Ancient Philosophy

[Meem]

Sometimes, I wonder ... about ancient philosophy. One thing I wonder about is, Socrates and Plato. I wonder if Socrates in the man that Plato writes about "purely," or if Plato put elements of himself into his portrayal of Socrates? How can one know what the "truth" is without being there to see it for them-self? Do you believe everything that you read? I don't know, from what I gathered from my philosophy teacher ... it seems there is a "gray-area" in this matter, but I wonder is there, or is there not? Was Plato the only one who saw Socrates for who he was, did he elaborate at all?

One of the concepts that I was thinking about before I sat down, was concept mentioned in The Republic of Plato. "True Philosophers as Kings," what does that really mean? Would a true philosopher even want to be King? It seems that all of the "kings" in today's world are more concerned with ... something else other than true philosophy. True philosophy is not material, it is the un-material which relates to the material? The "never-matter/mind" which "matters" and minds? "Of Mice and Men," everything seems to be a rat race. Money, power, clothes, kids, education, science, love, hate, war, sex, truth, lies, games, planes, computers, video games ... whomever can do it best, the fastest, the cheapest, and make the most money wins?

Whatever happened to the tale of the tortoise and the hare? Slow and steady wins the race? What race? Who are we racing/erasing? Is a leader a king, or a king a leader? I've heard this expression before, and I am sure someone else has too. "The right man to be president will never be president." Is that true, and why? I should go to bed and get some rest.

I was also thinking today, to rest the mind it seems we need to work the body, and to rest the body it seems we need to work the mind. Too much on your mind, go fly a kite, talk a hike, ride a bike, float a boat, plant a tree, flower your garden? Are you tired but cannot sleep, read a book, write a book, watch a movie, call someone, go see them or have them come see you, talk, sing, eat, drink, be merry, play a game, pluck a guitar, look at the stars ... see how small they are and how big you are?

But remember, anything worth (good) doing isn't always easily done. Sometimes there is hard work that needs to be done. There is no way out, because "it isn't easy being cheesy?" "If you can't say nothing nice, don't say nothing at all?" All good things come in moderation? Is there no place for "old sayings" in a "new world?"

Should I wipe my memory clean and start all over again at the first "sign" of "trouble?" Is there ever a time to lay down and die or stand up and fight? Does it have to be done litterally of physically? So many questions, are there as many answers?

[Weir]

Quote:

"Sometimes, I wonder ... about ancient philosophy. One thing I wonder about is, Socrates and Plato. I wonder if Socrates in the man that Plato writes about "purely," or if Plato put elements of himself into his portrayal of Socrates? How can one know what the "truth" is without being there to see it for them-self? Do you believe everything that you read? I don't know, from what I gathered from my philosophy teacher ... it seems there is a "gray-area" in this matter, but I wonder is there, or is there not? Was Plato the only one who saw Socrates for who he was, did he elaborate at all?"

Socrates and Plato were both influenced by Parmenedes. In the fragments of his poem that come down to us Parmenedes talked of the way of seeming and the way of truth. The former concerned our transient sensory experience of the physical world. The way of truth concerned a holistic experience of universal truth as a boundless whole. Anaximander also talked of the boundless from which physical creation derives.

At some point in Plato's dialogues the characteristic arguementative check-mating became replaced by the exposition of his Theory of Forms. This theory defined particulars in relation to archetypal universals. They were mutually defined by there mutual relationship in the way that a particular leaf is identified by an archetypal pattern common to all leaves that transcends physical creation. The universal archetype can not physically exist as a thing in itself even though it is real. All cars for example conform to a common archetypal idea or plan. We may be able to represent the plan on paper but the plan is not a car. Many cars may come and go over time but the archetype has holistic characteristics that are timeless.

By extension this applies to the whole of creation. There is a timeless reality that is boundless and timeless that can be known directly in personal experience. See the website article "A Cosmic Insight" at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. The sudden shift in Plato's dialogues may well have come from a cosmic insight.

[Meem]

Something ... like this?

http://www.toequest.com/forum/philos...2-parable.html

[Weir]

Something ... like this?

http://www.toequest.com/forum/philos...2-parable.html

Knowing something directly in phenomenal experience is very different from believing something formulated in words. The shadows in the cave are the beliefs constructed in language.