No one can serve two masters

[vulcanlogician]

When you aren't trying to determine objective truth, emotions are fine.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

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.

I believe truth is subjective, not objective. Truth depends on our personal experiences, values, and perspectives. There is no single truth for everyone and everything. There are multiple truths that reflect our diverse realities.

Some truths are obvious and accessible. We can express them through language or logic. Some truths are hidden and elusive. We cannot capture them by words, numbers, or symbols. These truths require emotion.

But.... maybe I just don't understand about this 'objective truth' - care to explain it?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do you mean to say that Plato's problem is insoluble? Or points to a contradiction?

Pretty much both, yes. I think paradox and contradiction lie at the heart of the human condition, and characterise all our efforts to understand the world and our place in it.

So here’s a foundational contradiction that defines our experience of the world; I consider it axiomatic, that all the axioms and assumptions on which any and every intellectual edifice is built, are ultimately indefensible by reason alone. This does not mean that they have no value; but the ground we choose to stand on is never bedrock. Form is fluid, ideas are abstract, nothing is fixed.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

I'm fairly obsessed with religion, even though it has little impact on my life. But if it ever does impact my life or my government I oppose it vehemently.

But otherwise, I'm just incredibly, incredibly curious. Nothing wrong with that is there?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I believe truth is subjective, not objective. Truth depends on our personal experiences, values, and perspectives. There is no single truth for everyone and everything. There are multiple truths that reflect our diverse realities.

But doesn't that put dumbass opinions on par with rigorously earned fact?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But doesn't that put dumbass opinions on par with rigorously earned fact?

Truth varies by context and perspective. Accuracy is not a property of reality, but a quality of inquiry or communication. Accuracy depends on purpose, scope, and audience. There are shades of accuracy even if there is no objective truth. Accuracy is a matter of judgment.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm fairly obsessed with religion, even though it has little impact on my life. But if it ever does impact my life or my government I oppose it vehemently.

But otherwise, I'm just incredibly, incredibly curious. Nothing wrong with that is there?

No, there’s nothing wrong with that.

But the point I’m trying to make here, is that there is no way of either understanding the world, nor of describing the human experience, without reference to some divine agency. For example, I haven’t read Plato’s Republic for some time, but I seem to remember Socrates making several references to God.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Truth varies by context and perspective. Accuracy is not a property of reality, but a quality of inquiry or communication. Accuracy depends on purpose, scope, and audience. There are shades of accuracy even if there is no objective truth. Accuracy is a matter of judgment.

I'm still gonna find and quote the Plato passage tomorrow for us to discuss.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm still gonna find and quote the Plato passage tomorrow for us to discuss.

Okay! Sounds good.

As is currently, I'm limited to that Wikipedia article (which might not be 100% accurate).

 

[vulcanlogician]

But the point I’m trying to make here, is that there is no way of either understanding the world, nor of describing the human experience, without reference to some divine agency. For example, I haven’t read Plato’s Republic for some time, but I seem to remember Socrates making several references to God.

Socrates makes plenty of references to God. So what? If you are agreeing with everything that is said, I think you are reading the Republic in the wrong way.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Okay! Sounds good.

As is currently, I'm limited to that Wikipedia article (which might not be 100% accurate).

The article is pretty good, actually. But nowhere near as good as looking at the original text and having a talk about what it has right and what it has wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Socrates makes plenty of references to God. So what? If you are agreeing with everything that is said, I think you are reading the Republic in the wrong way.

I haven’t read it for years.

I note that you are engaged in two conversations here, but perhaps later if you have time, you’ll address my observation that there appears no way to fully describe our experience of reality without reference to God (even if only as metaphor).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not likely, it's gibberish.

Yep. Just like everything else you're not aware of and don't understand.

You come across like you think you know everything about this existence. I assure you that you don't.

 

[Nakosis]

But there is an old Platonic problem with the concept of "mastering oneself" that is presented in the Republic.

If you "master" yourself. You are also a "slave" to yourself. It is said that a person who can't stop eating sweets is a "slave to themselves."

But those who advocate "mastery over themselves" clearly mean something different. What do they mean?

Plato's answer: People have a rational, an emotional, and a desirous (appetitive) aspect to their characters. When we say one has "mastered himself" what we really mean is that the logical part of his mind is in control of the emotional and appetitive parts of his mind.

What's your take on that? Do you think self-mastery amounts to something different?

Yes, I would prefer to free myself. Which I suppose means to seek to be neither master nor slave.

 

[Jimmy]

That sounds like the "middle way" which is fine if your possessions don't "own" you. There are people who are "owned" and go to pieces of a possession disappears.

Especially if that possession is a refrigerator

 

[Windwalker]

Not likely, it's gibberish.

Not to anyone who has any control over their impulses. Have you never heard of the concept of self-discipline? What do you suppose that is about? Or do you just run off with your impulses unchecked, and literally have no idea what it means to have wisdom in your choices and actions?

I'll assume not since you imagine it's "gibberish". Maybe at some point in life, you'll have a small general awakening experience of adulthood and realize you need some higher mind to tell your childish impulses it's not okay to do that. Hopefully at least for benefit of others in your life.

 

[ppp]

Not to anyone who has any control over their impulses.

It is still gibberish to people who have control over their impulses.

 

[lukethethird]

Not to anyone who has any control over their impulses. Have you never heard of the concept of self-discipline? What do you suppose that is about? Or do you just run off with your impulses unchecked, and literally have no idea what it means to have wisdom in your choices and actions?

I'll assume not since you imagine it's "gibberish". Maybe at some point in life, you'll have a small general awakening experience of adulthood and realize you need some higher mind to tell your childish impulses it's not okay to do that. Hopefully at least for benefit of others in your life.

What is your problem, first you speak gibberish and then you accuse me of lacking self discipline? You have issues you need to deal with. BTW, your personal attacks say more about you than about me.

 

[Windwalker]

What is your problem, first you speak gibberish and then you accuse me of lacking self discipline? You have issues you need to deal with. BTW, your personal attacks say more about you than about me.

Do you actually read my posts? Go back and re-read them in order. I think it's pretty obvious you are not understanding the posts.

 

[lukethethird]

Do you actually read my posts? Go back and re-read them in order. I think it's pretty obvious you are not understanding the posts.

I understand them, except for the gibberish.