lukethethird
unknown member
Not likely, it's gibberish.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No one can serve two masters
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I've had a couple brownies, and it's taking me a while to find the source from Plato's Republic. But, for now, trust me it's there. And I'll prove it soon enough.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
That explains Plato's theory of the mind/soul. But it doesn't talk about self-mastery as discussed in the Republic.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Although, yes. Plato uses his theory of the mind/soul to talk about self-mastery. And the theory described in the article is a good description.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Okay. I will have to break out my version of the Republic tomorrow and REALLY quote the analysis of Plato's arguments concerning self-mastery. But I have simply had too many brownies tonight. I tried and failed. And the brownies are the culprit. Sorry.
What I hope doesn't happen is that I wake up tomorrow and forget that I am obligated to quote this passage to you.
What I hope doesn't happen is that I wake up tomorrow and forget that I am obligated to quote this passage to you.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I didn't think you were judging. But neither were you answering my question. What'd be wrong with the fact that atheists mentioned God (or thought about God) more than theists?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
This might be interpreted as a classical example of Kurt Godel’s observation (Godel’s Proof, Scientific American, 1956) that every logical system must contain a premise which it cannot define without contradicting itself.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The Klingons literally killed theirs. Said they were more trouble than they were worth.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Do you mean to say that Plato's problem is insoluble? Or points to a contradiction?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
It covers it further down, a bit.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
@vulcanlogician :
Plato seemed to think that the "smart" part of the soul is good, and the other two parts are like animals.
Modern science has shown that human thinking and behavior are not controlled by only one smart part, but by many different parts that work together, like feelings, wants, and urges. Feelings and wants are not always bad or wrong, but they are important for human happiness and getting along with others. So, self-mastery does not mean hiding or fighting one's feelings and wants, but it could even mean joining and balancing them with one's intelligence.
www.psychologytoday.com
www.verywellmind.com
That being said...
You asked me to think about the question.
And my answer is that, outside of Plato, I don't see it in the real world, though I might meet people who believe it. And I don't think I'm the best person to search out real-world applications of Plato's ideas in effect, as I don't know where to look.
Aristotle also believed that one should avoid deficiencies in appetite and emotion. You might see if you can internet search some more about that, I might know of some sources, but they might go on for hundreds of pages, without the area where it talks about it really bookmarked (unfortunately)
Plato seemed to think that the "smart" part of the soul is good, and the other two parts are like animals.
Modern science has shown that human thinking and behavior are not controlled by only one smart part, but by many different parts that work together, like feelings, wants, and urges. Feelings and wants are not always bad or wrong, but they are important for human happiness and getting along with others. So, self-mastery does not mean hiding or fighting one's feelings and wants, but it could even mean joining and balancing them with one's intelligence.
Neuroscience
Neuroscience examines the structure and function of the human brain and nervous system. Neuroscientists use cellular and molecular biology, anatomy and physiology, human behavior and cognition, and other disciplines, to map the brain at a mechanistic level.
How Theories Are Used in Psychology
A theory is based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. Learn more about psychology theories and how they are used, including examples.
That being said...
You asked me to think about the question.
And my answer is that, outside of Plato, I don't see it in the real world, though I might meet people who believe it. And I don't think I'm the best person to search out real-world applications of Plato's ideas in effect, as I don't know where to look.
Aristotle also believed that one should avoid deficiencies in appetite and emotion. You might see if you can internet search some more about that, I might know of some sources, but they might go on for hundreds of pages, without the area where it talks about it really bookmarked (unfortunately)
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Okay good. So that means I don't have to prove Plato's ideas myself? Good. I'm glad Wikipedia has done that work for me. But still, I'm curious what your take is.
What is it?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I posted it just above your post.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
No. The RATIONAL part of the soul. The desires and emotions can be rather crafty in getting their way. It's not about the "smart" part. It is about the REASONABLE part.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Well I was responding to an atheist who claimed not to think in terms of God, immediately after an exchange which he initiated, where he’d done exactly that.
But to answer your question, I am not entirely convinced by the argument frequently advanced by vociferous atheists, that they are concerned with religious matters only because religious institutions and beliefs impact directly on their lives. Whilst there may be truth in that perception, in a great many cases, there is something else in play here. Think of those those theoretical physicists - Einstein, Dirac, Hawking etc - who unselfconsciously reference God in their philosophical discursions; or in another domain, Carl Jung’s talk of ‘God-concepts’ as significant factors in his patient’s psyche.
If Nietzsche was on to to something, and post enlightenment man has killed God, why do so many modern thinkers find it necessary to resurrect Him, at least metaphorically? Could it be that reason, logic, and scientific materialism simply cannot offer a balanced model of the world without invoking a transcendent mystery which every historical civilisation has characterised as divine agency?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I'm sorry for using the basic term "smart", which can also mean "rational" and "reasonable", I think..... to describe it.
But doesn't saying "rational" and "reasonable" also imply emotional intelligence, which [may] require emotions and emotional understanding?
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
No. I think it implies dismissal of such things. Not that I advocate suppression of emotions, I don't. But I also do endorse dismissing all emotions when you want to get to the objective truth of the matter.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Temporarily.