And the best philosopher is a dead philosopher, eh?

https://vaers.hhs.gov/ — Isaac

You're lucky to have at least that. Where I live, one is on one's own. It takes one doctor to diagnose covid by symptoms, or a covid death by symptoms (no test and no autopsy required), but a medical board must convene before they even consider that something could be the side effect of a covid vaccine. You could die from the damn thing, and it still wouldn't be counted among "serious negative side effects of the covid vaccine".

How can person A be giving an account of something that is true yet be a liar simultaneously? — Benj96

By 1. not knowing that it is true, and 2. by speaking with the intention to deceive.

It's the intention to deceive that makes something a lie.

An unusual position... — Isaac

Not at all. Issues of social psychology need to be taken into account. In times of crisis, people tend to give up critical thinking. It's not clear for how many people this applies, but some of those for whom it does apply are extremely vocal and influential. Resisting those people can result in short-term and long-term harm for the resisters.

There are also issues of the placebo effect, en masse: If enough people have enough faith in the covid vaccines, the covid vaccines can, in effect, be more safe and more effective than they would be without that faith.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well?

As has been a theme here, it's a very good public policy bet that mass vaccination will reduce transmission. This doesn't translate into a moral claim that one ought to get vaccinated because an individual has other options which (as current evidence stands) are equally efficacious given known factors of their personal circumstances. — Isaac

These other options are becoming increasingly obsolete, as there is an ever greater need for covid passes, so the trend is to make vaccination something one does in order to get a covid pass. Vaccination is becoming an administrative/bureocratic measure.

And I hate Trump and all who support him. — James Riley

You would be far more convicing if you wouldn't behave exactly like a Trumpista.

And you're just providing yet more evidence for God being a Trumpista.

So, since a person has options as to how they might meet their moral obligations other than by vaccination, I don't see any moral imperative to get vaccinated. I do see a moral imperative to do something to absolve both those duties, but it's not yet demonstrated that that something has to be vaccination. — Isaac

When there is a social stampede, it is one's moral obligation to run with it, even if one sees that the stampede is heading toward a cliff ...

Love, however, can justify hatred. — James Riley

Brilliant. You hate me out of love.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

And I still won't defend things you merely imagine I said or defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

You don't even care enough to hate me for the things I said. You hate me for the things you imagine I said.
Now that's righteousness! That's what God loves!!!!!

No, no, I want to see it from your point of view. — TheMadFool

Then you'd need to give up anekantavada.

That's why I want to know what your assumptions are.

That anekantavada is a non-viable outlook on life, given that one who practices it will be crushed by other people.

And what is the place of women in all this?
— baker

That would depend on what you mean by that question. — Apollodorus

It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks held a dim view of women.

Personally, I resent the prospect of taking up the study of Platonism, only to discover later on that people like me are by default disqualified from any higher knowledge.

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. Plotinus, for example, is not considered as mentally deficient.

If it has the opposite effect, and it impairs you mental faculties, then it is not spiritual advancement. This is why Platonists like Plotinus learned Platonism from a teacher and had his own school. — Apollodorus

Think in terms of surviving in the modern economy and society at large. Here, critical thinking is mostly a hindrance, and goodness (as understood in humanism) is considered naive.
An argument can be made that a person is far better off in life if they think in superficial slogans, soundbites, black and white terms.

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. — Apollodorus

But enhance them in what way? You're getting into dangerous territory here, the land of "I do yoga in order to improve my business skills".

On this point, Early Buddhism says that all of one's practice is supposed to be done for the purpose of the complete cessation of suffering.

But in Platonism, the goal is what? Seeing God, the One? It seems rather intangible, in comparison to what Early Buddhism promises.

And, in fact, people do experience various degrees of happiness when they practice contemplation or meditation. This is an undeniable fact. So, I can see no reason why people should get attacked for practicing theoria, dhyana, or whatever you want to call it, if they choose to.

On what grounds should philosophy prohibit contemplation and declare it antithetical to philosophy?

It's not clear where this is coming from.

The Buddha in the story did not follow up: " "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one" with "while you are an ignorant clod whose proximity to the temple of the only Truth is a stench in the nostrils of the Creator." — Valentinus

Well, he didn't follow up with that there on the spot, but he elsewhere made very disparaging remarks about people (and that's putting it mildly).

Do you think that because so many religious and other preachers make a point of airing their contempt for other people, this means that a response other than shaking one's head and going one's way is called for?

For Plato,
/.../
But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't make an effort. By definition, the Platonic philosopher is one who loves knowledge and wisdom and actively seeks after it. And as the saying goes, "seek and you shall find" .... :smile: — Apollodorus

And what is the place of women in all this?

Power is a problem only when it is misused. This is why it is important for all philosophers, beginners and experienced, to place themselves in the proper power context vis-a-vis one another.

This is why, traditionally, the cultivation of virtues is a preparatory stage to philosophy proper. — Apollodorus

Okay.

Hatred justifies everything, doesn't it.

See, you're not practicing anekantavada.
Q.E.D.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci — James Riley

Neither do I.

The only valid proof is personal experience and this may well be subjective and distinct from other people's. This doesn't necessarily mean it's just imagination. — Apollodorus

When you put it this way, spiritual advancement is sometimes indistinguishable from mental illness. This is cause for alarm.

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.
What a bizarre claim!!
— baker

Why is that so bizarre?

Remember, they sentenced Socrates to death for failing to live up to the religious standards of their jurisdiction.

It is a matter of his rude disregard and intolerance for views on Plato that differ from his own. — Fooloso4

Oh. This seems rather mutual.

Plato bridged the gap between the religion of the masses and the philosophy of the intellectual elite. This is what his theology does. It offers the less spiritually advanced a path to higher intellectual and spiritual experience. — Apollodorus

But he never walked that path himself, did he?

This is crucial, because if he never did what he instructs others to do, then on the grounds of what should we trust him and his advice?

But can atheists do it in a way that will have the same positive, life-affirming results as when religious people contemplate the Forms?
My personal experience is, they can't. Without that religious foundation that had to be internalized before one's critical thinking abilities developed, contemplation of "metaphysical realities" doesn't amount to anything.
— baker

Not religious but moral and intellectual foundation.

But can a person have this moral and intellectual foundation without first being religious?

/.../ If the philosopher is intellectually and spiritually not ready, then they must revert to the preparatory practices, otherwise they are wasting their time.

Indeed. But can one do those preparatory practices outside of religon?

It's amazing how light we can make of life and death ...

The phrase “upward way”, ano odos, indicates that Platonism is a process of vertical progress that takes the philosopher through a hierarchy of realities ranging from the human experience to ultimate truth, and that the means of entering it are righteousness (dikaiosyne) and wisdom (phronesis}, i.e., ethical conduct and spiritual insight. — Apollodorus

There's a similarity to this in Early Buddhism: In Early Buddhism, the basic prongs of the practice are sila, panna, samadhi (morality, wisdom, concentration).

However, if we encounter Gods or other metaphysical entities on our way to the highest, we will know this as and when it happens.

A similar sentiment can be found in Early Buddhism regarding the efficacy of the practice.

Plato has a hierarchy of divine entities consisting in ascending order of (1) Olympic Gods, (2) Cosmic Gods, and (3) Creator God who is the Good or the One. The One is the unfathomable and indescribable Ultimate Reality, and the goal on which the philosopher must fix his mind.

All we need to know about the One is that it has two aspects, one in which it looks as it were “inward” and has no other experience than itself, and one in which it looks “outward” and sees the Cosmos which is the One’s own creation.

A similarity to this can be found in Hinduism. A hierarchy of gods, the notion of a Supreme Deity (I'm a bit rusty on this by now).

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.

What a bizarre claim!!

For example, starting with the astronomical facts, if you are facing north, you have the Sky above and the Earth below, the setting Moon in the west is to your left and the Sun rising in the east is to your right. By picturing that arrangement in your mind, you organize your inner world, and put yourself in touch with a larger reality. The simple acknowledgement of Sky, Earth, Moon, and Sun, already has a psychological and spiritual effect on your psyche.

Yes, similar can be found in Early Buddhism (e.g.).
Further: frames of reference.

In Jungian terms, you may create a mental mandala consisting of an outer circle described by the twelve Olympic Gods representing the heavens with the twelve houses of the zodiac and twelve months of the year. Inscribed in the outer circle, you visualize a square with Sky, Earth, Sun, and Moon on its four sides. Inside the square, you visualize the ocean with the Island of Paradise (the Island of the Blessed) in the center, and think of yourself as being there.

I do not recall hearing about such a thing in any Dharmic religion that I know of, though.

The point I am making is that contemplating the Forms, e.g. the Good or the One, is an essential element of Platonism and Socrates repeatedly speaks of the need for the soul to look at intelligible or metaphysical realities “alone on its own” whilst turning away from the world of appearance (Phaedo 79d). But this is something that actually transcends religion. It is a highly flexible and adaptable procedure that can be practiced by anyone, including atheists and Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims or Jews, and using cultural elements from any tradition.

Similar can be heard from, say, the Hare Krishnas. I see no point in trying to go into who borrowed (or stole) whose ideas. I also think that the similarities could possibly be only superficial and overrated, and not some kind of evidence that the process is true/real.

The problem appears to be the same as with some other religious martyrs.
If someone is so sure that things are exactly as they should be and that nothing happens without God's will -- then what exactly is going on??

That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
— baker

Yeah, I think curiosity about matters of life and death is lame too. — Tom Storm

The issue was mere curiosity.

Matters of life and death, given that they are matters of life and death, should be approached with the according earnestness, as opposed to treating them as a mere hobby.

You did not list simply disagreeing with the interpretation.
Assuming that criticism is only a result of a bad reaction to a manifestly true account is the rhetoric of an apologist, not of a critical thinker who judges for herself. — Valentinus

The question was how come some people are bothered by Platonism (their extensive critical communications on the topic being evidence of being thusly bothered).

If they are simply disagreeing with the interpretation, why the extensive communication?

I am continually reminded of the story from the Buddha's first encounter with another person after he attained enlightenment. Namely, so the story, after he attained enlightenment, the Buddha wanted to tell people about it. So he told the first person he met on the road, "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one." The man shook his head, said, "May it be so" and went his way.

What I want to know is this: How come more people aren't like this man?

Curiosity. Something to do. The idea galvanises so many wars and conflicts and animates so many internecine feuds, even on these virtual pages. How could one not be intrigued? — Tom Storm

That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
As it is, you appear to rest comfortably in the idea that God is a mere paper tiger.

Are you a theist? I forget.

I believe that if God exists, he is a Trumpista, a Social Darwinist. I guess this makes me a resentful prospective theist.

Are we living in an age of mediocrity?

Clearly not. This age is well below the mean. — Banno

Yay!

I read Christian literature because I was raised with it and I enjoy atheism more the more I understand the true place of Christianity. — Gregory

Indeed, coming to terms with one's past can be a reason to read the Bible (if one was raised Christian).

Can we say than the the Bible can only give us something subjective? — Gregory

That would make it rather useless.

I try to be aware of the various interpretations people hold. — Tom Storm

Why? To what end?

Interesting how?

Unless we're talking about a simple curiosity (or more like: attempts to relieve one's existential boredom), the pull one feels toward an acient text surely has something to do with the historical reception and influence of said text.
— baker

The Bible is not just a religious text. It is linked to ethics, literature, anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies. The Bible is also a huge topic for Philosophy of Religion. Some books in the Bible such as Psalms and Job has huge significance in Literature, and people read and study them for the literal merits. — Corvus

But there is more!

Whence the significance of the Bible?
Why the assumption that there is something powerful about the text itself?

There is no restrictions saying, only the religious people must read the Bible.

The question was, why do the non-religious read it.

One's interests can be further analyzed, and I think this is the relevant aspect of reading ancient texts.

Oh. A hobby, then, with no real life application?

It's well known that when people face adversity together it can bring them together. — Janus

Hatred and contempt bind people closer together than love, indeed.

In any case I was taking with your generalising human nature by implying that everyone is primarily motivated by self-interest,

That is your inference, not my implication.

I wasn't generalizing human nature. I'm saying that the people who do as described above (from aggressive drivers to employers who have their employees work in unsafe conditions) often happen to be the same people who are enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine. When a person proves, with their behavior, that they do not care about others, it's hard to believe that they got vaccinated out of concern for others.

Mr. Riley and Mr. Wood, for example, certainly didn't get vaccinated out of concern for me. They don't even care enough to actually read what I say; they don't care enough to check whether the hatred and the contempt they have for me is in fact over something I actually said.

That some vaccinated people, due to breakthrough infection, are spreading covid is undeniable. That they are superspreaders has not been established. That said I think even the vaccinated should be adhering to the normal protocols designed to minimise transmission as long as there is covid in the community.

Like I said:

In fact, they are superspreaders, given the freedoms they have. — baker

That said I think even the vaccinated should be adhering to the normal protocols designed to minimise transmission as long as there is covid in the community.

But they don't. In fact, the whole idea of covid vaccination is that one can "go back to normal" once vaccinated.

He is certainly not avoiding persecution by not going into exile, which would have been a way of avoiding it. But can we say Socrates is not hiding something?
— Leghorn

That's the big question. If he is hiding something, what exactly is it that he is hiding?

And, if he is not afraid of prosecution, why hide anything? — Apollodorus

Viewing him as a martyr makes sense of his trial and death sentence.

Then why bother with the God concept at all?

Someone who uses this line of reasoning needs to show a necessary causal link between omnibenevolence (being all loving) and the removal/prevention of suffering. — Ghost Light

Indeed. But there appears to be no such causal link.

Other than perhaps -- "God lets us suffer because he wants us to be happy."

Cool. Coherent but unlikely.

For me if God is the jealous, dictatorial, error-prone fuck-knuckle he appears to be in the Old Testament, then we should blow a raspberry in his direction. — Tom Storm

This is what God loves and rewards:

I think you are worthless. — James Riley

I'm not willing to pay any of your bills. If you don't social distance, don't mask and don't vax, and if you get sick and go to the hospital and take up a bed that my wife or kid or me need for covid or some other reason, I will not only not pay your bills, but I'll rip the vent out of your mouth and dump your worthless carcass out the window and tell the Hippocratic Oath doc to forget your ass and get to work on me or mine. — James Riley

:100: — tim wood

Regarding the rest of your post, it's not worth my time. It's stupid Faux News, Tucker Carlsonesque BS. — James Riley

It's because right-wingers are doing so good in life that one should believe in God, _their_ God. They always win.

then we should blow a raspberry in his direction. — Tom Storm

And how is that supposed to help you?

Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR.
— baker

How did you come to be such an authority on the motivations of others? — Janus

You think people change just like that, over night? Because of a pandemic?

we're supposed to believe that, for example, people who drive aggressively, who tailgate, cut in front, run others off the road etc. suddenly become paragons of compassion and empathy when a pandemic strikes? That men who refuse to wear condoms and who routinely risk the health and life of their female sex partners suddenly grew a conscience? Employers who have their workers work in unsafe conditions now suddenly "care about others"? Really? — baker

And don't forget that the fully vaccinated are still spreading the disease. In fact, they are superspreaders, given the freedoms they have.

That's right. Hatred and contempt are the noblest emotions of all.

Vote for Trump!

We are at the mercy of the free will of fools. Act accordingly. — Cheshire

See, you're just looking for a scapegoat. Instead of acknowledging the complexity of the situation, you opt for a simplistic outlook which makes it okay for you too see the world in black and white terms, making it easy to point fingers and to bask in righteous indignation.

The pleasure you get from despising those who aren't enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine is so intoxicating, isn't it.