The 'mystical Plato' is perfectly at home in later Christian mysticism, where Platonism played a seminal role, — Wayfarer

... you propose a very radical and relativistic interpretation of Plato’s cave that I have never heard of...whence did you obtain that opinion, that Plato is manipulating us through images of the ideas in this way? — Todd Martin

Just because we don’t have it, doesn’t mean it isn’t real. So that is rather like an argument from ignorance. — Wayfarer

I hasten to add, I don’t claim to possess such an insight either - but I don’t recoil from the possibility that Plato understood things that I cannot. — Wayfarer

To ‘reach what is free from hypothesis’ I would take to be the direct apprehension of the forms. — Wayfarer

That excerpt we discussed the other day: — Wayfarer

These things themselves that they mold and draw, of which there are shadows and images in water, they now use as images, seeking to see those things themselves, that one can see in no other way than with thought."
"What you say is true," he said.
"Well, then, this is the form I said was intelligible. However, a soul in investigating it is compelled to use hypotheses, and does not go to a beginning because it is unable to step out above the hypotheses. And it uses as images those very things of which images are made by the things below, and in comparison with which they are opined to be clear and are given honor."
"I understand," he said, "that you mean what falls under geometry and its kindred arts."

"Well, then, go on to understand that by the other segment of the intelligible I mean that which argument itself grasps with the power of dialectic, making the hypotheses not beginnings but really hypotheses - that is, steppingstones and springboards - in order to reach what is free from hypothesis at the beginning of the whole.

I think there is a tendency to deprecate the mystical aspects of Plato, as it sits uncomfortably with naturalism, but as Plato is such an important figure, then he has to be accomodated. — Wayfarer

But what could philosophy be other than rational discourse? If the esoteric is outside the bounds of rational discourse, and if philosophy cannot be anything other than rational discourse, then how could the esoteric be within the purview of philosophy? — Janus

Fooloso4 I think your reading is tendentious, — Wayfarer

But the implication is, Socrates has proceeded beyond 'image and symbol' - has indeed made that ascent - but that Glaucon cannot 'follow' him, i.e. is not equipped to understand his meaning — Wayfarer

the very truth, as it appears to me

The footnote to this remark is that Socrates will not insist that he perceives rightly, as to do so would be dogmatic. — Wayfarer

At any rate, the following passages — Wayfarer

And may we not also declare that nothing less than the power of dialectics could reveal this, and that only to one experienced in the studies we have described, and that the thing is in no other wise possible?

To deny this is to deny the possibility of the knowledge of the forms, and of the form of the Good, which is fundamental to the entire enterprise .. — Wayfarer

So - isn't the whole task of the philosopher to ascend from from opinion through dianoia to noesis 'through dialectic'? Isn't that what the remainder of the passage is about? — Wayfarer

No actual sages in the sense of having divine knowledge.
— Fooloso4

I don’t regard ‘divine knowledge’ as interchangeable with higher knowledge. Not all wisdom teachings are necessarily theistic. I suspect that it’s the reflexive association of ‘higher’ with ‘divine’ that is often at the basis of the rejection of the idea of ‘higher truth’. — Wayfarer

You will no longer be able to follow, dear Glaucon, although there won’t be any lack of eagerness on my part. But you would no longer seeing an image of what we are saying, but the truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it really is so or not cannot be properly insisted on.(emphasis added) — 533a

There were no actual sages? — Wayfarer

The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul” (WAP 220). Across the schools, Socrates himself was agreed to have been perhaps the only living exemplification of such a figure (his his avowed agnoia notwithstanding).

by ignoring esotericism, we risk cutting ourselves off from a full understanding of Western philosophical thought.
— Melzer

That would never happen. Not in a million years. Everyone is aware of that. — Wayfarer

Philosophical esotericism—the practice of communicating one’s unorthodox thoughts “between the lines”—was a common practice until the end of the eighteenth century. 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’. Despite this long and well-documented history, however, esotericism is often dismissed today as a rare occurrence. But by ignoring esotericism, we risk cutting ourselves off from a full understanding of Western philosophical thought. — Melzer

In Plato's Symposium Socrates says the difference between a sage and a philosopher (Ancient Greek: φιλόσοφος, meaning lover of wisdom) was that the sage has what the philosopher seeks. While analyzing the concept of love, Socrates concludes love is that which lacks the object it seeks. Therefore, the philosopher does not have the wisdom sought, while the sage, on the other hand, does not love or seek wisdom, for it is already possessed.

Seems to indicate that ‘the sage’ is superior even to Socrates (and by implication Plato and Aristotle also). — Wayfarer

I haven't studied Strauss but I was intensely influenced/inspired by the lectures on Hegel by his friend Kojeve. Anyway, I like the way Strauss puts it, an active role. — j0e

That projected gist is continually revised as we bump up against fragments that don't gel with it. — j0e

I like his vibe. — j0e

Your use of the preposition "forward" implies progress. — Bitter Crank

It seems to me that what they are actually doing is just stumbling, possibly stumbling in circles. — Bitter Crank

But they normally do so gradually and by following use, not by dictat determining use. — Isaac

I can't think of a reason to simply assume all such requests are about gendered language. — Isaac

I haven't done it and just avoid using pronouns or stick with they/them since it's the most neutral.

Indeed, you might. But by advocating such a response for others too... — Isaac

We used to just get along and accept that not every aspect of the world can be tailored to our individual preference. — Isaac

...the nature of the law and its operation. — Ciceronianus the White

You presumably don't comply with any and all of your student's requests, just out of civility and respect do you? You deem some requests to be reasonable and others not. — Isaac

Old English hit, neuter nominative and accusative of third person singular pronoun, from Proto-Germanic demonstrative base *khi- (source also of Old Frisian hit, Dutch het, Gothic hita "it"), from PIE *ko- "this" (see he). Used in place of any neuter noun, hence, as gender faded in Middle English, it took on the meaning "thing or animal spoken about before." — https://www.etymonline.com/word/it

The issue is whether the discomfort is well-justified. with 'she' (instead of he), or some new term like Xe, it's very hard to make a case that they would reasonably make anyone uncomfortable since they're words with either harmless of absent connotations. — Isaac

Call them what you like — fishfry

In my view there's always at least a slight risk in dismissing an ambiguous other. — j0e

Something we haven't taken account of is the possibility of creatively misreading thinkers. While in general I think we do want to grasp what they really thought, this is not the only reason to read (we aren't just biographers of their interior.) — j0e

...surely you are also aware of the anti-intellectualism that seizes on this kind of statement. — j0e

Who's unsimple in the bad way? — j0e

Reading lots of thinkers is something one does over a lifetime. — j0e

But imagine a fanboy of X who's just stuck in the charisma and perspective of a few thinkers. — j0e

IMV, it's the clash of perspectives that sophisticates the mind. — j0e

In philosophy the race goes to the one who can run slowest—the one who crosses the finish line last. — Wittgenstein

My sentences are all supposed to be read slowly. I really want my copious punctuation marks to slow down the speed of reading. Because I should like to be read slowly. (As I myself read.) — Wittgenstein

So what you seem to be concluding is that they were aware of a problem. I just think that there awareness was different, on a subtle level. They did not have Darwin, Galileo and Wikipedia to assist them with information like we do. We can find words like panpsychism to express our ideas, so it is probably more about understanding basic worldviews which were so different from our own. — Jack Cummins

What is striking about these early attempts to formulate an integrated theory of reality is that the mind and particularly consciousness keep arising as special problems. It is sometimes said that the mind-body problem is not an ancient philosophical worry (see Matson 1966), but it does seem that the problem of consciousness was vexing philosophers 2500 years ago, and in a form redolent of contemporary worries.

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.) (CV, 24) — Wittgenstein

I'd say the same thing about philosophy. Any philosophy geek can give a list of their favorite books, but the main thing is to read lots of books — j0e

Our treasure lies in the beehive of our knowledge. We are perpetually on the way thither, being by nature winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind. — Nietzsche

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.
Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.
Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace.
He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart. — Nietzsche

Ok, I'll do some more reading. — frank

I assume by “we” and “us” you mean philosophers. — Todd Martin

“epistemologically” — Todd Martin

But the difference between him and other men is that he learns they are only shadows—shadows which give us access to the truth—whereas they believe the shadows are the real things and are passionately committed to that belief. — Todd Martin

He's taking aim at the Tracticus, right? — frank

So Witt wasn't talking about speech acts. He was talking about something in the range of things discussed in that SEP article. — frank

A key passage in OC is a quote from Goethe's Faust:

"In the beginning was the deed." (OC 402)

This is expanded upon:

"But that means I want to conceive it as something that lies beyond being justified or
unjustified; as it were, as something animal." (OC 359)

"I want to regard man here as an animal; as a primitive being to which one grants instinct but
not ratiocination. As a creature in a primitive state. Any logic good enough for a primitive means of
communication needs no apology from us. Language did not emerge from some kind of
ratiocination. " (OC 475)

Language games are an extension of man's acting in the world. Primitive hinges are pre-linguistic. They are not language games, they are an essential part of the form of life in which language games come to play a part. It is not that they cannot be doubted, it is simply that they are not. — Fooloso4

A mistake that is frequently made is to treat hinges as if they are all the same. There are propositional hinges and pre-linguistic hinges. Empirical hinges and mathematical hinges. — Fooloso4

We move away from the belief in supernatural beings. — Athena

Would you say that the word 'proposition' is being used in this thread the same way Witt used it? — frank