In the history of western 'thought', perhaps...


You obviously have no experience in any 'mystical practice'.
What gives you the notion that ignorance is a sufficient foundation for such an exclamation?
I consider the most fruitful and beautiful manifestation of ignorance might be a well considered question or two... the least so, declarative statements.

Greek philosophy is obsolete through lack of correlation with revealed reality.
It 'suffocated' (lack of 'truth') after (unfortunately) screwing western civilization.
After a couple of millennia, I say good riddance!

Plato was not interested in free and independent thought. He was a known consort of tyrants. He, like all of us, wanted to rule over all men and to be a god, but he lacked the courage to admit it.

You obviously have no experience in any 'mystical practice'...

jgweed;69467 wrote:

"Yet he stood with the rich who dailly buy and sell the poor... I must wonder..."

Everyone knows how much Plato (and others who actually new him) idolized Socrates. One finds it hard to believe that he would side with the kinds of people who found him guilty.

Well let's see... Maybe Socrates was like a mirror, and everyone who looked at him saw themselves... They all found justification for their own particular desires in life, so what good was he???If you stop at what they can pin on him, that knowledge is virtue, then there is no justification for doing anything, because no one will ever know enough to act knowing they do good.... As far as siding with those who killed Socrates; it was the democrats who did that, and he in his contempt for democracy lost ground in the penalty phase, and he knew it...He gave them the opportunity to act like essholes by being stiff necked, so it is difficult to say which side was the greater esses...Personally, in his own behavior he did little that was beyond reproach, but in his teaching he aimed contumely at the democracy...Okay; what if there was a better way of picking leaders than by a colored bean... Wasn't the correct approach to attack the power of fate in men's live's rather than attacking people???.The evidence for fate is so overwhelming that people are inclined to abandon themselves to it... It was certainly powerful among the Greeks... The Jews who have no faith in fate picked up the Greek blessing Mazzeltov: May your stars be favorable...People of Socrates' time could well see that traditional rights were their only protection from the avarice of the rich, and Socrates was by no means the worst of the anti democrats... The fact is, that while the Greeks were very aware of surrounding peoples, they could not see the remnants of gentile social organization in their own democracy... Since it did not protect people from extremes of wealth or poverty, nor bring forth the best rulers, it had from the perspective of both sides much to be desired...Instead of attacking the form they attacked each other...

Quote:

In some respects, all philosophers are creature of their own times. It seems difficult to condemn Plato for not having read Locke just as it seems difficult to condemn Jesus for not speaking out for gay rights or cruelty to animals.

You can read almost anything into Jesus, and that was one of his successes... Read as a philosopher, he is the equal of Socrates... The difference is that he could see through the form to the relationship, between people, and between man and God... And his remark about an ass in a well does illustrate a certain concern for life as well as property..It may well be that an ass alive is better help than an ass dead, and it could be that he was seeing through the form, that the law was made for man, and not man made for law.. The law and Jewish tradition shows a lot of respect for the life of animals, and they will be judged upon their treatment of animals...Socrates gave comfort to the rich and the oligarchs...They were kept from making war on each other by the form, but the rich held the form is nearly complete contempt, and the rich continued to feed on the poor until they sucked the vitality out of their society along with their ability to defend themselves...

Quote:

One of the fundamental, and untimely, positions of Plato is that Truth can be obtained by reason, even by a slave. That reason is common to all men and that anyone can arrive at the truth surely opened the way for subsequent doctrines of equality....

--
Yanhui, a pupil of Confucius, said "I have made some gain." Confucius asked, "What do you mean?" Yanhui replied, "I forgot virtue and justice." Confucius commented, "Good, but not enough." After some time, he said to Confucius again, "I made further gain." "What is it?" "I forgot civility and music." "Good, but still not enough." Several days later, he said to Confucius once more, "I have made an even greater gain." Confucius asked, "What is it?" Yanhui replied, "I reached 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Amazed Confucius asked, "What is 'Sitting in Oblivion'?" Yanhui answered, "It is forgetting hands, feet and body, forgetting the action of ears and eyes, leaving the distinction of form to discard wisdom and becoming one with Tao. This is 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Confucius praised, "When someone becomes one with Tao, there is no good nor evil. After undergoing transformation into becoming one with Tao, there is no attachment. Wise indeed. Now it is I who should be your follower instead."
--

The term "Oblivion" can be used in a meaningful, knowledgeable and respectful way. Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion and related eastern practices as he applied them to his Christian faith, and many other mystical practicioners have as well, for example the mystical work "The Cloud of Unknowning". There is no good reason to assume ignorance on Eudaimon's part. There is every reason to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if that's really true. The Republic would make you think so, but I've always wondered if he wrote it with some irony -- in other words, the irony that a morally perfect system would be absolutely repulsive.

What do academics think about it? Did he really believe that that would be an ideal society?

--
Yanhui, a pupil of Confucius, said "I have made some gain." Confucius asked, "What do you mean?" Yanhui replied, "I forgot virtue and justice." Confucius commented, "Good, but not enough." After some time, he said to Confucius again, "I made further gain." "What is it?" "I forgot civility and music." "Good, but still not enough." Several days later, he said to Confucius once more, "I have made an even greater gain." Confucius asked, "What is it?" Yanhui replied, "I reached 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Amazed Confucius asked, "What is 'Sitting in Oblivion'?" Yanhui answered, "It is forgetting hands, feet and body, forgetting the action of ears and eyes, leaving the distinction of form to discard wisdom and becoming one with Tao. This is 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Confucius praised, "When someone becomes one with Tao, there is no good nor evil. After undergoing transformation into becoming one with Tao, there is no attachment. Wise indeed. Now it is I who should be your follower instead."
--

The term "Oblivion" can be used in a meaningful, knowledgeable and respectful way. Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion and related eastern practices as he applied them to his Christian faith, and many other mystical practicioners have as well, for example the mystical work "The Cloud of Unknowning". There is no good reason to assume ignorance on Eudaimon's part. There is every reason to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion

He actually did associate with a Syracusan tyrant. This is not an inference from any dialogue, it is biographical information.

Don't generalize -- Plato was not interested in free and independent thought. He was a known consort of tyrants. He, like all of us, wanted to rule over all men and to be a god, but he lacked the courage to admit it.

Plato did not wish to rule, he turned down invitations to participate in governance extended by his friends and family (reference). He was disgusted by self serving and divisive politics.

Plato grew up with the terror and waste of civil war, and it seems most likely that his desire for harmony and order, stability, are expressed in The Republic not his desire for godhood but instead his desire to thrive and for his fellow citizens to thrive.

It was the context of his usage of the term that supported my assessment of his inexperience. My 'doubt' was sufficiently negligible that i posted as I did.
I would be very surprised if I am incorrect in my assumption.
Who engages in mystical practices, with 'oblivion' as a goal? None in 'my' experience.
'Oblivion', as in the above quote, is not 'nothingness', it is Consciousness, far from the common notion of 'oblivion'.
But you do make a point.
Thanx.

First of all, I did not express any personal opinion on mystical practice and that was said only to express the position of Soviet scientists.

I doubt that this thread is appropriate for discussion of mysticism, but I can say a few words on this. I shall not tell thee whether or not I have mystical experiences, and let us stop using them as an argument.

Why do we need new experiences at all, hast thou never thought of it?

Why do we need new sexual experience, mystical experience, transcendental experience, why are we going overseas to have new experiences? Is it not because our life has become so disgusting and miserable that we cannot be satisfied with common to every human being reason which Greek philosophy represented?

So we start seeking whom to believe (because generally we don't have this "experiences" from birth). Yet our choice of guru, our belief in him are always conditioned, predetermined by our past...

Plato did not wish to rule, he turned down invitations to participate in governance extended by his friends and family (reference). He was disgusted by self serving and divisive politics.

Plato grew up with the terror and waste of civil war, and it seems most likely that his desire for harmony and order, stability, are expressed in The Republic not his desire for godhood but instead his desire to thrive and for his fellow citizens to thrive.

"self serving and divisive politics" = democracy

He was disgusted by democracy and preferred rule by the few. This can be seen both theoretically in the rigid theocratic caste system proposed in the Republic and practically in his cozying up to tyranny.

If he had wanted his society to survive he would have bought more stock in Justice which no society can long survive without...Instead he took the side of the rich against the poor, and saw his society divided along that axis until they were ruined by war and invasion...People do it all the time...They want to be king of the crap hill, which is what kings are always, by being kings...If they chose to be good among good, or great among great, or honorable among honorable; where would be the problem???.. To have they must deny, and when they deny they add to the indignity of life until the poor will not make common cause with the rich even when they should... How are we being divide???..Have we learned a single lesson from the Greeks or Romans???

"self serving and divisive politics" = democracy

He was disgusted by democracy and preferred rule by the few. This can be seen both theoretically in the rigid theocratic caste system proposed in the Republic and practically in his cozying up to tyranny.

1.) I did not assert that he was a fan of democracy
2.) I do not disagree that his system was caste based
3.) I do not dispute that he was friendly with tyrants

None of these points address or impact the assertions in my post so I do not see how this is a response to something I said.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

Quote:

Do you assert that Plato did not want his own society to survive?

You cannot both want to change society and want it to survive unchanged...There are a lot of people who wave the flag and think America is the greatest who do not like what we are, what we stand for, their rights, or their next door neighbors... What does it matter what such people say since they do not tell the truth... The think patriotism is a virtue, so they play the part... Was Socrates, as Plato gives him to us pro Atherns, or pro Spartan....Did he respect the rights of the citizens??? i don't think so...Like so many; he held the common man in contempt... Why should the uneducated hold power in their lives...In our own land two hundred years after our revolution the poor are denied power because they are uneducated, and denied education because they have no power to demand it...

Quote:

Do you assert that Plato wanted to be King?

Yes; he advanced the idea of a meritocracy, thinking the intelligent should rule... But look at our meritocracies: The Catholic Church, and eighteenth and nineteenth century England....Could the intelligent really change the course of any form, or do they only get caught up in it??? It did not matter how many intelligent people the church added to their roles because the control the church had over them made them conform...The failure is in the idea of rule, that anyone can better decide for you what is in your interest...And as bad is the notion that only the individual should have control over his own affairs... Sure... Have all the freedom you want until it begins to affect others negatively, and then they have a say...

Quote:

Is this a disagreement with my post or about something else? If its a disagreement could you be more specific about where you felt I have gone wrong?

If he had wanted his society to survive...

You cannot both want to change society and want it to survive unchanged...

1.) I did not assert that he was a fan of democracy
2.) I do not disagree that his system was caste based
3.) I do not dispute that he was friendly with tyrants

None of these points address or impact the assertions in my post so I do not see how this is a response to something I said.

You said that Plato did not wish to rule. This is not true. He did wish to rule. He wanted to set forth a system in which a few people command and control most people and he tried to make friends with the kind of people who presumably would have been at the top. The fact that he didn't try to make it to the top himself is irrelevant, as he was a sniveling coward who obviously wouldn't have had the courage to attain his own desires.

He visions of totalitarian grandeur and he was a friend of tyrants. What else would it take to prove that he wanted to rule?

I am unaware of this aspect of Plato/Socrates life.
Can you please show what "tyrants" you are talking about and in what context you feel Plato/Socrates supported them and befriended them. I would like to get clear on this.

Thanks

I am unaware of this aspect of Plato/Socrates life.
Can you please show what "tyrants" you are talking about and in what context you feel Plato/Socrates supported them and befriended them. I would like to get clear on this.

He was not a bad man... He was little more than a blind man, but his intent was never bad, and it is unlikely that good would have come out of his plan, knowing what we now know...