[Deleted]

"conservation or preservation" ("right"). — Apollodorus

Since Trump is now the face of conservatism in the US let's look at what he intends to conserve or preserve. Certainly not traditional conservatism. Not the environment. And not diplomatic relations with our allies. Not what is derisively referred to as the administrative state.

He is obsequious to the religious right and promotes the interests of his cronies in gas, oil, and coal. The only thing it is evident that he preserves is his own self-interest. And the rest of the Republican Party, which considers itself equivalent to conservatism falls in line lock-step to preserve their own interests.

The term "right" seems to be acquiring a similar connotation to the way "left" was used in the past. — Apollodorus

It seems as though you have not been at this very long.

Fooloso4 I think democrats agenda is pretty socialist — Alexandros

What does "pretty socialist" mean? Examples?

The US came much closer to total state control under Trump than under any Democrat. He had his own unofficial propaganda news outlet, while condemning whatever news media that were critical of him as "enemies of the people". He suppressed official scientific reports on climate change. He attempted to overturn the election. He made frequent claims that he was above the law. The Republican Party was, and to some extent still is, so afraid of him that they dare not oppose him on even the smallest point.

If he is re-elected and gains a majority in both the House and Senate he will have dictatorial total state control.

you must admit that the method is the same that S uses, which the Sophists advocate, esp. in that argument that S uses against the sophists. — god must be atheist

Socrates spoke differently to different people. The dialogue form and the identification of the people he is addressing are not just stylistic. With the sophist its a power play.

"Here's looking at you kid, and this is why your method is wrong," — god must be atheist

Rhetoric is not wrong. It is a means of persuasion.

The intent may be different (both wanting to win an argument?? Where is the difference in intent there? — god must be atheist

T. intends to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus (who are Plato's brothers) to pay him to learn how to make the weaker argument stronger. Socrates intends, ostensibly, to persuade them that justice is in their own best interest as well as in the best interest of the city, but he is leading them to philosophize; not simply to make the weaker argument the stronger but to be able to identify which arguments are in fact stronger. And this means not simply how to win arguments against others, but to turn in inward to find arguments that will guide them.

It is, however, a claim that reflects the status quo of what justice ... — god must be atheist

Yes, I agree, and this tension between what is and what is best plays out on many levels. I can't go into detail here but Socrates was sentenced to death for philosophizing. At his trial he does not defend himself or philosophy in the forceful way we see him arguing in the other dialogues. It has been suggested by commentators that the Republic is Plato's defense of philosophy. Socrates creates a city in speech. In other words, we do not find justice in the city. The definition of justice that Socrates settles on is, ironically, minding your own business. In other words, the status quo is an injustice to philosophy that can only be remedied if the city stays out of the philosopher's business.

Socrates introduces the city in order to see what justice looks like in the soul. The city is "the soul writ large". Minding your own business also means tending to the politics of your soul, that is, a well ordered soul, ruling yourself through reason. Justice also means the health of the soul, the proper balance of its parts.

Socrates is clear that he has no illusion as to the likelihood that the philosopher-king will rule. The tension between what is and what is best plays out here with the powerless philosopher developing the ability to safeguard philosophy from those who have the power to say what justice is and can thereby forbid philosophy. Its suppression forces it underground. Plato develops a way of writing that is at once out in the open and public and hidden from the view of the city.

the world of reason being the best of all possible worlds. — tim wood

So, is it reasonable because it is the best of all possible worlds or is the best of all possible worlds because it is reasonable? Either way, you have not separated reason from the good.

Speculation is fundamental to the search for knowledge. It goes by the name of hypothesis or theory or intuition or inspiration.
— Fooloso4

I grant it! But not knowledge itself. — tim wood

One can go from speculation to discovery without having to first build a foundation.

Why not start with recognizing and acknowledging faith, mere belief, as what it is, a speculative claim that can ground nothing except speculative argument for speculative conclusions. And these have their uses, but not as a ground for knowledge. — tim wood

Speculation is fundamental to the search for knowledge. It goes by the name of hypothesis or theory or intuition or inspiration.

Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

Yes, this is the great fear. I don't know if you are in the US but in almost every election Republicans will label their Democratic opponents no matter how moderate or conservative "socialists", and that if the evil Democrat is elected that will be the end of democracy and freedom.

Th...us claims what IS. Socrates describes what should be. The two are not on the same page — god must be atheist

I do not think it sufficient to say that justice is whatever is. In that case opposites would both be just as long as they occur somewhere. Harming your family and friends be no more or less just then helping them.

... while he couldn't create an argument against the sophists' view, without proving sophistry right by applying the sophists' method or process. — god must be atheist

It is about intent. There is another dialogue called the Sophist. A main concern of the dialogue is the difference between the philosopher and the sophist. There is not all that much difference, but the differences are significant.

My hangup was his argument against X...on* — god must be atheist

As far as I know he makes no such argument. It is yours.

Whereas S's argument was a simple case of Ad Hominem. — god must be atheist

How can one discuss happiness without regard to the person seeking it? Socratic philosophy is about self-knowledge and a way of life. He calls himself a physician of the soul. Of course it is about the person. But this does not mean X ...on alone, but the reader who is led the reflect on herself and her life.

My words were made up, as an attempt at humour — god must be atheist

I thought they might be, but as you know there are all kinds of things being said on the forum.

Does geometry and arithmetic and logic lead to nihilism? — tim wood

It depends on what use you put them to.

Reason then a ground for the good. — tim wood

Why is reason a ground for the good? Reason can just as easily be used to bad as to good ends. Once you introduce ends then reason alone is not sufficient. What is the end or goal of reason? Reason?

I think the problem is that even socialists don't know what socialism really is until it's too late. — Apollodorus

Is social security socialism? If not then what is it? Those who opposed it called it socialism.

Meanwhile, anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that every single solitary one of our founding fathers was dyed-in-the-wool liberal. — James Riley

The majority of those who call themselves "conservative" are without knowing it liberal in that they ascribe to the tradition of natural rights, equality, individualism, in a word, liberalism. Perhaps if more of them had a good liberal arts education they would know this.

So, what is it that differentiates them? More often than not religious, moral, and political dogmatism.

Is his reduceable without too much violence to a few sentences that you could provide, that would make the persuasiveness of his demonstrably clear? — tim wood

What I find interesting is that he sees the modern separation between the concepts of reason and good as being at the root of nihilism. The separation is not intended to be the result of nihilism but rather leads to it. The good does not mean some reified entity, but rather, as Plato and Aristotle stressed, what each of us desire. And so, reason and the pursuit of knowledge are not separate from desire, the desire to know, the desire for wisdom, that is, philosophy.

All I'm saying is that "socialism" isn't always what believers in it think it is, — Apollodorus

Yes, on this we agree. It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is.

It's not about reason and good, but about concepts of them - whatever that means. Reason itself a tool — tim wood

Well, you present a concept of reason. Since we do not have knowledge of the good we must rely on our concept of the good, our views, opinions, discussions, as you say explication, and so on.

with the same moral significance — tim wood

Tools can be put to both good and bad use. If reason is a tool then it can be put to good or bad use, hence moral significance.

Rhetoric and Dialectic (logic) are two different animals. — tim wood

They are, but the point Rosen is making is that knowledge requires both, and, in addition, poesis.

Of course no one knows what will be in 10 or 20 years. Maybe Europe will be taken over by China and then we'll have Chinese-style communism instead of socialism. — Apollodorus

By this I mean two things. First, we do not know how successful and policy or program will be. There will be unforeseen and unintended consequences. Second, I think the looming environmental crisis will serve as a major challenge to myopic notions of individualism and isolationist nationalism.

By reason I suppose I must mean logic, reason itself being the use of it, and the argument the incidental form it takes. — tim wood

Just yesterday I came across this:

Nihilism is the concept of reason separated from the concept of the good. — Stanley Rosen

Reason for the ancients was not the same as modern reason modeled on mathematics. It was closer to our other uses of the term, such as when we ask for reasons why. Rather than build on grounds, Aristotle for example, begins with what is said, either some popular opinion or what some highly regarded person said.

And yet they remain popular. I think it is a combination of fear and resentment fueled by well funded right wing propaganda.

I think it fair to say, if you want to know what the right wing is doing look at what they criticize the left for.

It isn’t me you should be upset with — Apollodorus

The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am upset with you. I don't know who you are but I don't imagine you have much power to change things.

...socialism was taken over by England’s Fabian Society and Labour Party — Apollodorus

No one can take over socialism. All they can do is promote a particular socialist position. In the same way, no one can take over democracy.

There is big awakening in Europe, Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, all of them are beginning to wake up. Even Scandinavian countries and soon Germany. — Apollodorus

The pendulum swings. No one knows how things will look ten or twenty years from now.

Although social security is popular the GOP is still opposed:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/?sh=3de051b44e71

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyaltman/2019/08/26/republicans-are-pushing-myths-about-social-security-to-justify-their-demands-for-benefit-cuts/?sh=2e636a5e1107

This quote almost makes me want to read more Plato. I skimmed through the "Republic", and I found Socrates nothing but a clever arguer, with a sharp mind and incredible follow-through, however, someone also who never shied away from using psychological pressure to make his fallacious arguments stick. I think Socrates (at least in that book) came across as a person who had an insatiable appetite to win arguments.

To make things worse, I find you, Fooloso4, not only tendentious but also void of moral deplitude, clearly intrapretational, and definitely procumptious. — god must be atheist

I will neither affirm not deny what you say about me since I don't know what it means. I cannot tell if you made up these terms or just misspelled them badly enough that I cannot identify them and what might be their meaning, I will, at the risk of confirming whatever it is you say find about me, comment on what you find in the Republic.

Many years ago when I first read Plato my first impression was much like yours. He was out to win the argument and did so by questionable means. So I set out to make my own arguments against him. The more I tried to pick apart his arguments the more I saw not only how closely tied together they were but how they opened up larger issues, and eventually how those too hung together. My youthful confidence in what I thought I knew was shaken and I was hooked.

Two quick points: Socrates defends justice against the sophist Thrasymachus. He beats him at his own game. On the one hand he is defending justice against Thrasymachus' claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger. On the other, he is defending philosophy against sophistry and the claim that the sophist can teach the art of making the weaker argument stronger.

Descartes used the terms mind and soul interchangeably
— Fooloso4

Yes, perhaps you are right (I am not a judge of that), but WHICH of the two, soul or mind, is more redolent according to Descartes? — god must be atheist

One thing that should be kept in mind is the constraints under which Descartes was forced to write. He took as his motto Ovid's saying:

He who lived well hid himself well

I will not go into what I think Descartes is saying behind the rhetoric, it would take us too far off topic and would no doubt cause a revolt by those who accept "official" interpretations (which is not to imply that my interpretation is original).

One with a nose can can catch a whiff of the old and musty in Descartes fresh bouquet.

The term predates Marx and Engels'. Marxism and socialism are not the same.

However, capitalist society saw itself forced to do something about those negative developments even without socialist revolution, hence liberalism ultimately won the debate. — Apollodorus

I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject. It was not a full out revolution but the creation of unions to advance workers rights was a socialist movement. If liberalism won it was because of the socialists who advocated for the right of workers.

From that perspective, "social security" is just the bait used by clever socialists to promote communism ... — Apollodorus

Again, look at the history. Social security was not the bait, it was however denounced by its detractors as socialism and communism. It was signed into law in 1935. If it was a program to promote communism it failed. As a program to promote the economic welfare of the American people it has been a remarkable success comrade.

The problem is the two-valued orientation, — James Riley

I agree. Most regimes today, including the US, are mixed regimes.

Trump only lost because of the epidemic and because he made mistakes during the election campaign. This is not surprising though as he isn't a career politician. — Apollodorus

Trump is a demagogue surrounded by sycophantic plutocrats . He is exactly the kind of person Plato warned against in his criticism of democracy. His popularity has largely to do with the politics of resentment. By the time he ran for office the second time he was a career politician and remains so.

Socialism has time and again failed in the economic sphere. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Eastern Europe, all were forced to revert to capitalist methods in order to survive.

You neglected socialism in the United States. We have had socialism ever since the New Deal. According to some even much earlier with the breakup of monopolies under the earlier Roosevelt.
— Apollodorus

Socialist parties can no longer attract voters — Apollodorus

He is an independent, but Bernie Sanders did quite well attracting voters.

individuality — Alexandros

A nice slogan, but one that rings hollow when one stops looking at an ideology and begins looking at actual people.

Apparently in modern times equality in restraint and servitude has become more attractive than equality and liberty. No thinking required for a mob. — Nikolas

Democracy, as Plato warned, can be the tyranny of the demos, that is, the mob.

Tocqueville also said:

Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

And:

I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.

And:

Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.

The extent to which socialism promotes equality and liberty should not be overlooked. Without social security the restraint of poverty would leave millions in servitude. Without regulations children would still be in servitude to factory owners, our food supply adulterated with substances powerful manufacturers would still keep hidden from us, air and water quality would be far worse than they are. The list goes on.

The answer is: the question.

What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? — Bartricks

What counts as a professional philosopher?

I suspect that no matter one's credentials, disagreeing with you would automatically disqualify them in your eyes. But let's take it one step at a time. What counts as a professional philosopher?

I do think our age has some noble spirits though. — j0e

I must confess that I do not know what Nietzsche means by noble spirits. Perhaps the problem is that I cannot recognize what I am not.

Having said that, I think that I might prefer not only to be thought of as a noble spirit but to actually be one. And this leads immediately to the question: by whose standards?

Both Witt and Nietzsche were pioneers, ahead of their time, probably used to being misunderstood. I find it plausible that the times caught up with them so that many more understand them than they might have dared hope. — j0e

Nietzsche is explicit in saying he wants to be misunderstood except by a few. Wittgenstein is not quite so explicit, but if his writing contains locked rooms that are not even noticed then he too writes in such a way that he will be misunderstood except by a few.

While it is clear that the commentaries have changed, this is not the same as saying that more now understand the works they are interpreting. For the commentaries differ, and so, there is still a great deal of misunderstanding. And since far more read the secondary material instead of primary texts misunderstandings are compounded rather than reduced.

In the aphorism Nietzsche talks about "nobler spirits and tastes" and "open[ing] the ears of those whose ears are related to ours". I don't think ours is an age of nobler spirits and tastes. Wittgenstein talks about how he is at odds with the spirit of the age. It is not a matter of cracking the code but of a sympathetic attunement, of kindred spirits. And since kindred spirits are so few, they write in such a way so as to address those spirits while keeping others out.

I don't think that even the author knows the exact meaning of their text — j0e

Texts take on a meaning of their own. But when Nietzsche and Wittgenstein talk about being understood they mean according to their own understanding.

So maybe we can say that W's work is somewhat 'esoteric,' — j0e

Well, there is no initiation or secret society, but there is something hidden that only some can understand. It is, using the metaphor of a locked room, an inner inquiry as opposed to an outward one.

they aren't passed around like secrets. — j0e

More often than not they are passed around without any awareness that they contain secrets, but what is behind a locked door is a secret.

It's easy to imagine several opposed groups of Wittgenstein interpreters — j0e

We do not need to imagine it, such groups exist.

In a draft for the forward to Philosophical Remarks Wittgenstein says:

For if a book has been written for just a few readers that will be clear just from the fact that only a few people understand it. The book must automatically separate those who understand it from those who do not. Even the foreword is written just for those who understand the book.

Anyone can read the book, but it is written for the few who understand it. If only a few will understand it then most who interpret it do not understand it, for they cannot hold different opinions about what the text means and all be correct.

Nietzsche said much the same:

On the question of being understandable–One does not only wish to be understood when one writes; one wishes just as surely not to be understood. It is not by any means necessarily an objection to a book when anyone finds it impossible to understand:
perhaps that was part of the author’s intention–he did not want to be understood by just
“anybody.” All the nobler spirits and tastes select their audiences when they wish to
communicate; and choosing that, one at the same time erects barriers against “the others.”
All the more subtle laws of any style have their origin at this point: they at the same time
keep away, create a distance, forbid “entrance,” understanding, as said above–while they
open the ears of those whose ears are related to ours. — Gay Science Aphorism 381

If you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on it for which they do not have the key. But there is no point in talking to them about it, unless of course you want them to admire the room from outside! The honorable thing to do is put a lock on the door which will be noticed only by those who can open it, not by the rest. — Wittgenstein Culture and Value

Does Wittgenstein have such a room? Is he talking about his own writing? Why would he wish to keep "certain people" out? Does the difference between these people and some others have something to do with the ability of those who notice the lock? Is the ability to notice the lock somehow the key to open it? Is this merely a matter of attentiveness or is there something else that allows only some people to notice a locked room?

If Wittgenstein is talking about his own writing then it seems fair to say that his writing is, at least in part, esoteric. It appears to be a self-selective process. Those who gain access do so because of some ability or characteristic that others lack. It makes no sense to ask what is in the room if we do not even see that there is a looked room.

@baker

One of the meanings of "rational" is 'proportional', 'in ratio'

This meaning is crucial for understanding pre-modern thought, for problems such as the One and the many, and the Forms. Reason for the ancients functioned by way of comparison - this in relation to that.

But I have to say, that based on the comments to date, there seems little awareness of the 'esoteric/exoteric' distinction in the history of philosophy.
— Wayfarer
Rather, the assumption seems to be that such a distinction doesn't exist or isn't justified. — baker

I think it is important to make distinctions as to what esoteric means. The term is used to mean occult or arcane knowledge, but it is also used simply to mean a hidden teaching. There are many reasons why what one says would be kept from the authorities or public. As to whether the latter exists in the history of philosophy:

The famous Encyclopédie of Diderot, for instance, not only discusses this practice in over twenty different articles, but admits to employing it itself. The history of Western thought contains hundreds of such statements by major philosophers testifying to the use of esoteric writing in their own work or others’. — Melzer

I do not doubt that my words would benefit from editing, but if what you take away from what I say is that I do not care enough then I think it clear that you have not understood me or the conversational nature of the forum.

The images of knowledge in the Republic are his exoteric teaching cleverly disguised as an esoteric teaching.
— Fooloso4

I think that is at least open to debate. You already said:

I too once believed that the ascent from the cave and the power of dialectic was a description of the mystical experience of truth. I no longer see things that way. — Wayfarer

My once believing it is attestation of how we are fooled by the disguise.

There is an esoteric teaching hidden in the exoteric teaching. It is about protecting philosophy from the polis and the polis from philosophy.