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.

[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.