Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

… the Good and Being are indeed interchangeable and why the Euthyphro dilemma fails.

Not according to Plato:

"Therefore, say that what provides the truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows, is the idea of the good. And, as the cause of the knowledge and truth, you can understand it to be a thing known; but, as fair as these two are—knowledge and truth—if you believe that it is something different from them and still fairer than they, your belief will be right. As for knowledge and truth, just as in the other region it is right to hold light and sight sunlike, but to believe them to be sun is not right; so, too, here, to hold these two to be like the good is right, but to believe that either of them is the good is not right. The condition which characterizes the good must receive still greater honor." (508e-509 a)

“Therefore, say that not only being known is present in the things known as a consequence of the good, but also existence and being are in them besides as a result of it, although the good isn't being but is still beyond being, exceeding it in dignity and power.” (509b)

Various philosophers have distinguished between Being and beings, but Plato is making a different distinction, between being and becoming, the intelligible and physical realm, Form and image, eternal unchanging and temporal changing.

There is an ambiguity and play of images with regard to the idea (eidos or form) of the Good, but that is a discussion for another time. I will only touch on a few key points. Socrates indicates the problem here:

“... So tell what the character of the power of dialectic is, and, then, into exactly what forms it is divided; and finally what are its ways. For these, as it seems, would lead at last toward that place which is for the one who reaches it a haven from the road, as it were, and an end of his journey."
"You will no longer be able to follow, my dear Glaucon," I said, "although there wouldn't be any lack of eagerness on my part. But you would no longer be seeing an image of what we are saying, but rather the truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it is really so or not can no longer be properly insisted on. But that there is some such thing to see must be insisted on. Isn't it so?"

Socrates gives an image of the Good as it “looks” to him. The look of a thing is the eidos of that thing (look is one of the terms that defines and translates eidos). The Form of the Good as presented by Socrates is an image of the Good given in speech. He goes on:

"And, also, that the power of dialectic alone could reveal it to a man experienced in the things we just went through, while it is in no other way possible?"

What is important to note here is that Plato is now explicitly rejecting the notion of mystical transcendence. If the Good itself can be known it is only through dialectic, that is, reason. But, as the divided line makes clear, reason is not capable of grasping the Forms themselves. So, both the way of mystical transcendence and dialectic are rejected. This should not be surprising given Socrates skepticism. This skepticism is shared by Plato, and that is why the dialogues often end in aporia.

So, for Plato not only is it not true that Good and Being are interchangeable, but that the Good itself is unknown and appears to be an image of Plato’s philosophical poetry.

The “Euthyphro dilemma” does not fail. The question of right action, of justice and piety remain even if one defines God differently that Euthyphro does. In addition, the underlying problem of the presumption of knowledge of divine things remains.

[Whitedragon]

Hi, Gertie, sorry for the misunderstanding, Satan is not a physical being, that you could find him somewhere. All angels are incarnation spirits from G_d, Michael, Rafael, Gabriel, etc. Note the –ael and –iel, which is the Hebrew suffix for G_d, thus incarnations of G_d either in individual physical from or individual spiritual form. If you are interested, you can also read the link shared with fooloso4, which provides interesting insight into Satan.

-- Updated January 8th, 2017, 11:21 am to add the following --

Greta said,

It's just mythology, WD. Satan does not exist. Evil is subjective, being very real in that sense but not in the broader sense. Broadly what's referred to as "evil" is just entropy and chaos, which is necessary for reality's growth, just that you doesn't want too much entropy or chaos concentrated near you personally. There's nothing wrong conceptually with being overcome by strong local entropic forces (eg. storms) and in our dying we become unknowing constituents of nature's next grand projects. However, that seems less appealing than staying in one piece.

Cause gets convoluted in a world where we perceive a cosmos partially. Instead of frowning on the terminology we use for things we do not know, let us at least admit that those things exist. Does science not also say that there is no reason why entropy cannot run backwards? The problem is the arrow of time, which science also does not understand. It seems despite entropy new galaxies still form, new stars and planets come into being. In the Old Testament, Satan exists as much as you and Whitedragon do. Whitedragon being the accuser on behalf of G_d and you the enemy of G_d, which the two possible meanings boil down to, (please, no insult intended).

Therefore, does science have limits is not the right question, it is all about who employs science. It is rather we who are limited who settle for a cause that stops at our ability to perceive. Since some philosophical schools do not believe that, something can exist outside our horizon of perception we neatly wash our hands in it. However, where our perception stops, cause and science goes on, just not for us. Can you accept that?

[Ormond]

To all bloggers, also fooloso4 and Greta: an essay on Satan, Old and New Testament http://brazenchurch.com/biblical-satan/

I have to agree it's a pretty intelligent article, written of course from a Christian perspective. I won't attempt a point by point review, but thought the following quote from the end of the article might serve as a summary of sorts.

In Jesus, we see the full disclosure of the character of God as he completely divorces the idea of God from the idea of the satan so that the two are directly opposed. God is not the accuser, the destroyer, or the enemy of humanity. God is the Savior of humanity.

As you know, I'm obsessed by the subject of division, and so this description of a very fundamental division was of interest.

One way to study these subjects is to study what people say about them, which posters like Fooloso4 excel at. The article above follows the same path with an intense study of the Bible.

Personally, I find human beings to be a generally unreliable source given all the competing agendas we bring to any inquiry. From this perspective it seems to make more sense to study reality directly, instead of just what somebody says about reality. Why settle for second hand information from questionable sources when the real thing is right there in front of our faces?

A shift of focus to the observation of reality would seem to be in line with atheist methodology, but it's not necessarily either a religious or non-religious procedure. As example, a religious person might decide to study "God's creation" instead of studying a book somebody wrote about God.

If we study books, we will discover a million different opinions on a million different subjects, even within a single book such as the Bible which is supposedly from one perspective. But there is only one reality. If we study books, ie. the thoughts of men, we are studying something very very very very small, in comparison to reality itself.

Point being, if we choose the most reliable source available, reality itself, I think we will discover that directly opposed opposites (such as God and Satan are sometimes defined) is not really how reality works.

As example, as science digs deeper in to matter we see that the most prominent property of all "somethings" is in fact "nothing". What we call "something" and "nothing" appear to be engaged in such a tight intertwined dance that the resulting phenomena transcends either of those words.

While not claiming to know anything about God or Satan, a study of reality (God's kingdom if you prefer) suggests that should such phenomena exist they are more likely two sides of the same coin.

[Belindi]

Ormond. I think that we can overcome the illusion of division in several ways, none of them involving mind-altering drugs or mystic consciousness, not to say that those are ineffective.

We can use reasoning while having insight into reasoning's weaknesses.

We can use empathy and encourage and teach empathy to young people, which is why arts and humanities are taught.

We can physically place ourselves in the company and life styles of others so that we learn from first hand experience how we have common needs and purposes.

-- Updated January 8th, 2017, 2:51 pm to add the following --

Ormond. I think that we can partly overcome the illusion of division in several ways, none of them involving mind-altering drugs or mystic consciousness, not to say that those are ineffective.

We can use reasoning while having insight into reasoning's weaknesses.

We can use empathy and encourage and teach empathy to young people, which is why arts and humanities are taught.

We can physically place ourselves in the company and life styles of others so that we learn from first hand experience how we have common needs and purposes.

[Whitedragon]

To all bloggers, also fooloso4 and Greta: an essay on Satan, Old and New Testament http://brazenchurch.com/biblical-satan/

I have to agree it's a pretty intelligent article, written of course from a Christian perspective. I won't attempt a point by point review, but thought the following quote from the end of the article might serve as a summary of sorts.

In Jesus, we see the full disclosure of the character of God as he completely divorces the idea of God from the idea of the satan so that the two are directly opposed. God is not the accuser, the destroyer, or the enemy of humanity. God is the Savior of humanity.

As you know, I'm obsessed by the subject of division, and so this description of a very fundamental division was of interest.

One way to study these subjects is to study what people say about them, which posters like Fooloso4 excel at. The article above follows the same path with an intense study of the Bible.

Personally, I find human beings to be a generally unreliable source given all the competing agendas we bring to any inquiry. From this perspective it seems to make more sense to study reality directly, instead of just what somebody says about reality. Why settle for second hand information from questionable sources when the real thing is right there in front of our faces?

A shift of focus to the observation of reality would seem to be in line with atheist methodology, but it's not necessarily either a religious or non-religious procedure. As example, a religious person might decide to study "God's creation" instead of studying a book somebody wrote about God.

If we study books, we will discover a million different opinions on a million different subjects, even within a single book such as the Bible which is supposedly from one perspective. But there is only one reality. If we study books, ie. the thoughts of men, we are studying something very very very very small, in comparison to reality itself.

Point being, if we choose the most reliable source available, reality itself, I think we will discover that directly opposed opposites (such as God and Satan are sometimes defined) is not really how reality works.

As example, as science digs deeper in to matter we see that the most prominent property of all "somethings" is in fact "nothing". What we call "something" and "nothing" appear to be engaged in such a tight intertwined dance that the resulting phenomena transcends either of those words.

While not claiming to know anything about God or Satan, a study of reality (God's kingdom if you prefer) suggests that should such phenomena exist they are more likely two sides of the same coin.

Ormond, we agree on this. They have to be two sides of the same coin, indeed. Perhaps the Son separates not Satan from G_d as portrayed in the New Testament, but rather vouches that the Lord does not allow entropy, as Greta calls it, to run wild. The distinction between the “never fallen Satan,” and those beings or forces, which directly appose G_d, willingly and consciously merely states that Satan, (as in Job), is not the same person and is different from the satans that are enemies of G_d.

A mere human being can be a satan. You and Whitedragon are satans, (as per the article reference, being accusers. Others are also satans, but on opposite sides, opposing us. It is simple grammar. Indeed, we should try to experience reality for ourselves, but standing on the shoulders of others, (religious or otherwise), makes it easier to gage or divine what we see. It would truly be a good day if theists and atheists alike could use both religious myth and science, since they too might be two sides of the same coin?

[Belindi]

Fooloso4,

“Therefore, say that not only being known is present in the things known as a consequence of the good, but also existence and being are in them besides as a result of it, although the good isn't being but is still beyond being, exceeding it in dignity and power.” (509b)

In my own words : the good causes us to know the relative world, and the good is also within the relative world. The good is not the relative world plus our awareness of the relative world, but transcends the relative world and our awareness of it, separately and both together. This transcending of both nature and our awareness of nature (i.e. extended matter and mind) is therefore more real than extended matter and mind. Is it not the case that what is Reality is Being?

Fooolso4, is it certain that the Greek original is correctly translated as "beyond being" ? It matters, because otherwise Plato could be understood as supporting panentheism. I suppose that if the good "exceeds (nature) in dignity and power " then the good is properly transcendent, and the way is clear for an avatar to explain the details.

If the good transcends nature how could someone leave the Cave and see the good? Or was it not the good but reason which was the sun which the enlightened escapee saw?

Intuitively I agree with Dark Matter that good is interchangeable with transcendent being, because the alternative to transcendent good is not-being, nothing.

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

Fooolso4, is it certain that the Greek original is correctly translated as "beyond being" ?

I checked a few translations and with the exception of one they translate it this way. The exception translates it as transcends.

It matters, because otherwise Plato could be understood as supporting panentheism.

God and the gods are conspicuously absent in the Republic. Neither the other forms nor things of the visible world are “in” the good.

If the good transcends nature how could someone leave the Cave and see the good?

If my reading, which I can’t take credit for, is correct then no one actually sees the good. It is an image in Plato’s philosophical poetry. This is not the standard textbook description but a close reading bears it out and it continues to gain support from scholars who were students of those who brought this reading to our attention.

We can leave the cave in that we can free ourselves from the puppet masters who make the images whose shadows are cast on the cave wall. The puppet makers are the opinion makers, primary at that time the poet with their stories of the gods.

Or was it not the good but reason which was the sun which the enlightened escapee saw?

Briefly, the sun is to the visible or physical realm as the Good is to the intelligible realm of the forms. The story of the cave is superseded by the introduction of dialectic, reasoned discussion. I touched on this above and discussed it in more detail with appropriate passages from the text in another thread. I will dig it up if you are interested.

Intuitively I agree with Dark Matter that good is interchangeable with transcendent being, because the alternative to transcendent good is not-being, nothing.

The ontological status of the good for Plato is ambiguous, said to be both beyond being but also something that 'is', both eidos and image. It is analogous to the epistemological status of the philosopher - in books 6 and 7 the philosopher is transformed from a lover of wisdom, one who pursues wisdom to one who possesses divine wisdom. Socrates is the image maker of the forms and the form of the good, but he always qualifies the image by saying that he does not know if something actually corresponds to that image. That is something that only one with divine knowledge would know. There are some who think the Plato is describing himself as one who does possess divine wisdom, but I don’t agree. He gives us too many hints for this claim to be accepted. As I see it, he too was a skeptic knowing that he does not know.

Plato aside, I do not see why the alternative to a transcendent good is not-being. The reification of the good is questionable. It may simple be a human evaluation regarding what is without any causal power. If one does wish to ascribe causal power to it then one is free to create whatever arrangement he or she wants - what transcends being and is why there is anything, a transcendent being, etc.

[Dark Matter]

In my own words : the good causes us to know the relative world, and the good is also within the relative world. The good is not the relative world plus our awareness of the relative world, but transcends the relative world and our awareness of it, separately and both together. This transcending of both nature and our awareness of nature (i.e. extended matter and mind) is therefore more real than extended matter and mind. Is it not the case that what is Reality is Being?

Very good! I think Plotinus would salute you.

[Belindi]

Fooloso4 wrote:

The reification of the good is questionable.

The good is notoriously difficult to define without recourse to defining evil, which is a lot easier to define for instance as suffering, or as ignorance , or as loss of ascribed virtue or honour.

The present ongoing discussion of 'Satan' might be useful as a discussion of why we need a concept of evil, and how good is indefinable without a concept of evil. The necessity for the concept of evil is implicit in narratives of the life of Jesus whose acts always implied some specific evil such as death and bereavement, blindness, leprosy, poverty, social ostracism, lameness, and above all oppression by such forces as killed him, and would have killed him when he was newborn.

I suppose that a pessimist like Schopenhauer who places evil as the default, beyond good, may be misled by perception and conception of evil as a necessity before we can perceive and conceptualise good. As we know, what anyone perceives and conceptualises is subjective and offers no evidence for an alternative explanation, like the intersubjective vision which happens to the prisoners in the Cave.

If evil is the default there is more incentive for us to take responsibility for our world than good is the default. The problem is really that the evil in the world is ultimately impossible for us to sort . In which case to believe and trust that good is the default is pragmatically better than that evil is the default. The strength of Christianity according to Origen, then, is that the 'Avatar' is also a universal saviour from, if not actual suffering, but from any impossible responsibility to avert evil.

Thank you for your research on my behalf. I can take it that beyond means beyond and Plato is not a panentheist .

-- Updated January 9th, 2017, 7:28 am to add the following --

Dark Matter, there is a sundial which I saw which bore an inscription "Not the shadow of the sun but the shadow of the bronze" (i.e. the bronze gnomon)

Plotinus, using a venerable analogy that would become crucial for the (largely Neoplatonic) metaphysics of developed Christian thought, likens the One to the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected

-- Updated January 9th, 2017, 7:38 am to add the following --

PS regarding suitable lexical items for ontological discussions, I now suggest that owing to the understandable confusion that involve the word 'being' or 'Being' it's better to substitute the word 'Reality' or the phrase ' Ultimate Reality' to stand for the concept behind Plato's or Plotinus's sun image. I wrote capital letters not to be religious but to indicate ultimate, solar, and unique.

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

If evil is the default there is more incentive for us to take responsibility for our world than good is the default.

Paul reached a different conclusion. Evil is the default for man because of sin, against which he is powerless and thus in need of God’s grace. In other words, man cannot take responsibility. Augustine goes further, the physical world is corrupt, we must turn away from it and toward God.

If good is the default and evil is the absence of good then there is an incentive and responsibility to protect and maintain the good. No need for a Savior, just the ability to discern and promote what is good.

I am in agreement with Socrates that our concern should be with the human things. And with Nietzsche that despite all the divine and theological cosmological speculation and claims it is all "human all too human".

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter, there is a sundial which I saw which bore an "Not the shadow of the sun but the shadow of the bronze" (i.e. the bronze gnomon)

Plotinus, using a venerable analogy that would become crucial for the (largely Neoplatonic) metaphysics of developed Christian thought, likens the One to the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected

-- Updated January 9th, 2017, 7:38 am to add the following --

PS regarding suitable lexical items for ontological discussions, I now suggest that owing to the understandable confusion that involve the word 'being' or 'Being' it's better to substitute the word 'Reality' or the phrase ' Ultimate Reality' to stand for the concept behind Plato's or Plotinus's sun image. I wrote capital letters not to be religious but to indicate ultimate, solar, and unique.

You should have mentioned that inscription about 27 pages ago. It effectively ends any debate regarding what God has actually done wrong.

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

PS regarding suitable lexical items for ontological discussions, I now suggest that owing to the understandable confusion that involve the word 'being' or 'Being' it's better to substitute the word 'Reality' or the phrase ' Ultimate Reality' to stand for the concept behind Plato's or Plotinus's sun image. I wrote capital letters not to be religious but to indicate ultimate, solar, and unique.

Plato’s sun is the image of the good. It does not represent ‘being’ or ‘Being’ or ‘Reality’ or ‘Ultimate Reality’ or ‘One’ or ‘God’. What Neoplatonism claim has some obvious basis in Plato but differs significantly.

In addition, the substitution of terms does more to confuse matters than clarify them when one considers contemporary theological discussions influenced by the use the term ‘Being’ as explicated by Heidegger.

Dark Matter:

You should have mentioned that inscription about 27 pages ago. It effectively ends any debate regarding what God has actually done wrong.

It does nothing of the sort. The question was not: “What has ‘Ultimate Reality’ done wrong?”. The concept(s) of God that Whitedragon refers to are based on the Bible and strands of Christian theology that differ from those of Plotinus. They include the idea that God is the highest being. That he is an active agent who created the world and all that it contains. That man and the natural world are separate from God, and a variety of other ideas that you wish to ignore.

[Dark Matter]

It does nothing of the sort. The question was not: “What has ‘Ultimate Reality’ done wrong?”. The concept(s) of God that Whitedragon refers to are based on the Bible and strands of Christian theology that differ from those of Plotinus. They include the idea that God is the highest being. That he is an active agent who created the world and all that it contains. That man and the natural world are separate from God, and a variety of other ideas that you wish to ignore.

Irrelevant. Just more muddying of the water.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

Irrelevant. Just more muddying of the water.

Pointing out that you attempt to change the definition of God and then claim that this has effectively brought the debate on the problem raised by the OP to an end is not irrelevant and serves to keep the water from being muddied.

You assume that you have stumbled upon the truth and that God is as you say or cannot say but can clearly see. You come to us with the new good news gospel and are perturbed that we do not see that this is the light and the way. It is nothing more than self-referential self-validation, but to your consternation the circle does not close.

[Belindi]

Fooloso4 wrote:

(Dark Matter)You should have mentioned that inscription about 27 pages ago. It effectively ends any debate regarding what God has actually done wrong.


(Fooloso4)It does nothing of the sort. The question was not: “What has ‘Ultimate Reality’ done wrong?”. The concept(s) of God that Whitedragon refers to are based on the Bible and strands of Christian theology that differ from those of Plotinus. They include the idea that God is the highest being. That he is an active agent who created the world and all that it contains. That man and the natural world are separate from God, and a variety of other ideas that you wish to ignore.

I thought that the imagery of emanations of god into the relative world was no more significant than imagery of anthropomorphic high God Who intervenes in history as Creator and Maintainer . Are you saying that different imagery signifies different meaning?

My agenda is to find some religious/ethical narrative that is reasonable and aids life, peace and so on. That particular sundial and its inscription is one small example of how the Plotinus vision can be explained. The sundial and its inscription could also be interpreted as sin's occluding the view of the eternal sun.