at this:https://philarchive.org/archive/CAIMAT-3

He says:

I suggest that to understand Plato’s dialogues in terms of context and character is to discover to what extent a particular argument is designed to fi t the exact needs required to educate
the interlocutor about himself.

I am not interested in your petty bickering.

Did I give any indication that I am upset by being called a Marxist? It is simply that your insult ("But Marxists are always right, so you can relax.") missed the mark.

If you have anything substantive to discuss I will respond but I will no longer abide the petulant attacks on me. And before responding that I have done the same, read through my posts and separate them from what others may have said.

I forgot what search terms I used, maybe some combination of Plato, Republic, and sea urchins. One thing I found was this: https://books.google.com/books?id=z5zCBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=plato+republic+sea+urchin&source=bl&ots=JdgrfdUR9_&sig=ACfU3U3rEx3cR7d-slE9KrIgk-g_50Drag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMn4KbiZ_wAhVskeAKHVP5CCoQ6AEwEXoECAgQAw#v=onepage&q=plato%20republic%20sea%20urchin&f=false

I was just curious. It is not a big deal.

Philebus is one of Plato's dialogues. It is published as both a separate book and as part of anthologies.

The normal meaning of permanent is "lasting (for a long time)". — Apollodorus

If you go back to my earlier comments you will see that I already addressed this. For example, the Constitution and amendments. It does not last unchanged.

But Marxists are always right, so you can relax. — Apollodorus

I am not a Marxist. Far from it. How about focusing on what I and others actually say rather than labeling us and attacking the label?

If I was a bodhisattva I could help guide you to enlightenment
— Fooloso4
No. A bodhisattva is not yet a buddha, a bodhisattva is not yet enlightened, he doesn't have that status.
The idea that the unelightened could lead others to enlightenment is absurd. — baker

There are different schools of thought on this. For example:

Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment. There are many different Bodhisattvas, but the most famous in China is Avalokitesvara, known in Chinese as Guanyin ...Renouncing their own salvation and immediate entrance into nirvana, they devote all their power and energy to saving suffering beings in this world.

Permanence is slow change.
— Fooloso4

No it isn't. That's not the definition of permanence. — Apollodorus

Can you give me an example of something that never undergoes any change?

By the way, the larger context of my comment is in reference to Heraclitus and flux. Some here may have picked up on it, obviously you have not.

My hangup was his argument against X...on*,who claimed happiness is the most valuable thing to attain; S replies, "would you settle to be a sea urchin, which is happy?" X...on recoils, he says definitely not; S cleans his sword of the blood of victory over X...on. Whereas S's argument was a simple case of Ad Hominem. — god must be atheist

I wanted to return to this to say more about ad hominem. I think the passage you have in mind is from Plato's Philebus (21c). The issue in question:

Socrates:
Philebus says that to all living beings enjoyment and pleasure and gaiety and whatever accords with that sort of thing are a good; whereas our contention is that not these, but wisdom and thought and memory and their kindred, right opinion and true reasonings, are better and more excellent than pleasure for all who are capable of taking part in them, and that for all those now existing or to come who can partake of them they are the most advantageous of all things.

It is the life without thought and memory and reason that Socrates likens to that of the sea urchin. He goes on to point out that such a life would also be void of pleasure.

Wiki gives several examples of valid ad hominem arguments. But that is not what I want to discuss.

There are, in my opinion, cases in which it is relevant and appropriate to bring the character or habits of a person into the argument. Socrates says that the unexamined life is not worth living. Philosophy in its pursuit of the ideal of objectivity lost sight of this important aspect of philosophy, that is, philosophy as a way of life. This is far removed from the notion of philosophy as "the view from nowhere".

One needs to have trust or faith or a belief that enlightenment is possible. But the goal is liberation not knowledge.
— Fooloso4

I can't see how liberation can happen without gaining any knowledge. Can you enlighten me and help me to see how I am wrong in this opinion? — god must be atheist

If I was a bodhisattva I could help guide you to enlightenment, but not having experienced it I know nothing of it except whatever it is I imagine it to be based on the writing of others. Whether they attained enlightenment I cannot say since one would have to be enlightened in order to verify that someone else is.

It is not that liberation happens without gaining any knowledge but that the goal of enlightenment is not to gain knowledge but to gain liberation. Knowledge comes with it. That is why I said in an earlier post that the knowledge is experiential.

The point being that there is language outside of rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you give us an example of language without grammar?

Sure. But the issue is that relevant experiences are gained through doing a particular practice. Doing this practice to begin with requires that some things are taken for granted. — baker

One needs to have trust or faith or a belief that enlightenment is possible. But the goal is liberation not knowledge.

The hope is that this will come through practice, but it does not always happen. Some Buddhist schools believe that enlightenment can be spontaneous, others believe practice is required. And of course the hope or desire can be the attachment.

If the author was a far-left Marxist or Stalinist, would your argument be the same? — Apollodorus

Yes.

Well, you are accusing me by implication: — Apollodorus

Not at all. I believe you when you say that you did not know about him. My point is that he is a questionable source. It may not be overt, but I strongly suspect that he would not write a book on people, culture, society, and politics without those views shaping what he says.

@tim wood

A question I have asked before: a stick of dynamite explodes: what caused it to explode?
— tim wood

That it was lit. That the chemical compounds which comprise dynamite explode when lit. — Wayfarer

It is reasonable also to say that the need to remove an obstacle to make way for a road was a cause. An answer to the question why was called a cause.

Maybe I'm not understanding the language, or context is omitted, but pretty clearly for the Greeks what ought to be was manifestly not in nature. — tim wood

For the Greeks nature had a telos or end or purpose. This was based on the observed order of the universe. It was not random but ordered and purposeful. The ability of the intelligence of man to understand the intelligible order led to the idea that the order itself was intelligent. Intelligence works toward some end or purpose, and so, nature must have some end or purpose. I am not defending that idea, just trying to explain it.

You haven't seen the book, haven't read it, don't have a clue, but still talking and accusing people. — Apollodorus

I do not need to see the book to find out who the author is. I am not accusing you of anything. I am simply pointing to what has been said about him.

I have not seen the book in question and could understand someone picking it up and not knowing about the author. I can even understand not finding out who the author is, although I would certainly check to see if the source is reliable.

The author may not be specific but I cannot see how someone who promotes Nazism and "occult fascism" could write a book on people, society, and politics and not have those things influence what he says. I doubt that one would need to be a trained in hermeneutics to see that influence, especially once one knows the authors background.

no problem, we both have greek names. — Alexandros

I was going to make a joke: its all Greek - names - to me.

In other words, change is OK when the Left wants it and not OK when the Right wants it. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? — Apollodorus

From your other thread:

And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong?
— Apollodorus

Such bivalence is far too simplistic. If the Republicans want to make America great again they are advocating for change. If the Democrats want to protect abortion rights and environmental regulation then they are advocating for preservation.

And:

I don't think this is correct. Politics, left and right, is social experiment. If a favored policy reveals its shortcomings then the intelligent thing to do is address it and make changes. The American Founders put in place the ability to amend the Constitution.

You set up a false dichotomy. You are treating change and preservation without regard to what it is that is to be changed or preserved. Both liberals and conservatives seek to change some things and preserve others.

But let's back up a step. You said:

... the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. — Apollodorus

By emotional issues of this kind you meant abortion. My response is that the Left is not using it as an emotional issue. It is established law. It is the Right who is using it as an emotional issue and trying to overturn the law. And so, it is fair to say that the Right is only interesting in preserving the law when they approve of the law. I don' find this hypocritical but it does demonstrate the problem of equating conservatism with preservation.

However, the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. — Apollodorus

The right to an abortion is established law. The Left is not using abortion as an emotional issue, their concern is with preserving the law. It is the Right that wants to overturn the law. This is the one of the main reasons the Right got behind Trump. He is by no means a traditional conservative.

... political subversion and undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. — Apollodorus

Are you referring to the insurrection of January 6th? You must be, because nothing else comes close. Only it was the far Right Trumpsters.

Epistemology struggles with issues such as the claim that knowledge is justified true belief. As I understand it, knowledge for the Buddhist comes with enlightenment. It is experiential not theoretical.

Hang on a second. Aren't you confusing Alexandros with @Apollodorus there? — Apollodorus

Yes, I did and noticed it when responding to Alexandros above. My apologies.

the point I was making was that the Left tends to use any issue, especially issues that appeal to emotion and lend themselves to mass mobilization, for its own agenda. — Apollodorus

The same point can and has be made with regard to the Right.

I just noticed that I mistook some comments by @Apollodorus for your own.

Oh come on, those policies were fought by right wings and today are pretended to be the center. — Alexandros

The center shifts. Gary Trudeau has a TV series called "Alpha House". In one episode there was a Republican retreat and they hired a Reagan impressionator for entertainment. They became incensed
by what he said and thought it a betrayal of Conservationism. It turns out that everything he said was taken verbatim from Reagan's speeches. He was far left of today's center.

I said which is different. — Alexandros

But you have not said what the difference is.

Abortion is not about women's right, there is killing of an innocent humn being which the constitution protects, republicans renewed the fight against it. — Alexandros

Yes, they are continually renewing the fight and reframing the issue. Are you claiming that the woman has no right regarding what happens in her womb? The problem is intractable because there are conflicting rights. The more developed the fetus the more standing it has. I think there are significant differences between a zygote and an innocent human being. But this is not a debate I want to get into.

The Constitution is silent on abortion. It was a common practice at the time and was not prohibited by law.

Please look the history of its promotion and planbed parenthood. — Alexandros

Please look at the history of abortion practices in colonial America and the eventual development of laws prohibiting abortion.

corporations is a kind of plutocracy and they are clearly with the democrats and their cancel culture. — Alexandros

Both Democrats and Republicans have been in favor of corporate welfare. It is at present only the Democrats who are proposing raising taxes on corporations. Many of them currently pay no taxes.

You mixed me and Apollodorus in that about ancient rome and Greece. — Alexandros

Yes, I noticed that. See above. Sorry again.

[Deleted]

You're definitely right about free speech, it's fast becoming a rare commodity — Apollodorus

This is a very old and very common refrain. That is not to say it is not a problem, but it is not one that is best addressed by claiming the sky is falling. Free speech has also been tenuous. We are simply struggling to find its boundaries once again in a changing world.

[Deleted]

But the same applies to the opposite camp, does it not? Marxists have changed little since Marx and there are many strands of "leftism". — Apollodorus

Are you saying that the Left are conservatives because they too seek to conserve their own orthodoxies? But since conservative orthodoxies can change with the wind, deficit spending for example, that would mean they are also leftists.

This was meant tongue in cheek, but positions do sometimes reverse, as in the case of attitudes toward free speech.

In my opinion, politics is business by other means. We cannot draw clear lines between them. They are two sides of the same coin.

Perhaps this is what you mean when you say:

The system (the coalition of government and corporate interests) — synthesis

And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong? — Apollodorus

Such bivalence is far too simplistic. If the Republicans want to make America great again they are advocating for change. If the Democrats want to protect abortion rights and environmental regulation then they are advocating for preservation.

Otherwise put, what is more important, permanence or change? — Apollodorus

Permanence is slow change. Nothing is unchanging.

... but once the change is in place I'm sure the left wants it to be permanent. — Apollodorus

I don't think this is correct. Politics, left and right, is social experiment. If a favored policy reveals its shortcomings then the intelligent thing to do is address it and make changes. The American Founders put in place the ability to amend the Constitution.

It follows that the element of permanence, of conservatism, is dominant in both of them and this seems to suggest that permanence or conservatism comes first as a fundamental predisposition of all human beings and of life in general — Apollodorus

It does not then follow that self-identified "conservatives" seek to conserve all human beings an life in general. What they seek to conserve is their own orthodoxies. As a group they cannot agree on what those are.

about democrats the same can be said with elections. Regarding trump's policies it's pretty much the opposite as democrats agenda. — Alexandros

Yes, the same can be said, but the question is whether what they say is true. Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud but have not been able to prove it.

The Republican Party are followers of Marx, Groucho Marx. As the song goes, "whatever it is I'm against it."

well let's try to name some policies: higher taxes, social plans, health care, abortion, gender ideology, equality discourse, et cetera — Alexandros

Earlier you said:

And no, social security isn't socialism. There was public road building, public health care, a standing army paid by the state, etc. even in Ancient Greece and Rome. Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

Are you saying that these things from Ancient Greece and Rome were "pretty socialist"?

How is abortion "pretty socialist"? The law recognizes a woman's right to choose. It is up to her, the individual. It is when the state intervenes and denies that right that we more toward total state control?

There is no state controlled gender ideology. It is when the state insists on an idealized notion of gender conformity that we move toward total state control.

I have no idea why you might think that discourse on equality is "pretty socialist". Equality discourse is fundamental to the founding of the US.

I do not have time to discuss hidden costs, which are just hidden taxes, but the cost is not born by corporations or the wealthy. Corporate welfare is much closer to socialism than anything you mentioned. To put it succinctly, politics is business by other means. It may be more accurate to call this an oligarchy or plutocracy, but if socialism is, as you define it, total state control then it is capitalism rather than socialism that is moving us in that direction.