@skyblack Absolutely. Greed and fear are the sole factors. In fact,I would say greed and fear are one,a unity.

@Apollodorus Yours is a commendable use of platonism.

@tim wood
Save your preaching for the sheep.

@Alkis Piskas I just did.
Brevity is the soul of wit.

@tim wood
Another who hasn't understood epistemology.

@Alkis Piskas
Yep and yep. By pointing. By saying now.

@StreetlightX
Is there any state in history or currently you think was just? If not,is this because any state is intrinsically unjust,or do you have a rough idea of how a just state could be implemented?

@Christoffer The proof from epistemology that justifies reason as being true.

@Jack Cummins Obviously sometimes the law criminalises things which are not really criminal. And sometimes there are factors like self defense etc involved.
A lot can be learned in clinical settings,but a lot of the interventions don't address the underlying causes.
Academic psychology is pathetic.

@Apollodorus I think your summation on the tenth page of the thread is excellent. I would just add that assistance
of the work of the divine is implementation of divine rule. Platos political agenda.
And the final part is merging with the divine,or recognising oneself as divine.

@Apollodorus I think in this dialogue plato is trying to show how monotheism is the correct way. His use of piety as a form,and the forms ultimately leads to the ultimate form of the good,which is monotheism.
The actual dilemma only applies to an omnibenevolent omnipotent god,and I don't think the Greeks saw divinity in this way. Neither did plato. The dilemma does destroy the literal concept of an omnibenevolent god,but not the concept of divinity itself.
Like most of his dialogues this is for novices. The real stuff is the timaeus,the Republic,the laws and the unpublished material elucidated by plotinus et Al.
Platos work has an exoteric and esoteric dimension.
Those who think plato was a pure rationalist or dialectition ignore his political and religious goals and his aqaintance with the mysteries.

@Jack Cummins It's good to be selective about those you socialise or associate with for the reasons you gave.
Those people you met who commited crimes,are we talking murder or other offenses?

@Christoffer Nietzsche,Wittgenstein,foucault,William James,and others.
So any epistemological proofs for reason?

@Jack Cummins These people's intrinsic personality is one that wants to control others. They enjoy deceiving,cheating,robbing and making people suffer if needed. They are willing to murder if needed. They only care about self image,control and not getting caught. It is a completely different category to the vast majority. Think unrepentant military general or top politician.

@Christoffer Typical ad hom clichéd response.
Where is the epistemological justification for rationality?
Have you not read your plato? The meno?
Justified true belief stands on an infinite regress unless you have axioms. And what are these axioms and are they
correct or ideological?

@Jack Cummins Well there we fundamentally disagree.
Yes good people can make hurtful mistakes and even be a bit nasty at times. But evil is a whole different category.
I've met evil,I know the difference.

@Christoffer Epistemology has no foundations,no conclusions. So you just have faith in reason.
In reality you are worshipping the ideological biographies of dead philosophers.

@Jack Cummins I think we have to get away from the "we manifest every evil from our shadow side" thinking.
A lot of evil is from evil people. I don't believe we all have an evil side. Nor do i believe if people's issues were resolved we would get no conflict.
This myth of therapy or education or awareness being the key to solving conflict ignores the reality of what human motivations and personalities really are.

@Christoffer Epistemology you say? Is there any agreement or conclusions in that field of philosophy?
If not,your whole post is moot.
And to be honest,you sound just as dogmatic and ill informed as a fundamentalist.

@Jack Cummins I don't feel they are poles.
I think superiority or striving for such is a sign of inferiority.
Inferiority expresses itself as hubris and superiority.
Real Confidence. That's a totally different thing.
I don't think we should look at phenomenon as being on continiums or poles. Sometimes we have to say,it is what it is.

@Jack Cummins This applies to a whole lot of people.
Bang on the money!

Where is the logic and reason to prove that logic and reason are better than experience and belief?
Logical positivism is inconsistent.
And most atheists do not live their lives purely by logic and reason. That's impossible.
And the believers in rationality just assume rationality can explain everything. Whence and why this faith?

@Foghorn That is rationality in a nutshell! A peacock trying to hide the fact it's an ugly bird,unable to rival a beautiful creature like a bear!

@Foghorn Because many people love to try to one up other people. It's social anxiety being medicated by trying to assert your superiority with high falutin words. Showing of one's education. A display of peacock feathers. The fact the debate doesn't achieve a solution is irrelevant. These people just want to vent and belittle others to feel better about their insecurity.

@Cuthbert A lot of truth in that video!

People love to preach and be sanctimonious.
Makes them feel better,temporarily.
And for some this procrastinates the actual real work they should be doing on themselves.
For others,they just get enjoy being karens. That is their life.

Excellent thread!
People have worldviews and strong opinions,and when these are contradicted or threatened people react viscerally. The degree of reaction depends on the emotional investment and the mentality of the poster.
The main fault I see is that when contradicted some get so rattled that all they can do is become abusive and repeat one sided evidence,ergo post hoc evidence.
The central committee here then deletes posts and threatens members with bans. Not quite a debate,but a political broadcast smacking of authoritarianism.
I see many members in that thread virtue signalling and not interested in the human side of conflicts,just broadcasting their political agenda.
Remember for many with little political influence in their everyday life,this is a real venting outlet. A channel for their resentiment. A flag waving for socialists and tinpots. A venue and haven for the disgruntled.
And thus are the vast majority of Internet forums.
Good news is in real life most of these clowns wouldn't say boo to a goose.

@Apollodorus Agreed. I'm stating that neoplatonism and its concept of the One,and the merger with the one are what plato intended,rather than the obsession with forms or the dialogues many plato scholars have.
Plato was a thoroughly spiritual and political man acquainted with the mysteries. He is not just the academic some people make him out to be.

@skyblack That is 100% true.

@Apollodorus I think the big thing is platonism can be used for good or evil. The same with kaabalah.
Sufism is very interesting.
It's amazing to me that anyone could regard plato as a materialist. Neo platonism is essentially a continuation and addition to platonism. The dialogues are for the novice students and to help debating prowess.

@skyblack You understand me well brother!

@baker Go and play some tennis or something! Don't mope around!

@Apollodorus Platonism is the definately the most influential system in Western philosophy and influenced the church a lot. I've read all of plato. But I think his real message was a kind of kabbalist hierarchy. The timaeus is a much neglected text of his on this site.
I classify buddhism as a religion to many,and a philosophy to others.

@baker It's not luck if you don't believe in evolution,which I don't.
No,it's like saying try any of the various sports or meditation that suits you. I have seen them increase confidence. Give them a fair shake.

@baker Confidence is not luck.
With confident people it is their intrinsic nature,hence my Buddha nature comment.
Meditation and sports. General so you can choose your own type.

@Apollodorus That's good we have that in common.
I'm interested in both,the psychology of religion/science/philosophy and religion itself.
I was brought up Muslim. Have studied almost every other religion,with special emphasis on buddhism and gnosticism.
How about yourself?

@Joshs phenomenology or personal experience transcends this false choice of idealism or materialism,and subjective objective dichotomy.
But I don't think many take notice given their entrenchment on either side.

@baker Why should it be luck?
It can't be taught. But like Buddha nature it can be nurtured back to full power. Meditation and sports helps a lot.

@Apollodorus I have a history of interest
in religion and its derivatives,philosophy and science.
Its very interesting to study the motivations and ideologies that people produce.
I'm also very aware of the current religion science debates and i find these intriguing as well.

@baker If they can do so without philosophy,what does that say about philosophers? Looks like the OP is correct.