when I say that ‘goodness’ boils down to two categories historically, I do not mean that historically people recognized with full clarity these two categories but, rather, their notions of goodness do, nevertheless, in fact, boil down thereto. — Bob Ross

So, rather than referencing the various and diverse things that have been said you replace what was actually said with your own notion of goodness. As if, were they only as capable as you in recognizing what they really meant they would replace what was said with your version of what goodness is.

Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything. — Bob Ross

This is the opposite of what we find through most of history!

I don’t think any person of good character would disagree that ideally we should not eat other animals ... — Bob Ross

Where is the historical evidence to back this up?

...but whether or not we can to survive is a separate question. — Bob Ross

The answer to the separate question is that we can, and many have, survived without eating other animals. At least not intentionally.

None of us have the facts necessary to make an objective judgment of the cognitive capacities of either candidate. — Relativist

I agree, but who will get elected is not a matter of objective judgment. The damage has been done.

Our investigation, after a thorough year-long review, concludes that there is an absence of such necessary proof. Indeed, we have found a number of innocent explanations as to which we found no contrary evidence to refute them and found affirmative evidence in support of them.” — Relativist

Why didn't Hur just leave it there? He is not qualified to make as assessment of Biden's cognitive capacities and it is extraneous to the assessment he was tasked and is qualified to make.

I don't think he could have honestly reached the same conclusion about Trump's innocence but there is ample evidence to raise questions and concerns about his cognitive capacities.

Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. — Bob Ross

I do not think history supports this claim. Both of the terms, goodness and perfection, have various meanings. You move from a claim about the historical meaning to a meaning you favor. In the middle is a questionable assertion of what morality is based on what you claim to be its its "most commonly used sense":

... simply an attempt at sorting out how one should behave in correspondence to how one can best align themselves with universal harmony and unity; and pragmatism then, in its most commonly used sense, is an attempt at understanding the best ways to achieve purposes ... — Bob Ross

An argument can be made that morality is a response to the lack of universal harmony and unity. It is because there is no actual perfection in the world that we must choose and act so as to attain and maintain what we value, and that in our imperfect world these values may conflict with those of others. Some believe that to be moral is to be obedient to a higher power and so regard moral deliberation as immoral since it wrongly puts the individual in a position of authority.

What does universal harmony mean? In pursuit of universal harmony do I confer equal moral standing to humans and rats? Do I allow rats to live in my home? Do I allow every human beings who may want to live in my home?

... it's the part on teleological judgment i still get lost in ... — Moliere

I can't be of much help, but can suggest a possible way forward.

Sections V through VIII of Kant's introduction are entitled:

V. The Principle of the Formal Purposiveness of Nature Is a Transcendental Principle of Judgment
VI. On the Connection of the Feeling of Pleasure with the Concept of the Purposiveness of Nature
VII. On the Aesthetic Presentation of the Purposiveness of Nature

This is not an account of an object, nature, by a subject, Kant. The principle of the purposiveness of nature is a transcendental principle.

The idea that aesthetic judgments are subjective is often taken to mean "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". In which case whatever someone believes is beautiful is beautiful for that person. But Kant rejects this. A judgment of taste is for Kant not the same as, say, a preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream.

This leads to consideration of the connection between:

1) judgments of beauty or the sublime and judgments of science or nature
2) judgments of beauty and moral judgments

If I understand him correctly these are not separate areas of inquiry but interconnected and interrelated parts of the whole.

By “universal” he means it holds for all rational creatures, and it's based on a priori structures of knowledge that are independent of experience (though they only produce knowledge when applied to experience). — Jamal

In Kant's Critique of Judgment the judgment that something is beautiful or sublime is independent of concepts. That is, it is universal but not based on the a priori structures of knowledge that are independent of experience.

... a judgment of taste involves the consciousness that all interest is kept out of it, it must also involve a claim to being valid for everyone, but without having a universality based on concepts. In other words, a judgment of taste must involve a claim to subjective universality.
(Critique of Judgment 54) — Fooloso4

.

... a judgment of taste involves the consciousness that all interest is kept out of it, it must also involve a claim to being valid for everyone, but without having a universality based on concepts. In other words, a judgment of taste must involve a claim to subjective universality.

(Critique of Judgment 54)

In the Critique of Judgment Kant uses the term 'objective' to mean 'disinterested'. A valid judgment of taste is subjective, universal, and not based on concepts. To put it somewhat paradoxically, objectivity is universal subjectivity.

So he is responsible for making her calm? — NOS4A2

I don't know how you could draw that conclusion, but it is indicative of the futility of trying to have a deliberative reasoned discussion with you.

What she is frightened at, or terrified of, is the robber and the potential harm that may come to her. — NOS4A2

Right. He is responsible for holding a gun to her head. He is responsible for frightening her.

Would you say the gunman is responsible for the teller remaining calm should she remain calm? — NOS4A2

I would say that he failed to do what he set out to accomplish.

Maybe he just wasn’t good enough at frightening people? — NOS4A2

He can frighten them but they are responsible for being frightened?

The teller handed over the money because the robber had a gun to his head. — NOS4A2

Right, the robber with a gun frightened the teller. The teller did not frighten herself. She is not responsible for being terrified.

You are responsible for being terrified at someone holding a gun to your head. — NOS4A2

So, the bank teller and not the bank robber should be held responsible for the money being stolen at gunpoint since the bank teller handed over the money.

Those who are terrified and not the terrorists are responsible for doing what the terrorists demand at gunpoint.

In a very real sense, the entire progress of human understanding can be seen as the development of knowledge from esotericity to exotericity. — Pantagruel

Hegel says this:

Without this development, science has no general intelligibility, and it seems to be the esoteric possession of only a few individuals – an esoteric possession, because at first science is only available in its concept, or in what is internal to it, and it is the possession of a few individuals, since its appearance in this not-yet fully unfurled form makes its existence into something wholly singular.

(Phenomenology of Spirit, Preface, 13)

But this is only one way in which the term is used and it stands in opposition to others.

As if the West Coast states are just going to roll over and accept an autocratic regime. — Benkei

Why the West Coast? Resistance to autocracy is not unique to the West Coast. But how effective would such resistance be without the backing of the military?

The Republican Party is already controlled by Trump. If reelected career bureaucrats and civil servants who constrained Trump last time would be gone under Schedule F. With the implementation of Project 25 and an extreme version of the unitary executive theory federal agencies would be abolished or completely loose their independence. The Justice Department would not simply come under his control but would do his bidding and take revenge against his enemies.

a particular hang up on democracy — Benkei

A hang-up?

... you'd sooner have civil war than a full blown autocracy. — Benkei

Most Americans prefer a degree of freedom and choice. Under an autocratic leader both are imperiled. It may not be possible to vote an autocrat out of power. If there is to be civil war success depends a great deal on which side the military takes. Opposition to an autocrat backed by the military and intelligence would be extremely difficult to defeat. Unless the borders are closed and emigration restricted I think much of the population would leave rather than fight a loosing battle.

Added: On the Trump thread you said:

"Thank God for term limits whatever will be the end result."

An autocrat who intends to stay in power will not allow term limits.

Never underestimate just what voters can do. — ssu

And never underestimate what they would need to do to bring about such change.

Yet actually the GOP ending up with Trump has made people believe in the system of "primaries" and biparty system, where you can change parties from inside.... — ssu

I agree. But I think that this is a clear indication that not all change is for the better. In addition, if Trump is as successful as he hopes to be, this may be the end of the two party system. The democratic republic will be replaced by a plutocratic autocracy.

If someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to kill you, what if anything is terrifying you? Would it be the same if you knew it was a toy water pistol?

I will repeat your question:

why are you terrified it"? — NOS4A2

The answer ought to be personal because you are responsible for being terrified of it. — NOS4A2

This is easy for you to say since no one is holding a gun to your head. It may be that different people will react differently, but that is only part of the dynamic. You are not responsible for the fact that someone is holding a gun to your head.

As I said:

I think it would be better for the nation if Biden did not run again ... — Fooloso4

Speech, demeanor, gaffes, are not sufficient measures of cognitive ability and decision making capacity. Biden has dealt with the problem of stuttering since he was a child. This means that he is always aware of what he is saying. It is similar to talking on the phone is hearing what you said repeated.

As he has acknowledged, the problem gets worse when he is tired. His age is a factor here, but even a much younger person would find his schedule exhausting.I came across a comment about how every other president except Trump appears to have aged when leaving office. The explanation was that unlike the others he spent little or no time briefings, reading intelligence reports, and deliberating. Biden spends many late nights prepping.

In the US, I just feel sorry that Americans still believe in these two parties. — ssu

For many of us it is not a question of believing in these two parties or the electoral college but rather of what it would take to change things. It is not as simple as a third party or independent running. The problem of politicians hanging on past their prime goes well beyond Biden - Trump, Grassley, McConnell and others I am too old to remember. The system is designed to resist change.

I find it hard to know how Socrates and Plato thought of immortality. — Jack Cummins

The fact of the matter is: they don't know, but there are serious problems that cast doubt on the possibility. As with Forms and particulars one is the difference between the Form Soul and the soul of an individual. Another is the difference between a person and his soul. Even if the soul is immortal that does not mean that the person is. In one formulation Socrates' death means the separation of body and soul. His soul can become the soul of something else (Phaedo 82a-b), but what would it mean for Socrates to become an ass?

The idea of a 'heaven within' seems important in the interpretation of the Christian teaching, — Jack Cummins

There is no such thing as "the 'Christian teaching". There are various teaching within the NT, inspired teachings many of which were destroyed by the Church Fathers as heretical, and teaching that developed later such as the "official doctrines" determined by the Council of Nicaea. In addition there are the practices of esoteric interpretation and mystical Christian teachings.

The idea of inner wealth of 'heaven within' is also captured in the Buddhist emphasis on nonattatchment. — Jack Cummins

I tend to stay away from such comparisons where similarities are pointed out and differences ignored. In addition there is the problem of translation. Terms such as 'heaven' are typically unduly inflluenced by Western Christian perspectives. I do not know enough to sort it all out and suspect that most others cannot either.

What have your 8.1k posts amounted to? — Vaskane

Nothing.

The acts of martyrdom may not have been taken on without a belief in a literal afterlife. It is questionable whether many current thinkers would be prepared to die like Socrates. — Jack Cummins

When in Plato's Phaedo Socrates says:

... all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead.

(64a)

this should be seen in light of what he said in the Apology:

...to be dead is one of two things: either the dead person is nothing and has no perception of anything, or [death] happens to be, as it is said, a change and a relocation or the soul from this place here to another place .

(40c).

Not knowing what will be, the focus of the philosophical life must be on the here and now. On living a good life, an examined life. If one lives a good life then there should be no fear of punishment if there happens to be a next life. But if dying is the end then we should not squander what is given to us by living in expectation of rewards that may never be.

...the heavenly, or inner treasures and quest for 'truth'. — Jack Cummins

The quest for truth cannot occur at some other time in some other place. One interpretation of the claim that the kingdom of heaven is at hand is that it is to be found within, here and now. To look elsewhere, away from oneself, is to turn away from where one's responsibilities lie and one's inner treasures are to be found.

I think it would be better for the nation if Biden did not run again, but the political good is not the same as the political will and neither has much to do with the unscrupulous game of politics.

Robert K Hur might be a fine jurist but he is not a clinical cognitive neuroscientist and he did not conduct the battery of tests needed to make such a diagnosis. What conclusions would he have drawn from interviewing Trump or anyone else under similar circumstances?

Questions about both the mental and physical health of candidates has long been used as a political weapon. Biden might not remember it but Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's and Trump's mental health has from the start been called into question by mental health professionals - narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and paranoid personality disorder.

The potential jury pool is watching this mess. It may be enough for Willis to be removed from this case. — RogueAI

Maybe. Some jurors are capable of separating what the defendants did from what she did. I don't know if the fact that Trump's affairs and cover ups do not sway voters means that such things no longer matter so much or if they are just willing to overlook it when it comes to Trump. In any case, the prosecution may not be willing to find out.

What bearing does any of this have on the question of whether Trump and his co-defendants are guilty of election interference? What is it about this "improper" romantic relationship that should stand as grounds to disqualify her?

It seems to me that it is nothing more than an attempt to distract and shift focus. It may play well with some voters, but it has no legal merit with regard to the charges against Trump, Roman, and the others.

IMO, there aren't any "mysteries", just intractable uncertainties (i.e. ineffable / unanswerable questions) for us to play out (or reason together about) ...
occulting mystagoguery. — 180 Proof

Perhaps the latter is the result of unreasonable expectations about the former. As if by asking a question there must then be an answer. The natural sense of awe and wonder is lost. Replaced by artifactual realms beyond and a desire for escape and transcendence.

They are not random words. I create them and organize them at my own discretion. — NOS4A2

You do not "create" words. You make use of words, most of which have been around long before you. Whatever discretion you use in organizing them follows rules of syntax that have also been around much longer than you have.

But the sounds and marks themselves are without meaning. — NOS4A2

We have been over this before. Words get their meaning from within a shared language such as English, which you did not "create" By ignoring this you end up hopelessly confused and wanting to drag others down with you.

The fact that I deny words have meaning does not contradict that I mean something by using them. Can you notice the difference? — NOS4A2

You could not mean something by using them if the words did not have meaning. Your meaning something by using them means that they are not just random, meaningless sounds and marks.

I have been saying all along that I engage in meaning, that I provide meaning to those symbols. — NOS4A2

Words are not meaningless symbols that become meaningful when you provide meaning to them. And words are not meaningless symbols that become meaningful when we the reader provides meaning to them, as you also claim. If that were the case then when you say "A" you might mean 'X' while one reader might provide the meaning 'not X' and still another reader 'neither X nor not X'. Language would be impossible.

I am raising objections to the treatment of words as supernatural objects. — NOS4A2

You are objecting to a problem of your own making. It is by separating words and meaning that it appears to you that words must be supernatural objects if they are to have force. You limit the meaning of the word 'force' to physics and biology and wrongly conclude that if words were to have force it would be action at a distance.

I read the words and wanted to write something about them. — NOS4A2

Your wanting to write something about them is part of what it means for words to have force.

But none of this insinuates that the words made me do it. — NOS4A2

And yet you did respond. A drop of water has force. A torrent of water has force. But the force of one is not the same as the force of the other. You can resist the force of words, but that does not mean that they cannot be forceful.

I can only clarify what I mean as much as I can. The rest is up to you, but a little good faith might be in order. — NOS4A2

You have been extended far more than a little good faith! But no matter how often I point out the contradictions you either cannot see them or refuse to acknowledge them. You deny that words have meaning and yet claim that there is something you mean that you are clarifying with words.

So of course I have an opposing view. In my opinion the value of the work is not in its arguments and the resulting doctrines, but that it invites me to assess the arguments given and come to my own conclusions. The acquiescence of a budding tyrant like Glaucon ought to prompt a discerning reader to raise objections. — NOS4A2

By raising objections you are doing just what it is the guardians of one's soul must do! You are more in agreement than you know.

Why raise objections if words are nothing more than sounds and marks? Why use some sounds and marks to argue against the sounds and marks of others? The reason is because words are not just sounds and marks. The acquiescence of a budding tyrant like Glaucon has consequences. He is prompted to act, just as you are when you object. Despite your denial you admit the:

efficacy of words — NOS4A2

You do not know Plato well enough to know that nothing in the dialogue supports your claims.

Sure, that is also important. But I never said nor believe words were not important, and one should not assume, wrongly, that because words have no power that they are unimportant or that anyone is arguing such a thing. — NOS4A2

Again you skip over the issue - words have meaning. It is evident that words are important to you - as a form of auditory autoeroticism. You get off on hearing yourself talk.

No I’m only clarifying what I was trying to get at by using those words. — NOS4A2

If words do not have meaning then how can you expect to clarify what you are trying to say by using them?

If words do not have meaning then the sounds and symbols used are not important. They can be replaced arbitrarily by any other sounds and symbols.

Just more evidence that you are the agent of your own persuasion. — NOS4A2

You have it backwards. It is exactly the opposite. I am the agent of my own ability to guard against being persuaded by false arguments. In the passage you cited from the Republic, those who are to become guardians must be guarded against false arguments while they are young and do not yet have the agency to guard themselves. They will eventually become agents who guard against others having their true opinions taken away from them.

You believe what you want to. No amount of rhetoric can change it. — NOS4A2

Perhaps no one can change that you believes what you want, but certainly rhetoric can change what it is one wants to believe. It can persuade someone to want to believe that instead of this because that seems to be true and this does not.

Do you understand what Aristotle meant when he said that rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic? Although it can be used to steal away true opinion, it can also be used to secure true opinion. The noble lie is a good example of the latter.

I’m not so sure of that. — NOS4A2

If you care to understand it and are not just mining for statements that seem to support your claims, then you would do well to start by acknowledging that you do not understand.

At any rate, I was only pointing out the arguments Socrates was making, and they were wholly unpersuasive. — NOS4A2

So you do not find what you do not understand persuasive?!

I’ve never said words are not important. — NOS4A2

What you have said on several occasions is:

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B because I have not been able to witness this occur. No one has. No one has looked at a symbol and seen anything called “meaning”.

You quoted me but did not address the bolded statement:

On the one hand, you claim that the words are not important, that what is important is that the reader provides them with meaning.

It is your belief that the reader provides words with "some semblance of meaning", but when the reader (in this case me) provides those words with meaning you, you point to your words, to what you said, as if the words have a particular meaning established by the words themselves.

The argument is self-defeating. You use words in an attempt to persuade the reader that words are not persuasive. You put it in the form of a question:

Might it be the case that the listener has much more to say about his “true opinions” than the speaker ever could, and in the end, the listener is the agent of his own persuasion? — NOS4A2

The answer to that question is no. You have not persuaded me. And based on what others have said, you have not persuaded others either. Your argument is weak and incapable of persuading anyone who is able to evaluate it rationally.

This is just your latest and most likely not your last attempt to separate Trump from his responsibility for what he says.

Believing is the power of a believer, not words. — NOS4A2

You point to what you believe to be:

...the asymmetrical dynamics of the interactions Socrates has in mind. — NOS4A2

but do not understand what it is he has in mind. The founder of the noble lie does not believe his own lie. His power is not in his believing but in having others believing his story. The power lies in the story being persuasive, in the words being believed.

I said “Men are able to use argument in order to strip each other ‘unawares of their belief’”. — NOS4A2

It is a point of clarification. What you said is clear in so far as the words are there to be read, but given the syntax and use of quotation marks how those words might be understood is not so clear.

What we should not be unaware of is your belief that:

... the reader uses them. He comes upon them, examines them, understands them, and provides them with some semblance of meaning to suit his own purposes. — NOS4A2

Have you stolen that belief from yourself? On the one hand, you claim that the words are not important, that what is important is that the reader provides them with meaning. But on the other, it is not the meaning the reader gives to them but the words themselves, what you said, that is important.

By the way, there is good reason why the Loeb Classic Library replaced Shorey's translations of Plato.

Note here the asymmetrical dynamics of the interactions Socrates has in mind. — NOS4A2

If there is an asymmetry it is between someone who speaks persuasively about things that are not true and someone who is persuaded by false speech.

An early issue in the Republic is the ability to "make the weaker argument stronger". The stock-in trade of the sophist. Someone who is able to critically evaluate the argument will not be persuaded. Gorgias' words held not power over Socrates. The power of words is no match for the power of reason. But Gorgias was able to demonstrate that he had the power to part a fool and his money.

The power of the words [edit] comes from believing them to be true.

unawares of their belief” — NOS4A2

It is not that they are unaware of their beliefs. It is that they are unaware that their belief or opinions are being taken from them. Two reliable translations:

Horan "... takes something from them without their noticing"

Bloom "... takes away their opinions unawares."

Hegel says that within the development or self-movement of spirit the esoteric becomes exoteric. (Phenomenology of Spirit, Preface, 13) That is, what is at first only known to a few becomes in the completion of its development knowable to all.

Within the all-inclusive circle the implicit in consciousness becomes explicit for consciousness. Hegel gives the following analogy:

However much the embryo is indeed in itself a person, it is still not a person for itself; the embryo is a person for itself only as a culturally formed and educated rationality which has made itself into what it is in itself.

(21)

The embryo begins as something hidden. Through its self-movement it becomes something that is no longer hidden, something that stands out on its own.

This movement takes place in both directions. Science moves from what is outward or exoteric to what is internal and hidden or esoteric. And from what is esoteric or known to the few to what can be known by all.


Nietzsche points to:

The difference between the exoteric and the esoteric, formerly known to philosophers–among the Indians as among the Greeks, Persians, and Muslims — Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 30

What was once known to philosophers, but not to others, was in his own time no longer known even to philosophers. The reason for this that in these cultures:

... people believed in gradations of rank and NOT in equality and equal rights.

... the esoteric class views things FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS.

We may not be talking about the same thing. Philosophers have hidden their meaning not because it contains mystic knowledge but because they want to avoid censorship. Two examples: the trials of Socrates and Galileo.

Plato took seriously the accusation against philosophy by Aristophanes. He did not think it corrupts the youth but it certainly leads them to question the ancestral beliefs. As Aristophanes shows in his play The Clouds, in the wrong hands this can be harmful. Plato and other writers have no control over who reads their works. He wrote in such a way that only those who are thoughtful enough and can question the text in the right way will see what is between the lines and make connections that the casual reader will not.

The standard definition ... — Corvus

If by esoteric knowledge you mean knowledge that is hidden because it is being kept secret then if it is made public it would no longer be esoteric. But the definition you give also includes what is understood only by a small number of people. In that case it would remain hidden from us because it is beyond our abilities to comprehend it.

In any case, your question was about:

mystical knowledge — Corvus

There are mystery cults that keep their knowledge hidden from those who have not been initiated. The initiation might include texts and teachings, or intoxicants or other measures to induce altered states. When the mysteries are revealed then they are for the initiated no longer mysteries.

But Fooloso, wouldn't you agree if mystical knowledge is demonstrated, then it would be no longer a mystical knowledge? — Corvus

That would depend on what you mean by the term. As I understand it, it is knowledge gained through some kind of transcendent experience. It is known only to those who have had this experience. Some attempt to bring about this experience in one way or another by an altered state of consciousness. Others claim that it is something that happens to you without regard to what you do. Not ever having had such an experience I cannot evaluate it. I cannot say whether it reveals something about the world or human beings or the individual. I do not know to what extent it is an interpretation of what happens.

The term mystical is also used to mean what lies beyond both experience and explanation, that is to say, beyond knowledge. The arche of existence or that there is anything at all.

That bears directly upon the reference to generative power in the Republic — Paine

Good point. I should have pointed out that the question of generation (and decay) is what the passages I quoted from the Phaedo regarding Forms and causes are about.

The ambiguity of Mind/mind is that whether Socrates has shifted from Mind to mind or whether what his human mind does in making things intelligible is an imitation or likeness of what Mind does.

Does that mean that at least some of what you claim [the Buddhist claims] — Fooloso4

More to the point, you seem to accept that there is:

... insight into deeper levels of reality — javra

Unless I misunderstood you, you point to Buddhism in support of this claim.

I'm still only part-way through this book ... — Wayfarer

Perhaps sooner or later you will come across something that addresses what I am saying rather than correcting misunderstandings that someone else might make.

You have missed the point about universals and mind.

If you look into the various mystical religious movements - sufism, Zen, Vedanta, Christian Mysticism - you will find there is extensive literature, a recognised lineage of teachers, in short a framework within which these disciplines are transmitted and made meaningful. — Wayfarer

There are people who are attracted to this kind of thing. The hook is always that you have to buy into it and be committed to it. To assess it you must first accept it.

But this is what hermenuetics is - intepretation of ancient texts, — Wayfarer

There is a difference between the interpretation of a text and accepting its claims. The fact that similar stories come up in different places is not a good reason to accept the stories as true.

Also consider 'mythos' as indicative of stages in the development of consciousness e.g. Julian Jayne's Bicameral Mind ... — Wayfarer

Yes, I have considered that. I don't buy it. I think it shows a lack of understanding of mythos and a gross underestimation of the sophistication of its authors.

I think all of our readings are by default modern. We cannot escape being modern. It is our cave.
— Fooloso4

Socrates says that the free prisoner would think that the world outside the cave was superior to the world he experienced in the cave ... — Wayfarer

If you have escaped the cave then you would see things differently than us cave dwellers. I have not. I can only see things as I can from within the cave.

As a brief justification, this because no human can be omniscient, — javra

Does that mean that at least some of what you claim the Buddhist knows about reality that the rest of us do not know is not something known by the Buddhist after all?

Nothing in science is infallible or perfectly comprehensive — javra

Right, but science is self-corrective. When it becomes evident that a theory is problematic it is revises or replaced. That is a feature of science.

How can the question of whether there is sufficient justification that it might be when there is divergence with regard to what it might be?
— Fooloso4

See the above mentioned. — javra

Analogously: is there sufficient justification for the claims of Christianity? Since there are many and at least in some cases contradictory claims in order to answer that wouldn't you need to know which claims? Doesn't the same true of Buddhism?

This is, or at least can be, part and parcel of an outlook termed perennialism. — javra

One criticism of perennialism is that it tends to homogenize divergent claims.

dismiss the possibility in such a manner that one then claims irrational others who find the possibility viable. — javra

Where have I said that?

I find that it boils down to underlying suppositions of physicalism vs. non-physicalism. — javra

Speaking for myself, it boils down to whether there is sufficient evidence for me to accept extraordinary claims.

In Platonist philosophy, forms are causal only in the sense of serving as models or archetypes. — Wayfarer

See, for example, Socrates discussion of his "second sailing" (99d):

On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest; and whatever seems to me to be consonant with this, I put down as being true, both about cause and about all the rest, while what isn’t, I put down as not true ...

I am going to try to show you the kind of cause with which I have concerned myself. I turn back to those oft-mentioned things and proceed from them. I assume the existence of a Beautiful, itself by itself, of a Good and a Great and all the rest ...

Consider then, he said, whether you share my opinion as to what follows, for I think that, if there is anything beautiful besides the Beautiful itself, it is beautiful for no other reason than that it shares in that Beautiful, and I say so with everything. Do you agree to this sort of cause?

... I no longer understand or recognize those other sophisticated causes, and if someone tells me that a thing is beautiful because it has a bright color or shape or any such thing, I ignore these other reasons—for all these confuse me—but I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that I no longer understand or recognize those other sophisticated causes, and if someone tells me that a thing is beautiful because it has a bright color or shape or any such thing, I ignore these other reasons—for all these confuse me—but I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.” That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.

(99d-100e)

He goes on to admit that this this is inadequate and that material causes are needed as well, but this discussion is in response to Anaxagoras' claim that Mind is the cause of everything. There is some ambiguity. Socrates says:

I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best.

(97d)

Is Socrates referring to his own mind or the human mind of Mind. I might say universal Mind.

As mystical insight is experiential and first-person, the criteria for assessing it are different to those of mathematics and science, — Wayfarer

The problem is, how can we assess it?

But there is an abundant cross-cultural literature describing it, not that I expect many here to be interested in it. — Wayfarer

Such stories are weak evidence for anything real corresponding to them. Should we accept that there are Olympian or Egyptian gods?

But then, you're making ignorance the yardstick for how their claims are to be judged. — Wayfarer

I assume you do not accept every claim about things you do not know.