Oh god! Well, heh good point in that too. It's a lot like hacking today. Today it does take one to know one in that realm. Plus, you are well-connected with that life... so it's not unreasonable (go figure) but at first blush it sounds so crazy and scary. Maybe we are doing alright in the political realm today :smile:

Plato held that only a few wise philosophers could infer concepts like 'justice' intuitively. The far greater number of people (including lawyers) only know them as tenuous shadows in a cave, over which they bicker as to their shape. — ernestm

And lucky us that it just so happened that he was one of the few (or the only one?) who had "special insight" about this. :roll:

Sounds like the typical Internet message board poster personality to me.

And it reminds me of those folks who argue that not only is there objective aesthetic value, but lo and behold, they just so happen to be one of the people (or the only person) with complete access to it, so that all of the films/music/etc. they like best happens to also be the best stuff objectively. :lol:

And if you act now, they also have a great bridge to sell you.

Perhaps you should read what the good man had to say and see if your prejudice is merited.

Sounds like the typical Internet message board poster personality to me. — Terrapin Station

The irony of this comment is not lost on me.

As it should be.



Especially given your insight.

:wink:

I am in agreement with you except that I do not think Plato is claiming that he, or more precisely his Socrates since Plato is never speaks in the dialogues, does know “intuitively” or in any other way what justice is. One definition of justice that is agreed to is that it is minding your own business. And this should be understood as a just response to the Athenian jury that sentenced him.

In the Republic Socrates does not claim to know what justice itself is. He creates a myth of transcendent knowledge, of noesis, but in doing so points in the other direction to remind us that we are squarely within the realm of opinion; and as a matter of opinion questions of justice remain inconclusive. This is what Socrates famous “second sailing” is about. We do not have in our sights the things themselves, in this case justice itself, and so must take refuge in speech. We must rely on dialectic, on argument to reach conclusions that always fall short of knowledge and so must remain open to further consideration.

I'm referring just as much to the idea of Plato saying "The far greater number of people only know . . . shadows in a cave, over which they bicker as to their shape," (not a literal quote from Plato obviously) whereas Plato is able to "transcend" that and has some insight into "what's really going on."

I am questioning whether Plato is able to "transcend" that and has some insight into "what's really going on."

Using the analogy of the cave, he is a puppet-maker, an opinion-maker, an image-maker. His images include the cave, the shadows, and the reality that transcends our ignorance.

Sounds like the typical Internet message board poster personality to me. — Terrapin Station

I dont understand exactly, but what I learned since Elizabeth Warren decided to run for election, I am not going to be able to read social media at all. Now all the Trump inanity is going to happen in inverse, and I dont have the stomach for it any more. It would be nice if people had to at least graduate high school before they were allowed to vote, even if not fair in some people's minds, it would be better for the digestion.

s it true that only a few people are capable of reason, as Plato says? Are there really philosopher kings? — ernestm

Sure. In every field of human endeavor there are rare people way out at the end of the talent bell curve. Mozart in music, Einstein in science, etc.

But, in order to be a king one must have a kingdom to rule over, and the plight of these rare people is that few in their audience have any idea what they're talking about, and even fewer care. These "kings" live largely alone on their special little islands, talking mostly to themselves.

Point being, if we could understand what they're trying to share, they wouldn't really be kings.

I dont understand exactly, but what I learned since Elizabeth Warren decided to run for election, I am not going to be able to read social media at all. Now all the Trump inanity is going to happen in inverse, and I dont have the stomach for it any more. — ernestm

I hear ya! I keep hoping my headphones radio would finally #$%^ die already so I'll be liberated from NPR. :smile: After 50 years of being a news junkie I'm now wondering what I've actually gotten out of the hobby. The answer seems increasingly illusive....

It will be easier for me than you though perhaps, because I've never been able to stomach any social media other than forums, largely for the reasons you started this thread to discuss. At least here we at least try to say something interesting.

How does one differentiate the use of philosophy from the use of common wisdom? That is to ask, what makes a philosopher ruler different from a ruler who is simply wise? Aren't all politicians in a sense philosophical?