thanks for the heads up on the Timaeus, i've been digging Pierre Grimes' series on Timaeus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnqq0ohx ... AEC7ECD2B5
Pierre breaks it down well IMO
and that lead to some Epicurus
damn these dudes of yore rock !
-
In total there are 15 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 15 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Forever
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Forever
the breakdown of father, mother, son from Timaeus that Pierre covers there is such a doppelganger for the christian Father, Mary, Christ thing that they seem obvious motif doubles to me.
you find this motif repetition by the score when you start reading old texts, everything old is new again.
in fact the "theology" in the Timaeus seems such a vast improvement over "modern monotheisms" that i mourn the loss.
it's like the crowd is at the nickelback concert when Hendrix is playing to a few dozen round the corner, lucky sods
you find this motif repetition by the score when you start reading old texts, everything old is new again.
in fact the "theology" in the Timaeus seems such a vast improvement over "modern monotheisms" that i mourn the loss.
it's like the crowd is at the nickelback concert when Hendrix is playing to a few dozen round the corner, lucky sods
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Forever
wow! how platonic is the NT!!
when you've got verses like
i think i remember Pierre saying something like
every thinking christian should become a platonist
ahhh here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KdmVe-uMkE
why thinking christians should become platonists.
when you've got verses like
andDear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
that is some platonic shit right there!!You however are to be complete in goodness, as your Heavenly Father is complete.
i think i remember Pierre saying something like
every thinking christian should become a platonist
ahhh here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KdmVe-uMkE
why thinking christians should become platonists.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2730 times
- Been thanked: 2666 times
- Contact:
Re: Forever
Perhaps I am only mad in the sense that the divine Plato is crazy? The consensus view of modern science is that Platonic idealism is delusional, even though Plato is at the root of philosophy and science. I am interested in a paradigm shift, which naturally looks insane on the surface to those who are committed to the current false delusional dominant paradigm. Plato's theory of eternity is one typical topic that sends some people into emotional meltdown. And Camacho is making up the incredible hulk comparison. I have never been a part of army experiments.President Camacho wrote:Lmao. Fiiiight! Are you going to take that Ant??? ::: stirring the pot::::
Arg, time to crack open Plato. Be back when I get done reading it. Tulip is getting older and all the drugs he did back in the 80's for Australia's army experiments have left him both highly intelligent and highly super crazy. All information must be confirmed by interpretation of sane individuals. Brb
- President Camacho
-
- I Should Be Bronzed
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
- 16
- Location: Hampton, Ga
- Has thanked: 246 times
- Been thanked: 314 times
Re: Forever
He had to sign papers stating he would deny any involvement in said experiments, I'm sure. Either that or they erased his memory and we have to find a way of protecting ourselves just in case they trigger him.. like a one man sleeper cell. Sleeping Tulip.
Timaeus is little like anything else I've read of Plato. It resembles his other dialogues but it's fanciful and requires leaps of faith. Where the dialectic of Socrates chips away at assumption and seeks to prove a truth through keeping what can be proven through discourse and discarding what does not hold water, this dialogue has Timaeus talking about accepting tales which are probable AND INQUIRING NO FURTHER.
I'm accustomed to Socrates digging for answers and not being comfortable with statements merely because they sound truthful. He tested each statement for it's veracity by throwing the full weight of his intellect against it. Here there seems no such effort. I question just how old Plato was when he wrote this. Old men have a habit of becoming spiritual the older they get and for a poet, the condition is probably more acute.
Plato lacks common sense for his time as well. His whole theory of splitting up society in a hierarchical system comparable to his beloved Spartan constitution but run by philosophers was blasted apart by a level headed pupil of his. Socrates was a warrior who fought in multiple battles for Athens. Plato was no wimp, either... but something tells me Socrates kept him grounded and that the longer he was out of the picture the more he allowed his poetic side to dominate his thinking.
I'm about half way through. I'll let you know what I really think when I'm done.
Timaeus is little like anything else I've read of Plato. It resembles his other dialogues but it's fanciful and requires leaps of faith. Where the dialectic of Socrates chips away at assumption and seeks to prove a truth through keeping what can be proven through discourse and discarding what does not hold water, this dialogue has Timaeus talking about accepting tales which are probable AND INQUIRING NO FURTHER.
I'm accustomed to Socrates digging for answers and not being comfortable with statements merely because they sound truthful. He tested each statement for it's veracity by throwing the full weight of his intellect against it. Here there seems no such effort. I question just how old Plato was when he wrote this. Old men have a habit of becoming spiritual the older they get and for a poet, the condition is probably more acute.
Plato lacks common sense for his time as well. His whole theory of splitting up society in a hierarchical system comparable to his beloved Spartan constitution but run by philosophers was blasted apart by a level headed pupil of his. Socrates was a warrior who fought in multiple battles for Athens. Plato was no wimp, either... but something tells me Socrates kept him grounded and that the longer he was out of the picture the more he allowed his poetic side to dominate his thinking.
I'm about half way through. I'll let you know what I really think when I'm done.
Last edited by President Camacho on Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Forever
If there is to be any paradigm shift there must first be a consensus of acknowledgement that a specific anomaly (or plural) has resisted the scientific community's "puzzle solving" efforts.I am interested in a paradigm shift, which naturally looks insane on the surface to those who are committed to the current false delusional dominant paradigm.
What exactly are you referring to here and how does it related to Plato's Perfect Realm of Forms?
How would Plato's "Theory of Eternity" solve whatever natural anomaly it is you are going to setforth for us here to consider?
All this talk has such a fantasy-like tone to it, if you ask me.
I could call Plato's Perfect Realm of Forms heaven with a capital 'H"
By the way, what evidence do you have for the existence of Plato's Perfect Realm of Forms?
This works both ways, Robert. If I need empirical evidence for God, you need evidence for Plato's PERFECT Realm of Forms.
Thanks
Last edited by ant on Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- etudiant
-
Masters
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
- 15
- Location: canada
- Has thanked: 64 times
- Been thanked: 174 times
Re: Forever
I don't think we can ask the question, because the human mind is not really capable of understanding the terms. Forever means eternity, and what is that exactly? If time is infinite, then events would then seem to also be infinite. No given object, as far as we know, when thrown onto a certain course, will carry one forever without some sort of wobble or gyration.
Booktalk, for example, seems a pretty stable type of discussion forum, but, already I'd lay money, some subtle modifications of the internet, of popular fashion, or of personal inclinations are already making their slow molecular way to inducing future change.
The infinite- or even near infinite- let's call it infinite lite, can boggle the mind. In one version of our near future, for example, the Ant may repent, become a nice guy, and produce tenable posts. In others, he may go over the top, and we will read about his lurid deeds in the media. In yet another version of our infinite lite future, Robert may remember his harrowing experiences with the Australian Army. In others, he won't, or perhaps will only confide in his analyst, who of course would be sworn to confidentiality by professional ethics. Of course, on some futures, professional ethics would not mean the same thing.....
It's enough to make one's head spin. Just give me a minute here to get another brandy....................
Yes, that's better. As humans, we tend to always see things on our own scale, but when they get too big (or too small) then they just become abstractions. They are talking points that we have about the same knowledge of as the internal nuclear interchanges on the distant star Sigma AC3571. A star that would have different interchanges in some of our theoretical futures, and in some others, "nuclear" would be completely beside the point.
We can't really talk about forever. If I had a vote though, I think I would vote for forever, whatever that may entail, over the competing candidates.
Booktalk, for example, seems a pretty stable type of discussion forum, but, already I'd lay money, some subtle modifications of the internet, of popular fashion, or of personal inclinations are already making their slow molecular way to inducing future change.
The infinite- or even near infinite- let's call it infinite lite, can boggle the mind. In one version of our near future, for example, the Ant may repent, become a nice guy, and produce tenable posts. In others, he may go over the top, and we will read about his lurid deeds in the media. In yet another version of our infinite lite future, Robert may remember his harrowing experiences with the Australian Army. In others, he won't, or perhaps will only confide in his analyst, who of course would be sworn to confidentiality by professional ethics. Of course, on some futures, professional ethics would not mean the same thing.....
It's enough to make one's head spin. Just give me a minute here to get another brandy....................
Yes, that's better. As humans, we tend to always see things on our own scale, but when they get too big (or too small) then they just become abstractions. They are talking points that we have about the same knowledge of as the internal nuclear interchanges on the distant star Sigma AC3571. A star that would have different interchanges in some of our theoretical futures, and in some others, "nuclear" would be completely beside the point.
We can't really talk about forever. If I had a vote though, I think I would vote for forever, whatever that may entail, over the competing candidates.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
— JBS Haldane
- President Camacho
-
- I Should Be Bronzed
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
- 16
- Location: Hampton, Ga
- Has thanked: 246 times
- Been thanked: 314 times
Re: Forever
Plato sticks his ideas firmly in Timeaus' mouth. At least he saves Socrates the humiliation of letting such fanciful ideas escape his own. Plato is playing with the Greek idea of Gods and cosmogony here - step aside Hesiod.
For Plato the idea of eternity is that eternity is all things. It is set. It is unchanging. Time is just a moving picture of eternity. The days and nights, the motions of the planets... All these things are there so that you can have a timepiece.
I really can't believe how hokey Timaeus is. I've thumbed through some of the other dialogues. I'll have to read the statesman next... Plato seems to want to incorporate math and god in his philosophy and I have a HUGE problem with that. Instead of trying to find a philosophy which practically and honestly benefits mankind as a brother, he has instead gone in the direction of a tyrant - attempting to use his intellect as a weapon against uneducated and superstitious men. It shouldn't be the affairs of men to figure out god - more than just because God does not exist but because it's all to easy to use supposed knowledge of him as a perverted cultural weapon. Plato is being intellectually dishonest by presupposing the origin of something like God by making blanket statements without proof - by exceeding his education and intellectual pursuits but yet incorporating these other fields of science into a cosmogony in an effort to give it some kind of mask of superior knowledge, respectability, authority, grandeur, and awe. I always have problems with solutions that don't show you how the answer was reached. This dialogue is ridiculous.
-
-
- One with Books
- Posts: 2752
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
- 13
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: Forever
I, on the other hand, quite like itPresident Camacho wrote:This dialogue is ridiculous.
might there not be a hidden gem or two in there somewhere that have escaped your mining Prez? (rhetorical question)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOE1m4Nu ... E9DCC50C18
i can well relate to your viewpoint though and the issues you raise, but i can't help it, i love the old buzzard
well, plenty more fish in the seaThis dialogue is ridiculous.
yeah, me too.etudiant wrote:We can't really talk about forever. If I had a vote though, I think I would vote for forever, whatever that may entail, over the competing candidates.
reminded me of Buzz Lightyear, infinity - and beyond
and this plaintive cry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvb3MS57yk
- President Camacho
-
- I Should Be Bronzed
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm
- 16
- Location: Hampton, Ga
- Has thanked: 246 times
- Been thanked: 314 times
Re: Forever
Things of this nature are just not my can of beer. What attracts you to this particular dialogue? (It's more of a speech than a conversation).
Here are some additional things which lost me.
He who lived well returns to their appointed star but he who doesn't comes back as a woman. If you're a bad girl then you come back as a brute until you finally repent, live rationally, and get the revolutions of your internal spheres in order. As you know there can be absolutely no way to live well and good, in fact even achieving any semblance of knowledge or humanity is impossible if your inner spheres aren't revolving as they're supposed to.
Thank you Plato.... I knew there was something not quite right with me... it's my inner circles. I should have known. Maybe I'm just not getting it as usual. I have an impossibly hard time with religious philosophy and metaphysics.
how is it, in the same dialogue, Plato derides others for providing false information that they can't back up by facts and yet he does the exact same thing. His only defense is that it's probable. That has been the main weakness of truth through dialectic but there is not even any dialectic here - there's no attempt to test the assertion and he doesn't show how reached such conclusions. It's a purely religious and fictional text set as Fact and provided by a man of enormous intellectual supremacy... There's danger here.
Here are some additional things which lost me.
He who lived well returns to their appointed star but he who doesn't comes back as a woman. If you're a bad girl then you come back as a brute until you finally repent, live rationally, and get the revolutions of your internal spheres in order. As you know there can be absolutely no way to live well and good, in fact even achieving any semblance of knowledge or humanity is impossible if your inner spheres aren't revolving as they're supposed to.
Thank you Plato.... I knew there was something not quite right with me... it's my inner circles. I should have known. Maybe I'm just not getting it as usual. I have an impossibly hard time with religious philosophy and metaphysics.
how is it, in the same dialogue, Plato derides others for providing false information that they can't back up by facts and yet he does the exact same thing. His only defense is that it's probable. That has been the main weakness of truth through dialectic but there is not even any dialectic here - there's no attempt to test the assertion and he doesn't show how reached such conclusions. It's a purely religious and fictional text set as Fact and provided by a man of enormous intellectual supremacy... There's danger here.