Higher and Lower Reason

[Nick_A]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

[JackDaydream]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

The interplay between the lower and higher aspects of reason is not a simple one, because even though human beings are different from animals they are sentient beings. Carl Jung suggested that Christianity had an emphasis on perfection, with the idea of the lower self being seen as inferior. This led to a form of suppression and repression of certain characteristics, linked to the build up of the shadow. It was a war against nature and he saw this particularly in the form of wishing to fight evil within the psyche and in the real world. He saw this as inherent in the development of nuclear weapons and the scenarios of wars to eliminate evil.

In everyday life living and working with the various aspects of human nature is one which involves the various dimensions of the person, as expressed in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Human beings have needs ranging from the physical, social and ones of self actualization and what may be important is some kind of balance, especially in a holistic understanding of what it means to be human.

[Nick_A]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

The interplay between the lower and higher aspects of reason is not a simple one, because even though human beings are different from animals they are sentient beings. Carl Jung suggested that Christianity had an emphasis on perfection, with the idea of the lower self being seen as inferior. This led to a form of suppression and repression of certain characteristics, linked to the build up of the shadow. It was a war against nature and he saw this particularly in the form of wishing to fight evil within the psyche and in the real world. He saw this as inherent in the development of nuclear weapons and the scenarios of wars to eliminate evil.

In everyday life living and working with the various aspects of human nature is one which involves the various dimensions of the person, as expressed in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Human beings have needs ranging from the physical, social and ones of self actualization and what may be important is some kind of balance, especially in a holistic understanding of what it means to be human.

Hi Jack

The idea for the thread is based on Platonic Christianity rather then man made interpretations of Christianity called Christendom. From this perspective, man is dual natured. The higher part of the collective human soul is immortal and originates from above. Higher reason beginning with awareness of its creator and the relationship between the forms and the variety of their expressions in the world.

In contrast lower reason initiates from below or the animal world. Obviously many mistakes happen because lower reason cannot understand what higher reason already knows.

Its not that lower reason evil it is just that it has become corrupted. Where balanced man would be governed by higher reason, the result of fallen man and what is known as the human condition, has the collective soul governed by lower reason. Plato suggest that that healing the human condition requires inwardly turning towards the light with the whole of themselves so as to become normal and be governed by higher reason.

A lot of this is hard to understand so I'll link to an article on Plato's chariot allegory. If you or anyone else wants to discuss it I'm open to it.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/characte ... e-chariot/

[Sculptor1]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

You are standing your question on a false assumption. It is forever reason that sleeps and sometimes awakens.
We always have "direct apprehension" at all times and it is not forgotten. In fact is drives all - including reason. "The Passions" as Hume would have said lie at the heart of everything. Technology exploits it with algorithms to keep us pressing those buttons and buying stuff we do not need.
And no, Christianity has always, also pandered to our lower reason, by cashing in on our fears of death and punishment. It is in that sense a technology of power no less that the hidden programs behind Goggle, and TicToc that keep us clicking. Christianity is divisive at heart. It divides us from people of other religions and divides us from our higher reasonable selves.

[Belindi]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

You are standing your question on a false assumption. It is forever reason that sleeps and sometimes awakens.
We always have "direct apprehension" at all times and it is not forgotten. In fact is drives all - including reason. "The Passions" as Hume would have said lie at the heart of everything. Technology exploits it with algorithms to keep us pressing those buttons and buying stuff we do not need.
And no, Christianity has always, also pandered to our lower reason, by cashing in on our fears of death and punishment. It is in that sense a technology of power no less that the hidden programs behind Goggle, and TicToc that keep us clicking. Christianity is divisive at heart. It divides us from people of other religions and divides us from our higher reasonable selves.

It's true that Christian politics promote sins, supernatural punishment for sins, and moral and ritual codes for saving persons from sin. The whole guilt/salvation scenario is for social control by an elite over the common people. To rule by terror is expensive and seldom feasible, so control of the peoples' minds is much less expensive and has historically proved to be entirely feasible.

The parables attributed to Jesus include the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This important parable is the very opposite of divisive. If Christianity is taken necessarily to include universalising charity then Xianity is not divisive.

[Sculptor1]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

You are standing your question on a false assumption. It is forever reason that sleeps and sometimes awakens.
We always have "direct apprehension" at all times and it is not forgotten. In fact is drives all - including reason. "The Passions" as Hume would have said lie at the heart of everything. Technology exploits it with algorithms to keep us pressing those buttons and buying stuff we do not need.
And no, Christianity has always, also pandered to our lower reason, by cashing in on our fears of death and punishment. It is in that sense a technology of power no less that the hidden programs behind Goggle, and TicToc that keep us clicking. Christianity is divisive at heart. It divides us from people of other religions and divides us from our higher reasonable selves.

It's true that Christian politics promote sins, supernatural punishment for sins, and moral and ritual codes for saving persons from sin. The whole guilt/salvation scenario is for social control by an elite over the common people. To rule by terror is expensive and seldom feasible, so control of the peoples' minds is much less expensive and has historically proved to be entirely feasible.

The parables attributed to Jesus include the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This important parable is the very opposite of divisive. If Christianity is taken necessarily to include universalising charity then Xianity is not divisive.

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

[Nick_A]

Sculptor

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

The essence of Christianity descended from above or from higher consciousness is unique. Christendom are the varieties of man made interpretations ascending from below. They become mixed over time and lose their awakening potential. Until we see this distinction, the purpose of the allegory of the cave and the purpose of Christianity (not Christendom) are lost to the endless battles between opinions.

[Belindi]

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:



Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to remember direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

You are standing your question on a false assumption. It is forever reason that sleeps and sometimes awakens.
We always have "direct apprehension" at all times and it is not forgotten. In fact is drives all - including reason. "The Passions" as Hume would have said lie at the heart of everything. Technology exploits it with algorithms to keep us pressing those buttons and buying stuff we do not need.
And no, Christianity has always, also pandered to our lower reason, by cashing in on our fears of death and punishment. It is in that sense a technology of power no less that the hidden programs behind Goggle, and TicToc that keep us clicking. Christianity is divisive at heart. It divides us from people of other religions and divides us from our higher reasonable selves.

It's true that Christian politics promote sins, supernatural punishment for sins, and moral and ritual codes for saving persons from sin. The whole guilt/salvation scenario is for social control by an elite over the common people. To rule by terror is expensive and seldom feasible, so control of the peoples' minds is much less expensive and has historically proved to be entirely feasible.

The parables attributed to Jesus include the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This important parable is the very opposite of divisive. If Christianity is taken necessarily to include universalising charity then Xianity is not divisive.

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

Politically, Xianity has been a force for imperialism not division. Beginning with Constantine and ending with the British Empire, Xianity has been a force for binding people together in common polities, and this goes for Roamn Catholicism and for Protestantism . Islam is similar in its political binding .
force. Unlike Xianity, Islam is open about its political motivation.

Working people's breakaway Protestant sects like the Primitive Methodists and the Quakers bound together special interest groups such as people who wanted democratic control over their worship, or who wanted freedom from imposed rituals and traditional decor.

I know what you mean, Sculptor. It's sectarianism that's divisive. I guess sectarianism gained in proportion as established religion declined.The founding father of America were deists and so Americans were free to invent any number of daft sects.

[Sculptor1]

You are standing your question on a false assumption. It is forever reason that sleeps and sometimes awakens.
We always have "direct apprehension" at all times and it is not forgotten. In fact is drives all - including reason. "The Passions" as Hume would have said lie at the heart of everything. Technology exploits it with algorithms to keep us pressing those buttons and buying stuff we do not need.
And no, Christianity has always, also pandered to our lower reason, by cashing in on our fears of death and punishment. It is in that sense a technology of power no less that the hidden programs behind Goggle, and TicToc that keep us clicking. Christianity is divisive at heart. It divides us from people of other religions and divides us from our higher reasonable selves.

It's true that Christian politics promote sins, supernatural punishment for sins, and moral and ritual codes for saving persons from sin. The whole guilt/salvation scenario is for social control by an elite over the common people. To rule by terror is expensive and seldom feasible, so control of the peoples' minds is much less expensive and has historically proved to be entirely feasible.

The parables attributed to Jesus include the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This important parable is the very opposite of divisive. If Christianity is taken necessarily to include universalising charity then Xianity is not divisive.

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

Politically, Xianity has been a force for imperialism not division.

Sorry I have to stop you right there, because I need to get my breath back from laughing so much.
Consider Partition of India.
The plight of indigenous peoples all over the world whose culture and population has been devastated.
Imperialism is a means of DIVIDING people from their sovereignty, culture, religion.
I did not read the rest of what you typed.

[Belindi]

It's true that Christian politics promote sins, supernatural punishment for sins, and moral and ritual codes for saving persons from sin. The whole guilt/salvation scenario is for social control by an elite over the common people. To rule by terror is expensive and seldom feasible, so control of the peoples' minds is much less expensive and has historically proved to be entirely feasible.

The parables attributed to Jesus include the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This important parable is the very opposite of divisive. If Christianity is taken necessarily to include universalising charity then Xianity is not divisive.

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

Politically, Xianity has been a force for imperialism not division.

Sorry I have to stop you right there, because I need to get my breath back from laughing so much.
Consider Partition of India.
The plight of indigenous peoples all over the world whose culture and population has been devastated.
Imperialism is a means of DIVIDING people from their sovereignty, culture, religion.
I did not read the rest of what you typed.

Yes, imperialists are aggressive and usually violent in the ways they colonise and often in the ways they govern. But govern they do.

[Nick_A]

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

Politically, Xianity has been a force for imperialism not division.

Sorry I have to stop you right there, because I need to get my breath back from laughing so much.
Consider Partition of India.
The plight of indigenous peoples all over the world whose culture and population has been devastated.
Imperialism is a means of DIVIDING people from their sovereignty, culture, religion.
I did not read the rest of what you typed.

Yes, imperialists are aggressive and usually violent in the ways they colonise and often in the ways they govern. But govern they do.

I don't know what you mean by Christianity and believe you confuse it with man made Christendom. The purpose of Christianity is the resurrection. What does this have to do with imperialism?

1 Corinthians 15: 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.


Christianity is unique and comes from above and can be "remembered" Christendom is the attempt at man made superiority in the world justified in many ways. Plato uses the chariot analogy to show how lower reason or Christendom becomes dominant over opening to receive the spirit and higher reason.

[Sculptor1]

Off the point I think.
You can cherry pick as much as you like, I am relying on the truth of history to show the divisive damage done by Christianity.
It mattes very little what is in a book when there is so much more in the same book that contradicts it.

Politically, Xianity has been a force for imperialism not division.

Sorry I have to stop you right there, because I need to get my breath back from laughing so much.
Consider Partition of India.
The plight of indigenous peoples all over the world whose culture and population has been devastated.
Imperialism is a means of DIVIDING people from their sovereignty, culture, religion.
I did not read the rest of what you typed.

Yes, imperialists are aggressive and usually violent in the ways they colonise and often in the ways they govern. But govern they do.

Your point?

[Nick_A]

How then does Plato's chariot allegory relate to Christianity. The link begins with describing the allegory with these five paragraphs:

The Allegory of the Chariot

In the Phaedrus, Plato (through his mouthpiece, Socrates) shares the allegory of the chariot to explain the tripartite nature of the human soul or psyche.

The chariot is pulled by two winged horses, one mortal and the other immortal.

The mortal horse is deformed and obstinate. Plato describes the horse as a “crooked lumbering animal, put together anyhow…of a dark color, with grey eyes and blood-red complexion; the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf, hardly yielding to whip and spur.”

The immortal horse, on the other hand, is noble and game, “upright and cleanly made…his color is white, and his eyes dark; he is a lover of honor and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided by word and admonition only.”

In the driver’s seat is the charioteer, tasked with reining in these disparate steeds, guiding and harnessing them to propel the vehicle with strength and efficiency. The charioteer’s destination? The ridge of heaven, beyond which he may behold the Forms: essences of things like Beauty, Wisdom, Courage, Justice, Goodness — everlasting Truth and absolute Knowledge. These essences nourish the horses’ wings, keeping the chariot in flight..........................................

The dark horse or mortal horse describes the human condition after the fall of man. Nothing too noble about it yet it defines false pride in the self. The white horse represents man's connection to higher reason or the awareness of forms and their source. The driver or our being represents the need to balance the influences of the corrupt dark horse attracted to the earth with the higher inner knowledge which attracts the white horse. Christianity asserts it is impossible without the help of the Spirit to reconcile these two forces.

The driver has the task of guiding these two forces while providing the quality of education necessary to heal the dark horse so that man can become normal. Not so easy especially when everything stressed in public education is against it and only serves to intensify the corruption of the dark horse.

[JackDaydream]

How then does Plato's chariot allegory relate to Christianity. The link begins with describing the allegory with these five paragraphs:

The Allegory of the Chariot

In the Phaedrus, Plato (through his mouthpiece, Socrates) shares the allegory of the chariot to explain the tripartite nature of the human soul or psyche.

The chariot is pulled by two winged horses, one mortal and the other immortal.

The mortal horse is deformed and obstinate. Plato describes the horse as a “crooked lumbering animal, put together anyhow…of a dark color, with grey eyes and blood-red complexion; the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf, hardly yielding to whip and spur.”

The immortal horse, on the other hand, is noble and game, “upright and cleanly made…his color is white, and his eyes dark; he is a lover of honor and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided by word and admonition only.”

In the driver’s seat is the charioteer, tasked with reining in these disparate steeds, guiding and harnessing them to propel the vehicle with strength and efficiency. The charioteer’s destination? The ridge of heaven, beyond which he may behold the Forms: essences of things like Beauty, Wisdom, Courage, Justice, Goodness — everlasting Truth and absolute Knowledge. These essences nourish the horses’ wings, keeping the chariot in flight..........................................

The dark horse or mortal horse describes the human condition after the fall of man. Nothing too noble about it yet it defines false pride in the self. The white horse represents man's connection to higher reason or the awareness of forms and their source. The driver or our being represents the need to balance the influences of the corrupt dark horse attracted to the earth with the higher inner knowledge which attracts the white horse. Christianity asserts it is impossible without the help of the Spirit to reconcile these two forces.

The driver has the task of guiding these two forces while providing the quality of education necessary to heal the dark horse so that man can become normal. Not so easy especially when everything stressed in public education is against it and only serves to intensify the corruption of the dark horse.

You speak of the fall of man and it does depend on how this is seen because in Christianity it was taken to mean that people were born with original sin. I know that I was brought up to believe in the fall of the angels and the consequent fall of the human race, as depicted in 'The Book of Genesis'.

When I tried to understand this, I found that it was hard to pin down the idea of the fall, with a lot being based on the ideas of John Milton's 'Paradise Lost'. However, there are some esoteric suggestions of a fallen race, such as the legends of Atlantis which Plato and Homer looked at. However, as it is about myth it is hard to know how much literal truth there is because it is in the form of passed on legends. The myth may be a way of depicting a particular view of human nature and it is questionable whether it was particularly helpful because it does come with the whole impact of guilt which is seen as the main problem addressed by Christianity. Whether guilt and 'sin' are the fundamental aspects of the human condition is debatable or other ones, such as suffering.

[Sy Borg]

The essence of Christianity descended from above or from higher consciousness is unique.

Of course it is. Oh, and you happened to be born into Christianity? Who would have thought?

The Bible was simply a collection of materials written with the intent of passing down what they thought was important. Every generation seeks to pass down knowledge, to help the next generation avoid making the same mistakes.

So the anthology that is the Bible includes myths, moral fables, history, local strictures, poetry and propaganda. Certainly parts of it are inspired, just as the Sistine Chapel was inspired, but that does not make either divine or a especially useful for achieving higher perspectives. Rather, the Bible is a hotch-potch mess that believers are forced to cherry-pick. The ideas of the Bible are frequently ambiguous, rendered even more so by changes in language over the last two millennia and varying and questionable translations.

Philosophy is replete with better, more focused and advanced treatises on the human condition than the Bible. Likewise, modern jazz drummer Brian Blade is a vastly better and more effective player than trad jazz drummer Chick Webb, who was once considered one of the greats. You have to give regard to the old greats, but to revere them too much is to blind oneself to subsequent advances.

There's no point being a giant of history, so to speak, if no one stands on your shoulders. That just leaves a monolith, not a living philosophy.