The allegory of the cave

[editec]

Passion is the motivator, intellect is the tool.

That isn't obvious?

 

[N4mddissent]

Personally, I've always found the writings of Plato to be incredibly boring. All intellect, no passion.

What I've found is that it is much more common for passion to lead us to error than using our intellect.

Passion is part of what we are, as is intellect. On a personal level, some of the errors that passion leads us into are some of the most interesting parts of our lives. Of course, some of those errors can have terrible consequences.

It's not really an either/or proposition. Thank God.

Intellect without passion is cold, sterile, and boring, Kind of like Plato.

I suppose so. In my quest to be entertained, I seek out passion. When I am seeking truth, I am okay with cold, sterile, and boring. I would not want a lover with those qualities. But I am fine with my doctor being that way.

 

[foggedinn]

Plato's cave allegory is useful.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? A condemndation of scholasticism.

Actually, it's an ancient riddle of Law. When I needed it, it proved to be very useful.

And if you are inclined to elaborate I'd be interested to read about it - always happy to learn.

I learned the riddle as part of the same oral tradition where I heard a much better cave story.

The question is only part of the riddle, and the answer to the question is not the solution to the riddle.

Here is the riddle. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I say the answer of faith is 50. Use the Law to prove me wrong."

 

[Diuretic]

I learned the riddle as part of the same oral tradition where I heard a much better cave story.

The question is only part of the riddle, and the answer to the question is not the solution to the riddle.

Here is the riddle. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I say the answer of faith is 50. Use the Law to prove me wrong."

Thank you - I'll go and have a think about that one - I give up easily so I'll be back soon

 

[Diuretic]

Prove angels exist.

If you can do that then prove the dimensions of an angel.

Then describe the dimensions of the head of a pin.

Then compare the dimensions of a single angel to the dimensions of the head of a pin.

Then calculate how many angels could dance (we won't worry about distance between each angel, just imagine them standing shoulder to shoulder - assuming they have shoulders as part of their form).

All ultimately useless though because you can't prove angels exist. Your article of faith is subjective and not objective and not measurable or observable so we can kick it out.

<----- not an angel, just a smilie

Okay, I know that's not right but it was fun thinking about it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That's actually a Buddhist practice, diuretic.

 

[Diuretic]

That's actually a Buddhist practice, diuretic.

Which bit Sky? I was just blundering along by myself, didn't mean to throw mud.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I didn't think you were slinging mud, Di. Not at all. The angel contemplation you describe is similar to a Buddhist practice. You've got a real mystical side to your scientific mind.

Visualizing the meditational deities in all those sizes. It's a meditationi technique that expands the mind and breaks down solidity.

 

[Diuretic]

That's very interesting. I'm afraid I don't have a scientific mind (I can prove it too ) but I like to think I can be rational.........okay, that was a ludicrous claim.....I like to think I can try to be rational. I'll never get to Vulcan rational status but I'm working on it.

But your point about meditational practice is instructive. I'm not famliar with it except for reading a book that studied brain activity of people undergoing zazen, that was really interesting too. Their brains changed.

Hmmm, emergent inquiring mind will think about this.

 

[foggedinn]

Prove angels exist.

If you can do that then prove the dimensions of an angel.

Then describe the dimensions of the head of a pin.

Then compare the dimensions of a single angel to the dimensions of the head of a pin.

Then calculate how many angels could dance (we won't worry about distance between each angel, just imagine them standing shoulder to shoulder - assuming they have shoulders as part of their form).

All ultimately useless though because you can't prove angels exist. Your article of faith is subjective and not objective and not measurable or observable so we can kick it out.

<----- not an angel, just a smilie

Okay, I know that's not right but it was fun thinking about it.

For your effort: It is a riddle of Law. The answer of Law to any question is the truth of what you know. Not what you think, not what you believe.

All men know the answer of truth to the question, and it is the same answer for all men. I don't know.

But as I said, the answer to the question is not the solution to the riddle.

 

[Diuretic]

For your effort: It is a riddle of Law. The answer of Law to any question is the truth of what you know. Not what you think, not what you believe.

All men know the answer of truth to the question, and it is the same answer for all men. I don't know.

But as I said, the answer to the question is not the solution to the riddle.

Thanks for that. Now about "truth" in the law, that's got to take us down a crooked path

But I take your point.

 

[Abelian Sea]

Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

Heheh, when I first read this part, about the shadows on the wall and how the prisoners spent their time and energy speculating, arguing, and gossiping about the little dramas that the shadows played out, I couldn't help but think "oh my god, Plato was talking about television!"


It's a great allegory, but I've always wondered, who's running the shadow show? And why?

 

[Truthmatters]

The CEOs of the media giants.