Fooloso4 wrote:Fooloso4 wrote:Nick_A:If the issue was simply that it seems illogical that would not be sufficient to call it a myth. It would simply be something in Plato that seems illogical. I call it a myth because that is what is most consistent with the texts in which it is told, the corpus, and the work of the best contemporary scholars. Plato’s myths have meaning, and as with everything in Plato that meaning functions on different levels.You insist anamnesis is a myth because it seems illogical to you.
This perfectly illustrates a point I have made to you several times. You bring something to the text and thus can only see in the text what you bring to it. You look to Plato not in order to understand the dialogues but for confirmation of what you believe.It wouldn’t make any sense for the conscious truths of Christianity should be invented at a particular time and place.
I do not think that reading Plato offers a path to truth. The dialogues are not revealed religion. Rather than an external process of reason I attempt to follow the paths of reason that Plato opens to the careful reader.You offer the comparison of facts through the external process of reason as the ultimate path to truth.
So why is there no talk of remembrance in the Theaetetus, the dialogue about knowledge?That is fine but the knowledge Plato refers to appears through remembrance.
I prefer not to bring assumptions to the reading of a text, you prefer to impose your assumptions on it. You also prefer to ignore both the texts and questions about the text that challenge your assumptions.You prefer to deny and I prefer opening to conscious experience.
If you paid attention to what I have actually said it would be clear that the Platonic texts must be read in a certain way, a way that Plato shows us in the Phaedrus.You wanted Socrates to speak as though reciting a text on chemistry and Plato writes in such a way forcing a person to bypass dualistic reason and open to the conscious experience of anamnesis.
Plato does not "bypass" reason, he makes us aware of the limits of reason. So, where do we go from there? One option is, as Socrates says in the Phaedo, to calm childish fears with stories. But while some of his followers gladly take refuge, those who seek truth rather than comfort or assurances are not lulled to sleep. The myth of remembering does not cause them to forget Socrates human wisdom. These stories are not of things known. Sleep well.
Yes, you limit yourself to dualistic reason. But suppose Plato was right when he wrote:I do not think that reading Plato offers a path to truth. The dialogues are not revealed religion. Rather than an external process of reason I attempt to follow the paths of reason that Plato opens to the careful reader.
You accept only dualistic associative thought and deny anamnesis which is a higher quality of intellect becyond the scope of dualism."If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus
I agree completely People deny the quality of reason that produces science because they think it opposes religious thought. This is a harmful mistake.Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. ~ Simone Weil
This appears as a contradiction for you since there is nothing higher for you than dualistic thought. Yet Simone is just expressing the same idea Plato did. Experiencing objective values requires remembrance of what is already known.The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil
How is it that one slender young woman with a complete dedication to impartial truth becomes open to what so many inhabiting modern public education deny? I don't know, but during these times the deniers are winning and the students are losing through celebrated secular ignorance.
-- Updated Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:54 pm to add the following --
If you prefer we could discuss what makes for the ideal female behind from an aesthetic perspective.Fooloso4 wrote:Nick_A:
This is too funny. You claim to be capable of remembering what you learned when you were dead, but can’t remember that we have had this discussion on this site, and you posted the same link. It went like this: you showed disdain for secular education, secular society, and experts with frequent to Weil, the cave, and your other favorite themes. In other words, the discussion was no different than any other discussion you participate in, including this one.... if you and some others are willing to discuss the purpose of education it would be a first on this site.