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

[Nick_A]

There are certain questions like whose life has value that cannot be answered by the world or within Plato's Cave so are devolved into a subjective secular response or how Man defines value. But the purpose of philosophy, worthy of its name, is to indicate the psychological path leading to freedom from Plato's Cave. Cave philosophy in contrast strives to make cave life more tolerable through imagination as opposed to human freedom from cave life.

From Jacob Needleman's book: The Heart of Philosophy"

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Is the essence of Man dying or are there some who are able to "remember" what philosophy invites us to. Where do those searching for meaning in an absurd world find the path to freedom from the cave rather than participate continually in the battle over opinions. From Plato's Meno

Meno: And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?

How can we remember what the senses have not experienced? Absurd for the secular mind. But still it is obvious that the effect of technology is to increase imagination at the expense of remembrance or anamnesis. Simone Weil understood

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

"Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking."

Rather than participating in the battle of opinions on Plato's "Ship of Fools", how does one learn to think with the aim of escaping Plato's Cave? What is square one or the essential question serving as the foundation for conscious philosophical contemplation concerning the question of meaning? Where to begin in an absurd world? If philosophy as the love of wisdom is dead, will the essence of Man follow and become a reactive machine serving the Great Beast or society itself? I would like to be one of the minority still capable of serving the purpose of philosophy.

[JackDaydream]

@Nick_A
It may depend what people follow in philosophy as to whether it is seen as 'dead' or not. It is such a vast discipline, with so many approaches. It is even possible to become lost in it. In some ways, academic philosophy can be seen as remote, but others may pursue a philosophy quest and find great meaning. Alternatively, it is possible to keep searching and going round in circles, as many of the most difficult questions are so hard to answer with any certainty. Some people are more drawn to it than others and, here on the forum, it is the case that everyone who has joined has opted to participate in philosophy discussion of some kind. I often feel that when I tell people that I am interested in philosophy that they look puzzled, because many people in the world don't seem to have time and patience for reading, although it is likely that they may think about some of the issues but in a less formal way.

I find it philosophy fascinating although I have been told a couple of times that I approach it a bit like a 'religion', in the quest for 'truth'. It is likely that it is approached in various ways, including as a means of critical thinking, as an art, or as a way of making sense of the life, death and everything else, but it may be that as long as human beings continue to exist that philosophy will not die in an ultimate way.

[Nick_A]

@Nick_A
It may depend what people follow in philosophy as to whether it is seen as 'dead' or not. It is such a vast discipline, with so many approaches. It is even possible to become lost in it. In some ways, academic philosophy can be seen as remote, but others may pursue a philosophy quest and find great meaning. Alternatively, it is possible to keep searching and going round in circles, as many of the most difficult questions are so hard to answer with any certainty. Some people are more drawn to it than others and, here on the forum, it is the case that everyone who has joined has opted to participate in philosophy discussion of some kind. I often feel that when I tell people that I am interested in philosophy that they look puzzled, because many people in the world don't seem to have time and patience for reading, although it is likely that they may think about some of the issues but in a less formal way.

I find it philosophy fascinating although I have been told a couple of times that I approach it a bit like a 'religion', in the quest for 'truth'. It is likely that it is approached in various ways, including as a means of critical thinking, as an art, or as a way of making sense of the life, death and everything else, but it may be that as long as human beings continue to exist that philosophy will not die in an ultimate way.

We appreciate the concept of philosophy differently. I understand it as Prof Needleman explained above. Philosophy is like art in this way. At one time art had a specific meaning and intent. Now anything is art. Arguing about trump is called philosophy. I'd like to meet some people who understand the purpose and value of philosophy as Plato, Simone Weil, and Jacob Needleman understood it. The idea then is to learn how to begin to think in ways that lead to freedom from the prison of plato"s Cave. My gut feeling is that this quality of understanding has gone underground to avoid meaningless attacks. If true it means I must find this minority

[Nick_A]

Jack, Simone Weil wrote at fourteen:

I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Philosophy is a means for those like Simone to find the path leading to what they are lookin for. They are looking for philosophy of a different quality than arguing about Trump. They intuitively know that conscious humanity exists beyond the domain of opinions leading to the domain of Plato's forms. As Socrates found out, these people are disruptive influences and corrupt the youth of Athens. They are easily eliminated. But still such people are compelled to transcend the domain of opinions and enter into the domain of objective truths. It is their calling regardless of the growls they arouse.

[JackDaydream]

@Nick_A
In many ways I agree with you. I am more interested in philosophy as a deeper search for meaning and I am in favour of looking beyond the shadows of the cave. It may be more of a minority perspective and, often, many people prefer trivia and the superficial. Personally, I like the more esoteric areas of philosophy, including theosophy, which may be about trying to get out of the cave. However, I do like to keep up with changing ideas and look at all perspectives.

I think that I have interacted with you in the past, on another forum, and I realised this recently on account of your passion for Simone Weil and Plato, and my own mentor is Jung. There are many who are interested in such ideas and there is the famous remark that the history of philosophy is 'footnotes to Plato'. But, it does seem that in mainstream philosophy many are opposed to Plato's ideas of the forms, because unseen aspects of reality are disputed so much. However, there are parallels, such as Jung's theory of archetypes, although many would probably see Jung as not being part of philosophy . This may illustrate the way in which it has become so complex, with different disciplines and how people may choose what to include or exclude from their own approach to philosophy.

[chewybrian]

If philosophy as the love of wisdom is dead, will the essence of Man follow and become a reactive machine serving the Great Beast or society itself? I would like to be one of the minority still capable of serving the purpose of philosophy.

I don't know on what fair and objective basis you might claim philosophy is dead, other than that it was never really alive at all. Is philosophy any less popular today than it was at any time in the past? Surely lots of folks in ancient Greece and Rome preferred to focus on distractions or claim unproven dogma as fact to relieve themselves of the burden of facing reality or thinking for themselves, just as many folks do today. They had orgies and gladiators and wine; we have porn and football and drugs.

Rather than proceeding from statistics, I suspect you are proclaiming that philosophy is dead because you are struggling to find people who accept your take on philosophy as the one true philosophy. But others are no less philosophers if they focus on science or politics. I am no less because I focus on psychology. You clearly have religion in the front of your mind, but you have no claim to be on the right path other than your subjective feelings. On a truly objective basis, there is no foundation of morality. Your subjective preferences are no more or less valid than the ones I have or the ones the science or politics fanboys have.

We all have the right to say we are philosophers, or at least that we are trying, if we are doing our best to see reality for what it is or to improve ourselves or the world.

[Nick_A]

@Nick_A
In many ways I agree with you. I am more interested in philosophy as a deeper search for meaning and I am in favour of looking beyond the shadows of the cave. It may be more of a minority perspective and, often, many people prefer trivia and the superficial. Personally, I like the more esoteric areas of philosophy, including theosophy, which may be about trying to get out of the cave. However, I do like to keep up with changing ideas and look at all perspectives.

I think that I have interacted with you in the past, on another forum, and I realised this recently on account of your passion for Simone Weil and Plato, and my own mentor is Jung. There are many who are interested in such ideas and there is the famous remark that the history of philosophy is 'footnotes to Plato'. But, it does seem that in mainstream philosophy many are opposed to Plato's ideas of the forms, because unseen aspects of reality are disputed so much. However, there are parallels, such as Jung's theory of archetypes, although many would probably see Jung as not being part of philosophy . This may illustrate the way in which it has become so complex, with different disciplines and how people may choose what to include or exclude from their own approach to philosophy.

When philosophy becomes complex it enters the domain of right and wrong subjective opinions. And as you suggest denying the objectivity of the forms has become the norm. The need to experience objective truths is denied in favor of creating ones own reality.

I've become part of this minority who respects the inner need of the soul to experience objective truth and it goes over like the proverbial led balloon.

From this perspective the purpose of the human soul, when it exists, is to receive from above and give to below. The problem is that it rarely exists for long. The human condition doesn't allow it. As Simone suggests Man doesn't know how to think in a manner which serves the need for objective truth.

Without This effort human "being" atrophies. Humanity must devolve into mechanical creatures only capable of serving the Great Beast or society itself. I am looking for those on this site willing to discuss the intent of philosophy as the calling to "remember" as opposed to inventing new concepts to argue about. They may not exist anymore and driven away but if there are a few perhaps we could discuss the real value of philosophy as essential to remember what has been forgotten.

[Nick_A]

If philosophy as the love of wisdom is dead, will the essence of Man follow and become a reactive machine serving the Great Beast or society itself? I would like to be one of the minority still capable of serving the purpose of philosophy.

I don't know on what fair and objective basis you might claim philosophy is dead, other than that it was never really alive at all. Is philosophy any less popular today than it was at any time in the past? Surely lots of folks in ancient Greece and Rome preferred to focus on distractions or claim unproven dogma as fact to relieve themselves of the burden of facing reality or thinking for themselves, just as many folks do today. They had orgies and gladiators and wine; we have porn and football and drugs.

Rather than proceeding from statistics, I suspect you are proclaiming that philosophy is dead because you are struggling to find people who accept your take on philosophy as the one true philosophy. But others are no less philosophers if they focus on science or politics. I am no less because I focus on psychology. You clearly have religion in the front of your mind, but you have no claim to be on the right path other than your subjective feelings. On a truly objective basis, there is no foundation of morality. Your subjective preferences are no more or less valid than the ones I have or the ones the science or politics fanboys have.

We all have the right to say we are philosophers, or at least that we are trying, if we are doing our best to see reality for what it is or to improve ourselves or the world.

It isn't my take on philosophy as the one true philosophy but rather defining it as Jacob Needleman did:

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

People can call themselves anything.

We all have the right to say we are philosophers, or at least that we are trying, if we are doing our best to see reality for what it is or to improve ourselves or the world.

This is cave psychology. I am not against it. I am suggesting that there is a minority who have experienced that "since we are as we are, everything is as it is." Nothing changes. Philosophy as expressed by Plato enables a person to see why nothing essentially changes but just turn in cycles and how a person can change what they are to become themselves. How can a person evolve to acquire inner unity. Philosophy reveals what we are in the context of the potentials for human being. It isn't my philosophy but is the essence of philosophy before its devolution into fragmentation.

[JackDaydream]

@Nick_A
From reading various posts you have written on this forum I had gathered your general approach and in some ways it is more the esoteric tradition within philosophy, including thinkers like Guirjieff, and possibly Rudolf Steiner, but it probably goes from Neoplatonism and Hermeticism, but is probably one which can incorporate many different thinkers. What do you think of Wittgenstein? He is so influential but, in some ways, is a little esoteric.

It will be interesting to see what other replies you receive and what I find with starting threads is that it is hard to predict what will happen. It all depends on who participates and it is almost organic, unpredictable but exciting as well.

[chewybrian]

It isn't my take on philosophy as the one true philosophy but rather defining it as Jacob Needleman did:

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

People can call themselves anything.

Yes, and people can CLAIM anything. This is no different than claiming that abortion is murder because your bible says that is the case. Other people see it differently. We don't have an objectivity machine to tell us which position is correct. Philosophy is defined many ways by many people, including those who say it is all bunk. It can be the most important thing in the world to you, or just as silly as astrology or the National Enquirer. I think most of us pick out the parts that appeal most to us, and discard the rest like so many brussels sprouts that we feed to the dog or hide in the potted plants.

So, the fact that this definition, this nugget of alleged wisdom, appeals most to you does not give it any special significance to the rest of us. Someone else could say "existence precedes essence" or "I think therefore I am" or whatever.

I choose Epictetus. His words speak volumes to me. Do they resonate with you? Probably not. All I can claim is that they mean a great deal to me and I find them helpful in living better and maintaining a measure of tranquility in a pretty crazy world. I assume that they could do the same for many others if the others gave him a chance. But, it doesn't rise beyond an assumption. I have no basis to claim the one true religion or philosophy, and neither do you and neither does anyone else. So, as well founded as your claims, here is the one true philosophy:

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed...

Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself...

Sickness is a hindrance to the body, but not to your ability to choose, unless that is your choice. Lameness is a hindrance to the leg, but not to your ability to choose. Say this to yourself with regard to everything that happens, then you will see such obstacles as hindrances to something else, but not to yourself...

You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer.

So, are you still in the cave, or have I shown you the light?

[Nick_A]

@Nick_A
From reading various posts you have written on this forum I had gathered your general approach and in some ways it is more the esoteric tradition within philosophy, including thinkers like Guirjieff, and possibly Rudolf Steiner, but it probably goes from Neoplatonism and Hermeticism, but is probably one which can incorporate many different thinkers. What do you think of Wittgenstein? He is so influential but, in some ways, is a little esoteric.

It will be interesting to see what other replies you receive and what I find with starting threads is that it is hard to predict what will happen. It all depends on who participates and it is almost organic, unpredictable but exciting as well.

I am more attracted to the larger ideas. I know of Wittgenstein's concern for language but arguing the details of it at the expense of the big picture never attracted me. I am into the big picture like the purpose of our universe and Man within it. Simone was right to suggest Man as a whole no longer does know how to think to deal with these questions.

Let me ask you: Do you believe in objective realities or the domain of forms? We need an essential question to open the door to the inner path leading to the forms rather than arguing opinions. This is what I suggest as the essential question. Perhaps in the future you may like to be a part of a discussion which avoids all the negativity and concerned with how to approach this great question: What are we and what is our place in the world and in the universe?

“There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.” G. I. Gurdjieff

What have we verified through efforts to "know thyself?....Who am I? It is the beginning.

[Nick_A]

Chewy

Yes, and people can CLAIM anything. This is no different than claiming that abortion is murder because your bible says that is the case. Other people see it differently. We don't have an objectivity machine to tell us which position is correct. Philosophy is defined many ways by many people, including those who say it is all bunk. It can be the most important thing in the world to you, or just as silly as astrology or the National Enquirer. I think most of us pick out the parts that appeal most to us, and discard the rest like so many brussels sprouts that we feed to the dog or hide in the potted plants.

Philosophy like art has no objective quality for you. Without the appreciation for objective value, we create our own value. The philosophy I'm concerned with opens the mind to objective values so earthly consideration can be put into an objective rather than subjective perspective.

For example, the question of abortion is impossible to discuss without first discussing if life has an objective value and whose life has value. Without this beginning it is just the typical argument over opinions. Some prefer to transcend opinions to experience the value of life and what would be the human response to it

[Sy Borg]

Why keep referencing "objective values" without ever clearly and succinctly defining them?

And I still say that the cows you happily chew on are vastly more sentient, bonded and sensate than the foetuses you so vigorously defend - unless free healthcare is required to keep the foetuses alive, in which case that's tough luck.

[Nick_A]

Why keep referencing "objective values" without ever clearly and succinctly defining them?

And I still say that the cows you happily chew on are vastly more sentient, bonded and sensate than the foetuses you so vigorously defend - unless free healthcare is required to keep the foetuses alive, in which case that's tough luck.

It is too early here to discuss Plato's forms if we cannot determine whose lives have value and why. I'm looking for those who have felt the need for objectivity who can discuss these ideas without the need to condemn them. These are seekers of wisdom rather than seekers of egoistic justification. Jack seems open to feel what Plato means by the forms. Jung knew about anamnesis What can be remembered if the forms and the quality of reason they originate from do not exist? How are the forms united at a higher level or what Plato called the form of the good? You may want to argue about Trump and perhaps others want to consciously experience objective truths. It is our choice.

If we try to feel the existence of the vertical reality above the visible domain of the sun, someone may have an AHA moment and a person feels what their heart needs. It is just a variation of the Socratic dialogue

[Sy Borg]

Why keep referencing "objective values" without ever clearly and succinctly defining them?

And I still say that the cows you happily chew on are vastly more sentient, bonded and sensate than the foetuses you so vigorously defend - unless free healthcare is required to keep the foetuses alive, in which case that's tough luck.

It is too early here to discuss Plato's forms if we cannot determine whose lives have value and why.

If you cannot define objective values for the forum then the thread has no basis.

Please stop evading.