Hi Nick,popeye1945 wrote: ↑April 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm True, but the questions remain: what is conscience, who is capable of experiencing it, and what prevents us from experiencing objective conscience?
We can be free of the emotions of subjective morality but this doesn't mean freedom from conscience. Actually freedom from emotional morality can lead to the the experience of universal objective conscience.1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948)
You need to educate me here, I don't really have a handle on what you're talking about. What might universal objective conscience look like? It is an emotion I get that but doesn't conscience, in general, depend upon one's definition of one's self, if you do something out of character, out of your general definition of self it would be disturbing and require a re-defination--no more Mr nice guy! Are you familiar with Jung's collective unconscious, is it similar to that or would it be incorporated within that concept?
[/quote]
This is hrd to explain if you are not familiar with it. Here is a link that explains little of what I mean
http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_good.htm
The GOOD IS. It is not limited to Man's interpretations. It is outside the limitations of space and time and our ability to sense. It includes the qualities of objective consciousness and objective conscience as ideas. Once the GOOD manifests itself within creation, these ideas manifest as qualities of phenomenon.Like the Sun in the Allegory of the Cave, the Good illuminates the other Forms. We can see that Justice, for example, is an aspect of Goodness. And again, we know that we have never seen, with our senses, any examples of perfect goodness, but we have seen plenty of particular examples which approximate goodness, and we recognise them as ‘good’ when we see them because of the way in which they correspond to our innate notion of the Form of the Good.
By Plato’s logic, real knowledge becomes, in the end, a knowledge of goodness; and this is why philosophers are in the best position to rule. The one who has philosophical knowledge of the Good is the one who is fit to rule. Plato’s belief in the fitness to rule of the philosopher is sometimes referred to as the ‘Philosopher King’ (even though Plato himself never used it).
Plato developed his Theory of Forms to the point where he divided existence into two realms. There is the world of sense experience (the ‘empirical’ world), where nothing ever stays the same but is always in the process of change. Experience of it gives rise to opinions. There is also a world which is outside space and time, which is not perceived through the senses, and in which everything is permanent and perfect or Ideal - the realm of the Forms. The empirical world shows only shadows and poor copies of these Forms, and so is less real than the world of the Forms themselves, because the Forms are eternal and immutable (unchanging), the proper objects of knowledge.
Justice as an idea beyond human conception is one thing while interpretations of justice is another. Objective consciousness includes all facts while objective conscience includes all values. We can measure facts but the human condition prevents a person from measuring objective values and their relationship to our Source. This is where humanity goes wrong. It begins to argue values and opinions rather than making the attempt at experiencing objective values through noesis