Can You Adam And Eve It?

skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
preoQpydDlusion said:
Oooooo, and whats insanity?
Click to expand...
You've never seen it?

I accept that insanity is hard to define, yet we somehow manage to lock thousands of people up every year for just such a reason. Sometimes these people do not make it into mental institutions, sometimes they go to prison.

From my own analysis of insanity... I see these people as trapped within a lie. They feel weak, feel unworthy of life, so they retract within themselves. Of course my studies are only of men, I have yet to meet any insane women (at least none I have had the inclination to analyse). I say this because because I believe that male insanity starts due to problems they have with women.

If I may give an example of insanity, I'd like you to imagine a man, usually single, although it isn't unknown for a family man to lose the plot too. This man fantasises every day about killing women, or children (notice how the victims are weaker than the perp', although there are always exceptions like the perp would go for a male, but then he would have the element of surprize and more than likely a weapon with heavy intent on using it properly). Killing them in different ways, I'll leave you to imagine the horror of his victims and the enjoyment, feeling of power he gains from it.

What else could you call it? Anti social? No, the word is far too weak. What could you call someone so detached from reality? I agree, within his reality he could view himself as completely sane... but is he?
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
frthnkr85 said:
maybe we are all a little insane buddy... but i accept what i know to be true just as you do... how do i know there is a god... the part of me that is alive can feel it... santa clause and the tooth fairy are man made on this earth... you can trace the stories back to their origins and factually prove them wrong... they have not been around all that long... a few hundred years at most...

LOL, do I really need to reply to this satement? You want to bring facts into a spiritual conversation when you are on the side of the spiritual? This is tantamount to burying yourself.

but the idea of a god or gods has existed since man started to put ideas on paper...

Oh, much longer than that.

what is your definition of a god... you say you know things and analyze but you forget a key element to this conversation... We are talking about the universe... which means you lose... because unless you can know all thats out there or answer the 2 big questions (How? & Why?) then your assertion that the idea of god or the existance of such can't be holds no water... for you haven't been able to analyse all of the evidence and so you can't even make an educated guess...

There doesn't always need to be a motive, and the scientific facts and theories hold far more credence than belief in a god and the even crazier belief that when we die it's okay, because we are going to live forever in a heavenly place and never cease to exist, and see every one passed again, waiting for the next gen' to pop up too: COME ON!

the only way you or the human race will ever have a chance of reaching the stars is by leaving your mind open to EVERY LAST possibility!!! If someone one day doesn't wake up and say humans can move the speed of light i know it can be done!!! then it will never happen... If someone Hadn't woken up in the past and said I know humans can harness the energy of the earth i just have to examine this lightning to see how it can be done!!! then we would have no electricity... you see sometimes crazy ideas that don't seem possible are made possible by human desire and a certain degree of intelligence... and the last part is that we are able to pass on knowledge because of our tie to eternity and the universe...

My thoughts exactly. It's about time the human race woke up and discarded all the bullshit, moved on to the next level. Our cave man days are over, what use have we for belief in gods? All it causes is war, all it causes is people to believe that LIFE is not the most precious of gifts, to believe that it is in fact DEATH. There needs to be an awakening, of that you are right... and I think it needs to start with you. You could spread the atheist word to all your god-fearing buddies in the airforce.

no matter how smart you think monkeys are or how much you believe in evolution... mark my words it will never happen... the earth has been around for a very very very long time and it hasn't happened yet except once...there is a reason for that... and preo that giraffe thing...funny
Click to expand...
Is this bit actually meant to make any sense? You can't say, 'it hasn't happened yet except once.'
It's not how smart I think chimp's are, it is how smart they have proven to be. To deny evolution at all is a mistake, as evolution is a proven fact. Darwin's documentation of the Galapagos Islands provides adequate proof. Animals will adapt mutations to survive in differing environments.
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
Well as a philosophy major I'm going to have to comment on these questions...first of all perception has been used since the beggining of time in search of truth, in the sense of seeing, hearing, etc... we all know that scientist nowadays use these to come up with a hypothesis and test them in labs...here's my term paper on Platonic philosphy... It's about soul, or nouses in greek for mind, they considered mind to be the soul, long story...


The Hierarchical Principle and the Immortality of the Soul​

Throughout Plato it becomes evident that Socrates, unlike the pre-Socratic philosophers, cares more about ethics than any other aspect of philosophy such as metaphysics or epistemology. In Phaedo, Socrates’ argument of recollection, previously noted in Meno, makes way for his argument of immortality of the soul. There are several, if not many, instances in Plato where the dialogues question the immortality of the soul, and how and why the soul must be immortal. Socrates applies concepts of natural events in order to show the hierarchical structure of the forms such as coldness and hotness; and how the lesser forms such as fire and snow must be inferior to them. Socrates then tries to apply the same hierarchical principle to body and soul as well as life and death. After careful investigation of Meno, Phaedo and Apology one must recognize that the soul is immortal.
The dialogues usually start when Socrates, though willing to engage in an argument, claims ignorance and his “innocent" inquiries expose step by step the vanity or illogicality of the proposition by unsettling the assumptions of his dialogue partner. One of these dialogues, Euthyphro, named after his dialogue partner is concerned with the nature of piety. Through out the conversation, Euthyphro gives examples of pious actions to Socrates, but Socrates is keen to find the form of piety or the universal meaning of it. He argues that without this knowledge along with loyalty to the gods and country one cannot live an ethical life. Socrates argues that his fellow Athenians should not care for their belongings before they care for goodness and wisdom. And that people should not care for the city’s possessions more than the city it self. His idea is that the city’s possessions are part of the form of the whole city, and that the whole form has more value. This is an example of the hierarchical principle noted in the introduction which will eventually lead to our discussion of the forms and the immortality of the soul.
In Crito, before the jury passed the verdict of guilty, Socrates says, “I will not beg you to acquit me by bringing them [his children] here. Why do I do none of these things?...With regard to my reputation and yours and that of the whole city” (Crito, 34e). Socrates believes that if he used his children as an excuse to get acquitted, it would bring shame not only to him but to the whole city. During his defense he says, “It is not the purpose of a juryman’s office to give justice as a favor to whoever seems good to him, but to judge according to law” (Crito, 35c). Socrates argues that the Jurymen, being part of the city, should consider the law of the city before they consider the individual. He also believes that the gods have chosen him to follow the profession of philosophy; he says, “If I say that it is impossible for me to keep quiet because that means disobeying the god, you will not believe me…” (Crito, 38a). He argues that by not practicing philosophy he is disobeying the gods and not believing in them. Socrates values the importance of laws that guide a man towards being a virtuous citizen. He views the laws of the city and of the gods as to be followed by individuals as part of the many roles they partake in the city.
In the last part of Plato, Crito, a friend of Socrates, tries to convince him to save himself and not die. He says that Socrates should not fear for his friends if they try to save him because it is justified for them to do so. Crito also disagrees with Socrates’ decision to choose death over life by saying “you seem to me to choose the easiest path, whereas one should choose the path a good and courageous man would choose, particularly when one claims throughout one’s life to care for virtue” (Crito, 45d). Socrates in response uses his usual method of questioning to answer Crito. Socrates tells Crito that he can not leave prison against the will of the Athenians because the people represent the city and someone who leads a virtuous life cannot disobey the city’s laws. He comes to this conclusion by saying to Crito that if the laws and the state were to confront them while they were running away, they would ask: “Do you not by this action you are attempting intend to destroy us, the laws, and indeed the whole city, as far as you are concerned?” (Crito, 50b). At this point, Socrates sees justice as part of the city that establishes order for the individuals within the city; the order established will then make the city a better copy of the form as it gets closer to perfection. Socrates also says that the city has been taking care of His friends, himself and his off springs; any action against the city is not only against himself but against everyone he know. Thus, Socrates sees death as the only answer that will satisfy him since the state will not allow him to continue his profession of philosophy.
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
In one of the dialogues, Meno argues that one cannot search either for what he knows, since he knows it and needs not to search…or for what he does not know, since he does not know what to search for. This paradox of knowledge is problematic since we are concerned with whether virtue can be known from an epistemological standpoint. Socrates argues that this paradox makes one lethargic, for it impedes the seeker in his quest and should not be taken into account. But rather his argument of recollection which invigorates the spirit of the seeker should be considered. Thus, Socrates tackles the problem by explaining the paradox through a process he calls “recollection.” The paradox of knowledge is not as problematic as it seems so long as one takes into account Socrates’ viewpoint on acquiring knowledge as it is shown through out the text.
In order to present a good case for his position, Socrates asks Meno to present to him someone who is devoid of any but simple geometric knowledge. For his theory to hold, the servant must recollect or remember the knowledge within him. Socrates then proceeds to ask questions that are supposed to demonstrate the servant recollecting knowledge. In a short period of time, the servant expresses his opinions and some are true in regards to the geometric figures. However as the questioning continues, the servant still feels confident about knowing the answers to the questions but is soon proven wrong. Although some of his answers are right, he comes to realize that doubling the length of the sides of a square each time does not necessarily mean that the area will double as well. For example, a square with sides being two feet long will have an area of four while another square with sides being four will have an area of sixteen. Thus, doubling the sides of a square does not necessary mean that the area of the new square will be double the original one. At this point the reader realizes that the servant has gained some knowledge through his own reasoning and reached his conclusion through recollection. As the inquiry continues the servant gains more and more knowledge, or “true opinion” according to Socrates, and comes up with his own opinions which are right and thus he has gained more knowledge about the nature of a square.
One must ask whether the servant has at some point during his life acquired the knowledge that he posses or else he must have always possessed it. The reader is assured that the servant has not learned any geometric skills in his life. Therefore, it is argued that the only way he could have gained this knowledge is at some other time when the servant’s soul was living in a different world. One may try to refute this claim by arguing that one can not be sure that there is a different world than this and thus we can not claims such a conclusion. However this would be irrelevant, since the point made in this passage is that knowledge is gained epistemologically by the seeker who asks the right questions and is willing to continue on with his search and come up with the right opinion, hypothesis or knowledge. The inquiry continues on as Socrates and Meno try to apply this method of recollection to knowledge of virtue.
During this inquiry Socrates and Meno are trying to see if there is an answer to their original question: can virtue be taught? The next passage puts the theory of recollection to the test. One must first consider if virtue is knowledge, if it is, then it must be teachable or recollectable. It is agreed that virtue is good and that knowledge encompasses everything that is good and that nothing bad comes from knowledge, thus virtue must be knowledge since it is encompassed by it. Here Socrates tries to find some common ground or similarities as a geometer would in his quest to find the area of a circle by using triangles. His theory does not necessarily have to be right, for he is trying to find what is right or truthful about the nature of virtue. Socrates then proceeds to claim that what is good is that which benefit us and the same things that are good sometimes harm us. For examples, health, strength, beauty and wealth would have qualities that are both good and bad. He also argues that qualities of the soul such as moderation, justice, courage and intelligence are also the same as the ones mention above can be good or bad (Meno, 88.) Socrates argues that only when wisdom is accompanied with these qualities can they become good and that ignorance will bring about the opposite which is bad (Meno, 88b.) So if virtue is a quality of the soul then like many other qualities that the soul possesses, it must be accompanied by wisdom for it to be good. For something to be knowledgeable there must people who teach and learn the subject. Socrates then argues that if such is the case one must go to those who teach virtue in order to learn the subject. This follows from the fact that a person who wants to learn geometry goes to a geometer and the same is true for any other skill or craft that one needs to acquire knowledge of. However, Socrates claims that there are no such people and therefore virtue can not be knowledgeable. Socrates then suggests that Meno should go to the sophist since they claim to exact a fee for teaching virtue (Meno, 91b.) However, Anytus argues that sophist only corrupt people and are no teachers of virtue since all they do is bad (Meno, 91d). In fact, he claims that any Athenian man would be a better teacher than a sophist. Socrates argues that the argument does not necessarily follow from the premises since not all Athenian men who have had virtuous teachers became virtuous even though they learned many other skills (Meno, 93e.) This only proves Socrates’ point that there are no teachers of virtue and none can be found. Thus virtue is not knowledge nor can it be taught.
Socrates claims that because true opinions are just like knowledge and that if virtue is not knowledge then it must be true opinions since it is beneficial. This follows from the fact that one who has a true opinion about the way to a city can be just as helpful as one who has the knowledge of it (Meno, 97b.) Socrates claims that since men can not be virtuous by nature nor can they be taught by teachers then they must be divine since they have true opinions that guide the seeker to the right direction. Socrates calls these people divine and argues that those who are virtuous must therefore be divine.
Divinity has always been closely linked to the afterlife, the soul and god(s). In the dialogue set forth in Phaedo, Socrates discusses the nature of the afterlife. This dialogue is narrated by Plato, through Phaedo. By engaging in dialectic with two of his friends, the Thebans Cebes and Simmias, who had originally come to be with Socrates in order to assist Crito in funding his escape from prison, Socrates explores various arguments for the soul's immortality in order to show that there is an afterlife in which the soul will dwell following death.
Socrates presents four arguments for the immortality of the soul. The first three, though convincing, are weak. While valuable to the reader as examples of both invalid arguments and the difficulty of proving such a claim as the soul's immortality, none of the first three are sufficient either on their own or combined to satisfy either the two Thebans or the reader. The fourth argument, however, is accepted by Socrates' interlocutors as being logically sound. Socrates seems to have proven the immortality of the soul for the reason that the cause of life can never be dead. There is no possibility for a dead soul, and hence the soul is immortal. None of his interlocutors can find any reason to object. However, while the argument is in fact valid, it may still be criticized as unsound, for it is based upon a premise that has yet to be conclusively shown to be true. However, as Socrates and those present during the final hours of his life accept the argument, philosophers continue their investigation of the Socratic notion of the afterlife to this day. In doing so, we will see in whose company the soul will be following its passage to the underworld. Socrates holds that the soul of the philosopher will be treated favorably by the gods once he has died. Further objections may be raised, and we will see that Socrates asserts theories to show conclusively what the afterlife will really be like. While Socrates' efforts to withstand criticism may not have been wholly successful; to investigate his conception of both the immortality of the soul and the afterlife in general, one may come to a greater understanding of the problems therein and see why the philosopher is justified in living his way of life.
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
Phaedo begins with Cebes to question Socrates about various issues. The first question is raised on behalf of Evenus, a Sophist. Cebes asks on his behalf, "who never before wrote a line of poetry," is now in prison "turning Aesop's fables into verse" and also composing a hymn in honor of Apollo (Phaedo, 60d). Socrates answers that he is doing so in order to satisfy intimations received during his dreams that he should make music (Phaedo, 60d-e). Socrates justifies himself by accrediting this sudden interest to a desire to part from the world having obeyed the divination that he often received while dreaming, that he should make music.
Following this explanation, Socrates tells Phaedo to "bid him farewell from me; say that I would have him come after me if he be a wise man" (Phaedo, 61b). Simmias expresses confusion as to why Evenus ought to follow Socrates to death. Socrates, then, states that, "...he, who has the spirit of philosophy, will be willing to die; but he will not take his own life" (Phaedo, 61c). Cebes then raises his doubts as to why suicide is prohibited. Cebes first asks why the philosopher should not kill himself. Socrates replies that while death is the ideal home of the soul, man, specifically the philosopher, should not commit suicide except when it becomes necessary. He asks, "Why do you say…that a man ought not to take his own life, but that the philosopher will be ready to follow one who is dying?" (Phaedo, 61d).
Following this, a discussion about suicide occurs between Cebes and Socrates, in which the latter succeeds in showing the former that one ought not to hasten towards death through suicide. While the philosopher seeks always to rid himself of the body, and to focus solely on things concerning the soul, to commit suicide is prohibited as man is not sole possessor of his body. As stated in the Phaedo: "the philosopher more than other men frees the soul from association with the body as much as possible" (64e-65a). So body and soul are separate. The philosopher frees himself from the body because the body is an impediment to the attainment of truth. The philosopher acts as such in order that the body will not distract the soul from attaining virtue and knowledge. While the body is incapable of distinctly perceiving truth about anything, the pursuit of truth is the philosopher's task. During the Apology, Socrates says of this task, "God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men" (Apology, 28e-29a). Socrates says to Simmias in the Phaedo: "Did you ever reach them with any bodily sense? -- And I speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and, in short, of the reality or true nature of everything. Is the truth of them ever perceived through the bodily organs? Or rather, is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of each thing he considers?" (Phaedo, 65d-e).
The philosopher will then accept that he can come closest to true knowledge in death for he will no longer be distracted by the body. As the philosopher seeks death his entire life, he should greet it kindly and not be discouraged upon its arrival. However, it is impossible to be alive without the existence of the body. Death, then, the separation of body and soul, is the philosopher's ideal. He will have lived his entire life preparing for and hoping for death. Socrates best discusses this in the Apology, no living man, be he a poet, sophist, or even Socrates himself, is capable of really knowing anything, the philosopher will see death as a haven for the soul. In death only, the soul may possibly come to actually gain true knowledge. For: "He who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements when they associate with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge--who, if not he, is likely to attain to the knowledge of true being?" (Apology, 65e-66a).
However, man should not kill himself. Socrates cites the traditional argument that man ought not to kill himself because he possesses no actual ownership of himself, as he is actually the property of the gods. He says, "I too believe that the gods are our guardians, and that we men are a chattel of theirs" (Phaedo, 62b). To this, Cebes assents. For, the body is the property of the gods, and man would be punished were he to destroy something that he does not truly own. Then, it may be concluded that man should not kill himself because he will be punished by the gods. The philosopher, then, will greet death, but not hasten to its arrival. For, while he has spent his life preparing for and awaiting its arrival, it is not virtuous to bring about its occurrence.
Two points are evident from this discussion. First, that the body and soul are held to be separate entities, and that they may be separated, most thoroughly through death. Secondly, in arguing that one ought not to do harm to the possession of the gods, it may be inferred that Socrates believes in an afterlife. For, where else would the gods seek retribution and inflict punishment on the person who acts immorally by committing suicide than in some afterlife? Indeed the only thing worrying Socrates before his death is his duty to the gods. He is concerned that certain things be taken care of in order to provide for a swift and blessed journey to the underworld. So he has taken to composing music and will later remind Crito to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius, god of medicine and healing (Phaedo, 118a). Socrates believes that though the soul is immortal, man must perform certain actions and live in a certain manner in order to ensure that the gods treat its immortality favorably once he has died.
The argument continues that man's soul is immortal, and thus may be punished in some way by the gods even after the separation of soul and body. In the course of this argument, the notion of the afterlife arises, and Socrates treats it in multiple ways, always seeking to show that the soul is immortal. He does so by first formulating cyclical, recollective, and affinity arguments. However, we must first see what death is. Indeed, the first concept needing clarification in order to speak of an afterlife is the nature of death. It must first be shown that Socrates believes death to be one of two things. The first he discusses in both the Apology and the Phaedo. The second is mentioned only in the Apology. Either, "that the body comes to be separated by itself apart from the soul, and the soul comes to be separated by itself apart from the body" (Phaedo, 64c), or it is the complete dissolution of the soul. Cebes is troubled by the latter. He worries that death might signify the complete annihilation of the soul. Cebes speaks of such a view and the men who hold it: "...they fear that when she [the soul] has left the body her place may be nowhere, and that on the very day of death she may perish and come to an end immediately on her release from the body...dispersing and vanishing away into nothingness in her flight" (Phaedo, 70a).
We have two Socratic critiques of this idea. In the Apology, Socrates shows that if the soul were to scatter into nothingness upon death, this would be a great blessing to man. He says that, if, "...death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness," then it is "an unspeakable gain" (Apology, 40c). Socrates goes on to illustrate this claim by saying that if death is of such a nature, then it resembles and even exceeds the most peaceful, dreamless night of sleep ever passed by man during his life. As most men would be hard pressed to come up with a more serene time in their lives, either awake or asleep, than those nights being untroubled by even dreams, then to be so for eternity would be a true blessing (Apology, 40c-d). However, in the Phaedo, Socrates refutes the idea altogether. He does so by showing that the soul continues to exist after death and is immortal. Socrates also refers to such worries about the dispersal of the soul as being childish (Phaedo, 77d).
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
In order to alleviate Cebes' worry that the soul might perish at death, Socrates introduces his first argument for the immortality of the soul. This argument is called the cyclical argument. It supposes that the soul must be immortal since the living come from the dead. Socrates first lays out the argument. He says: "Now if it be true that the living come from the dead, then our souls must exist in the other world, for if not, how could they have been born again?" (Phaedo, 70c-d). He goes on to show, using examples of relationships, such as asleep-awake and hot-cold, that things that have opposites come to be from their opposite. One falls asleep after having been awake. And after being asleep, he awakens. Things that are hot can become cold and vice versa. Socrates then gets Cebes to conclude that the dead are generated from the living, through death, and that the living are generated from the dead, through birth. The souls of the dead must exist in some place, then, for them to be able to return into life. This argument does not necessarily hold, however. For it does not show that the soul continues to exist once a man has died.
Nonetheless, neither Cebes nor Simmias object to the argument. Rather, Cebes realizes the relationship between the cyclical existence argument and Socrates' theory of recollection. He interrupts Socrates to point this out, saying: "...your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that our learning is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time in which we have learned that which we now recollect. But this would be impossible unless our soul had been somewhere before existing in this form of man; here then is another proof of the soul's immortality." (Phaedo, 72e-73a).
The theory of recollection runs basically as it has been shown, that it is possible to draw a true answer out of a person who seems to not have any knowledge of the subject prior to his questioning. This person must have gained this knowledge in a prior life, and now merely recalls it. Indeed, as he has now been able to answer correctly, it must be the case that his answer arose from recollection of knowledge gained during a previous life. Socrates presents this argument to Meno and concludes, "The soul, then, as being immortal and having been born again many times and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all." He continues to state emphatically that "all inquiry and all learning is but recollection" (Meno, 81d).
While this argument is sufficient to show that the soul has existed before, and so acquired what is now a priori knowledge, it does not necessarily prove that the soul will exist forever. For, while the soul may have lived any number of lives prior to the one in question that does not necessarily mean that it will continue to exist following its subsequent death(s). Knowledge then must have been attained sometime prior to birth. Socrates has not shown that the soul is immortal by means of a recollection argument. The soul, though having existed prior to birth, may still dissolve at death. Cebes doubts that Socrates has shown the soul to be immortal.
And so, Socrates presents his third argument for the immortality of the soul. In this, the so-called affinity argument, Socrates shows that the soul most resembles that which is invisible and divine, and the body that which is visible and mortal. From this, it is concluded that while the body may be seen to exist after death in the form of a corpse, as the body is the mortal of the two and the soul is the more divine, the soul must outlast the body.
There is reason to be skeptical about this argument. But, as Simmias admits, not wishing to disturb Socrates during his final hours by unsettling his belief in the immortality of the soul, those present are reluctant to voice their skepticism. Socrates grows aware of their doubt and assures his interlocutors that he does indeed believe in the soul's immortality, regardless of whether or not he has succeeded in showing it (Phaedo, 84d). For this reason, he is not upset facing death and assures them that they ought to express their concerns regarding the arguments.
Following Socrates' assurance that he will not be caused any pain as a result of any objections, Simmias presents his case that it may be such that the soul resembles the harmony of the lyre. It may be, then, that as the soul resembles the harmony in its being invisible and divine, and once the lyre has been destroyed, the harmony too vanishes, that once the body dies, the soul too vanishes. While the pieces of the broken lyre may be seen to continue to exist similar to one's mortal remains, as the harmony will have dissolute, we may infer that so too will the soul dissipate once the body has been broken through death (Phaedo, 85e-86d). Socrates asks Cebes to voice his objection as well (Phaedo, 86d-e). Cebes then points the abovementioned contradiction. He says, "I am ready to admit that the existence of the soul before entering into the bodily form has been…proven; but the existence of the soul after death is in my judgment unproven." (Phaedo, 87a) While admitting that the soul is the better part of a man, and the body the weaker, Cebes is not ready to infer then that since the body may be perceived as existing after death, that the soul must therefore continue to exist as well. Cebes appeals to the example of the weaver (Phaedo, 86e-88b). For, while the weaver's cloaks may be seen as either existing following his death or perishing prior to it, for he has made many, it does not necessarily follow that the greater (the weaver/soul) will necessarily outlast the weaker (the cloak/body). Cebes would then, "...rather not rely on the argument from superior strength to prove the continued existence of the soul after death." (Phaedo, 87e-88a) Cebes continues that though the soul may outlast certain bodies, and so continue to exist after certain deaths, it may eventually grow so weak as to dissolve entirely at some point. He then concludes that the soul's immortality has yet to be shown and that we may still doubt the soul's existence after death. For it may be that the next death is the one under which the soul ultimately collapses and exists no more (Phaedo, 88b).
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
Both Phaedo and Socrates pause in the course of their discussions at this point. Phaedo then remarks to Echecrates, pausing in the course of his thus far uninterrupted account of Socrates' final hours and his arguments for the immortality of the soul, saying that, because of this objection, those present had their "faith shaken," and that there was introduced "a confusion and uncertainty" (Phaedo, 88c). From here, Socrates continues to give his final proof of the immortality of the soul. This last one is accepted by those present as irrefutable and is indeed logically valid. The only objection one may raise is that it is based upon a premise that is not necessarily true, and so is not a sound argument. By appealing to the idea of Forms, Socrates shows that the soul is immortal as it is the cause of life. He begins by showing that "if there be anything beautiful other than absolute beauty it is beautiful only in so far as it partakes of absolute beauty" (Phaedo, 100c). Consequently, as absolute beauty is a Form, and so is the soul, then anything which has the property of being infused with a soul is so infused with the Form of soul. "Will not the number three endure annihilation or anything sooner than be converted into an even number, while remaining three?" (Phaedo, 104c). Forms, then, will never become their opposite. As the soul is that which renders the body living, and that the opposite of life is death, it so follows that, "...the soul will never admit the opposite of what she always brings." (Phaedo, 105d) That which does not admit death is said to be immortal. The soul does not become dead as the even does not become odd. Therefore, the soul is immortal. For it is exactly that which does not die. Socrates thus concludes, "Then, Cebes, beyond question, the soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world." (Phaedo, 106d-107a).
This final argument rests on the assumption that the soul is that which causes life, there are certain objections that may yet be made. However, insofar as it is the aim of this investigation to see how Socrates conceives of the afterlife, it is not necessary to attempt a refutation of this final argument. Since it has been shown through the course of successive arguments, objections, and clarifications in the forms of subsequent arguments that Socrates conceives of the afterlife in such and such a way. To see how Socrates so conceives of the afterlife is the goal of this investigation, and so we may now go on to see just what the nature of the afterlife is. Following the apparent proof that the soul is immortal, it yet remains to see how exactly the soul will exist following death. We have seen that Socrates has no doubt that the soul is immortal. He also holds that the philosopher is most likely to obtain truth in the underworld, during the afterlife. True knowledge is only capable of being attained there because death will release the soul from the body's influence and remove all corporeal distractions. Once dead, man's soul will go to Hades and be in the company of, as Socrates says, "...men departed, better than those whom I leave behind." (Phaedo, 63c)
In the Apology, Socrates says: "But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below." What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Usaeus and Hesiod and Homer? "For besides being happier than we are, they will be immortal, if what is said is true" (Apology, 40c-41c). While Socrates hopes to converse with these great men of history, the possibility that these men will not be in the underworld, as their souls may already have transmigrated back to the world of the living never seems to arise. If we assume Socrates' belief in the theory of recollection, then these men who have already died within recorded history may also have already returned to the world of the living. While not necessarily contradictory with the above quote, as indeed all the dead will necessarily abide in the underworld, it has not been shown that those who have already died will yet remain in Hades. However, Socrates' idea that those who are truly virtuous during life will be eternally free from the body once dead allows us to dogmatically assert that the philosopher, once dead, will be forever immortal. To be truly virtuous during life is the quality of a great man, then each of the men mentioned above, insofar as they are great, will perpetually dwell as souls in the underworld. However, Socrates also speaks of those who were not virtuous during life, and so favored the body and pleasures pertaining exclusively to it. For those that were not great during life, however, once dead, the swift return to the world of the living is assured. For, these people will not have succeeded in freeing their soul from their body while alive. Of those souls that are not free, Socrates speaks. He says that such a one as this is: "...polluted, is impure at the time of her departure, and is the companion and servant of the body always and is in love with and bewitched by the body and by the desires and pleasures of the body, until she is led to believe that the truth only exists in a bodily form, which a man may touch and see, and drink and eat, and use for the purposes of his lusts, the soul, I mean, accustomed to hate and fear and avoid that which to the bodily eye is dark and invisible, but is the object of mind and can be attained by philosophy; do you suppose that such a soul will depart pure and unalloyed?" (Phaedo, 81b). Persons of such a composition will be held back into corporeal life, according to Socrates. These persons will even be punished while in Hades. Their punishment will be their own doing, as they will be unable to enjoy the singular existence of the soul in death because of their constant craving for life. For, these are the souls "...of the evil, which are compelled to -- in payment of the penalty of their former evil way of life...until...they are imprisoned finally in another body" (Phaedo, 81d-e).
The soul is immortal and the course of its passing into the underworld is determined by the way in which it last behaved while alive. The philosopher and indeed any man similarly virtuous in neither fearing death nor cherishing corporeal life as something idyllic, will be eternally peaceful in death for having achieved true knowledge. For this reason, the philosopher practices the disengagement from the soul during life, in order to attain the virtue that will provide him with eternal reward, while not committing suicide, as argued above. Such is the nature of afterlife and soul as advocated by Socrates.
​











Work Cited​

Bremmer, Jan N. The early Greek concept of the soul. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Dorter, Kenneth. Plato's Phaedo: an interpretation. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1982.
Grube, G. M. A. The trial and death of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980.
Klein, Jacob. A commentary on Plato’s Meno. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Plato, Cooper M. John, ed. Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
and I really don't why we have to turn this forum into a political or philosophical one...let's keep it simple people, one thing at a time. While we are at this, I believe that the new age religion is truley the religion of Bahai
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
Here's another post that relates to today's marijuana laws​


Criminal Law


​


Devlin’s argument takes on a view that sees any conduct which poses a threat to society as within the realm of criminal behavior. The degree of danger is a factor weighed in the balance with others such as harm to other’s privacy. It is the job of society to find the balance since society can not be wrong in its judgment, although the judgment it self may not be proper. Devlin’s view of individual rights is one that has lesser value than society’s judgments about what conduct is to be criminalized. In his view one must take into account the circumstance and potential consequences of allowing any sort of conduct. However, Devlin fails to give empirical evidence that conduct such as homosexuality is serious enough to society or to its morality. For example, this right is an abstract right of an individual in which he or she can make decisions that are imperative to their human identity. So as long as these decisions do not victimize others there is no real danger to society. A similar case is religious freedom. When it first introduced to westerners, it was believed to pose a moral danger to society. Religious leaders believed that it would cause society to unravel as religious bonds that held it together became weak. If society was to agree with opponents of religious freedom, it could have rightfully adopted a policy of intolerance even though we know there is no good evidence to support such an idea.
Positive law is made and maintained by the decisions of human beings. Fields of study such as sociology or psychology can contribute greatly to the understanding of the law. Psychologists have studied how verdicts in criminal cases are affected by whether the prosecution or the defense goes last in giving its closing statement to the jury. And anthropologists have outlined the distinction between how different cultures handle disputes differently among their members. In recent years, however, some thinkers have proposed that the principles of economics prove a good way of describing, and evaluating the rules of any system of positive law. This school of thought tries to relate concept of economics such as efficiency to account for decisions and practices that seem distance form impersonal transactions. The three separate branches that belong to law and economics are the descriptive, the explanatory, and the evaluative. The first two claim that the rules of law are economically efficient and that they are what they are as a result of this efficiency. The latter tries to explain how economic efficiently proves a criterion for evaluating the law; mainly thorough: other things being equal, inefficient legal rules should be replaced by efficient ones, and efficient ones should be maintained. This is so because from the economic perspective, human action is essentially rational and the rationality of an action is a function of its costs and benefits to the agent.



cash rules everythin round me.......
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
Guilty Mind​
In order for a person to commit a crime, they must have a guilty mind, or mens rea. Crimes are usually composed of two parts, the guilty act and the guilty mind. There are four different mental states in defining the mens rea element of crimes: intention, knowledge, negligence, and recklessness. These mental states help to distinguish what is a crime and what is not a crime as well as the different kinds of crimes. There are two different kinds of liability, the objective and strict liability. These two types hold society responsible for a harm she causes regardless of whether she has a guilty mined. Law imposes objective liability on a person when it holds her liable for harm caused due to her reckless action even when she is unaware of its negligence. This is due to the objective view of the negligence not the subjective. Strict liability goes a step further and holds the individual liable even if she did not intend the harm from an objective point of view. Some legal thinkers believe that the strict liability is unfair and that law should never impose it. Law should always require a guilty mind before criminal punishment is imposed on the individual. One argument for this view is that strict liability is fundamentally unfair and it violates the rule-of-law principle. The reason being an individual does not have a fair chance of avoiding strict-liability offenses. One of the main purposes of the rule of law is that it ensures its citizens can know in advance what actions will make the liable to punishment by the government so that they can adjust their behavior to avoid such punishment. On the other hand, defenders of strict liability argue that strict liability can promote the total social good on utilitarian grounds because it encourages people to take all possible precautions. John Stuart Mill on the private law notes, “It means a commitment to the idea that each individual should have an extensive sphere of liberty into which government and society may not legitimately intrude.” Mill’s principle, the “harm principle”, implies that the only legitimate reason for society to restrict the liberty of one of its members is to prevent him from directly harming the interests of another. When it comes to society there are two different distinctions of activities, self- regarding and other-regarding. Self-regarding activities belong to the private domain beyond the legitimate jurisdiction of criminal law and other means used by government to restrict individual liberty. Other-regarding activities however are legitimate targets for legal and social regulations. Mill believes that society should adopt principles that will effectively promote the greatest intellectual and emotional development of the greatest number. Mill argues that paternalism and moralism will impede the progress towards achieving the greatest development of higher faculties. Patrick Devlin on the other hand argues that every society has its own moral code, and the preservation of that moral code is essential to the well being of the society.
 
preoQpydDlusion

preoQpydDlusion

Well-Known Member
aww, sani, u should have paraphrased a little... its torture looking at all that. u copy n paste for 10 min, n now im reading for 10 hrs. thanks for the contribution, it seemed this thread was turning a bit stale with the three of us repeatedly stating the same thing. i believe sober ppl have no place in philosophical discussion, so i love to hear ideas from fellow smokers.
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
preoQpydDlusion said:
aww, sani, u should have paraphrased a little... its torture looking at all that. u copy n paste for 10 min, n now im reading for 10 hrs. thanks for the contribution, it seemed this thread was turning a bit stale with the three of us repeatedly stating the same thing. i believe sober ppl have no place in philosophical discussion, so i love to hear ideas from fellow smokers.
Click to expand...
it took me longer to write it....:roll:
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
I haven't even read it yet. It's way too intimidating for first thing in the morning. I will though... even so, could you not summarise it? I have to get my kids up in a minute, and there's no way I'm really going to have the time available to read it all, I'll need to do it in stages. As often, I will read sentences over and over again in an attempt to understand them properly.

I will however check out your link.
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
this is sumerized and it's my opinion of the books...IF you want to read the whole thing just get plato's works and read phaedo, meno and apology....

Plato, Cooper M. John, ed. Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
 
F

frthnkr85

Well-Known Member
wow... that was quite a bit... i'm going to think about it and collect and my thoughts... i will get back to you guys later... got stuff to do
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
Read the socrates post; the whole thing points to an outside existence. Which is hardly surprising given the era it was written. I imagine Socrates would think something else entirely were he alive today. The post also seems to be more about the man than any particular viewpoint. Viewpoints are accepted with very little argument, even on the part of yourself as the author. So the post moves forward as though there are no objections, almost deliberately ignored.

I also followed your link, and although not reading much of the information, I feel I have read enough to know that I needn't bother reading any more. I do not really like links anyway, I'd prefer you to tell me in your own words. You'd stand much more chance of convincing me. If intelligent design means we must have been created by some type of superbeing it's a load of bollocks.

Please, if I have the wrong end of the stick, feel free to explain where I am wrong. I'm interested in what you think, not Aristotle, Plato or even Wittgenstein (forgive me if I have spelt his name wrong, it's been a long time).
 
Sanifsan

Sanifsan

Well-Known Member
When it comes to cellular biology things get very complicated...I would describe it, the cell, as a big city or a even a watch with all gears and screws and all.....When you need a certain part of a car, for example a honda civic, in a big city...You can't just go to a Cadillac dealer and ask for the part you need (even though that same exact part is in a cadillac, it will not do the job for a honda civic) , for example the pistons or whatever part it is your looking for...by the way I'm not a big know it all guy when it comes to cars...So the theory of evolution says that cells just borrow parts from other cells that they need most in that environment, situtation, whatever and evolve through time by perfering that part over another, I'm sorry but I forgottt the technical term...but you've probably studied the theory in high school when Darwin goes to the eastern islands and sees the different birds with different beaks and he argues they have evolved that sort of beak for their uses in thier environment...I don't know, beaks for breaking nuts, beaks for eating berries, etc...But according to theory of Intelligent design this is impossible because of the reasons I mentioned above...(cadillac, honda civic..parts..pistons...you know...)YOu can't just borrow parts that are designed for that specific purpose or size and shape...it simply won't work with the other parts....in this case the engine of the car and even more so with the complicated cellular structure....

I hope this help out a little more with why I'm tryin to say....
 
preoQpydDlusion

preoQpydDlusion

Well-Known Member
Just a heads up, i gotta get some bud before i start diggin into all these words. probly in a day or two ill be back in here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top