Mmmm. Young men tend not to be my fancy, being basically CIS hetro.

IS it that different that the process is dissimilar?

k
IS it that different that the process is dissimilar? — Banno

I guess I'm just wondering why you changed it from equal to same.

I find it odd that Cebes seems convinced by the argument at (72 b-d). — Banno

I will be addressing his eagerness to agree in my next section. As I see it, it has little or nothing to do with the strength of the argument.

A teacher chunks the lesson - building on previous understanding. Learn how to use "red" and "Heavy", then "the same", then "equal".

SO force of habit.

:up:

A teacher chunks the lesson - building on previous understanding. Learn how to use "red" and "Heavy", then "the same", then "equal". — "Banno

Oh, I see. Previous understanding. :naughty:

But yeah, that's why I was asking, I know you're a teacher and we're talking about inquiry.

So, to be sure, nous is here translated as soul?

Edit: Wayfarer avoided answering... @Fooloso4?

So, to be sure, nous is here translated as soul? — Banno

This is a digression, but I’m very interested in the later conception of ‘the rational soul’. Very briefly - just as the Ideas of things are their real essence, so the capacity of the mind to grasp the ideas is its higher aspect. The bodily senses receive the physical shape, but nous perceives the Idea or the principle, immediately through intellectual apprehension, not through the intermediary of sense. This became much more developed in the scholastic hylomorphism of Aquinas and others, but the seeds of the idea are visible going back to the Parmenides. It is this conception of the rationality of nous that distinguishes the Western philosophical tradition most strongly from the Asiatic (as Russell remarks in his chapter on Pythagoras.)

As I said, a digression or perhaps a footnote, but I really don’t want to sidetrack this thread and henceforth will try and confine my comments to the specific passages under consideration.

Idealism vs realism, yes. — frank

I think this is anachronistic.

I think this is anachronistic. — Fooloso4

Why do you say that? Democritus was his elder.

Philosophy by name-calling.

Philosophy by name-calling. — Banno

It was 2400 years ago. Cut him some slack.

It was 2400 years ago. — frank

Yep, hence the absurdity of applying terms invented in the interim. Like calling a shield a type of anti-missile defence, it's too easy. It's anachronistic.

Yep, hence the absurdity of applying terms invented in the interim. Like calling a shield a type of anti-missile defence, it's too easy. It's anachronistic. — Banno

Is there some impending confusion we're trying to avoid?

Ok. The SEP says he was an idealist. Let's see if they got it wrong.

Yes, it's ontological idealism. — frank

I think it’s better described as objective idealism. That is, Ideas or Forms are real, in that they’re not dependent on your or my mind, but they’re only graspable by a rational intelligence. Consider Pythagoras’ theorem as a paradigmatic example. (In my view, it's the mainstream tradition of Western philosophy.)

I think it’s better described as objective idealism. — Wayfarer

That works.

I don't agree that his intent is to demystify. — Wayfarer

Here are the quoted terms from 69c-d in context and bolded, starting with what I quoted above with a break in the paragraph. It is one paragraph though without a break.

… maybe this alone is the right coin for virtue, the coin for which all things must be exchanged - thoughtfulness. Maybe this is the genuine coin for which and with which all things must be bought and sold; and maybe courage and moderation and justice and true virtue as a whole are only when accompanied by thoughtfulness, regardless of whether pleasures and terrors and all other such things are added or subtracted … and maybe moderation and justice and courage and thoughtfulness itself are nothing but a kind of purifier.

And it looks as if these people who initiated our mythic rites weren't a bunch of bunglers but spoke with a genuine hidden meaning when they said long ago that whoever arrives in Hades ignorant of the mysteries and uninitiated will lie in Muck, but he who arrives there purified and initiated will dwell with gods.

The purification is as he identifies it, moderation and justice and courage and thoughtfulness.

78c-79a, 80b)

In due time.

Demystify that! — Wayfarer

Socrates has done it for me, but I do not want to get ahead of myself.

Yes, it's ontological idealism. — frank

Neither term existed then.

So, what do you mean when you say Socrates 'demystifies' these virtues etc?

Neoplatonism is a much more specific term than "objective idealism" (which is at its most specific associated with Hegel) not to mention "idealism"; an even less specific term.

Neoplatonism is a much more specific term than "objective idealism". — Janus

It really isn't. Look into it.

I think it’s better described as objective idealism. That is, Ideas or Forms are real, in that they’re not dependent on your or my mind, but they’re only graspable by a rational intelligence. — Wayfarer

Why call it idealism at all? Is everything that is grasped by a rational intelligence a form of idealism? Is mathematics a form of idealism?

So, what do you mean when you say Socrates 'demystifies' these virtues etc? — Wayfarer

... moderation and justice and courage and thoughtfulness itself are nothing but a kind of purifier.

It is this kind of purification that is needed for those who arrive in Hades.

Better if you tell me why you think it isn't.

Better if you tell me why you think it isn't. — Janus

What?

I'm trying to understand why that's significant to you. — frank

As a general interpretive principle I think it best to minimize the use of anachronistic terminology.

As a general interpretive principle I think it best to minimize the use of anachronistic terminology. — Fooloso4

Sure.

Is there controversy about what the term 'neoplatonism' refers to? — Janus

No controversy. The term picks out philosophers over a 1200 year span and multiple cultural settings.