I do like your political summaries, precise and no fuss. However I was sceptical about your announcement of sharing philosophical thoughts. Well, I have to admit it was really interesting to read, quite different from what I expected. Please carry on!
I may try to something philosophical on another substack but only a few are interested on this one. To be fair to the vast majority, they subscribed for an Update not philosophy. It's good to hear that you enjoyed what I have written. Thanks.
People use the cave as a mataphour for something or other and it suits the idea of a phoney world where TV channels such as CNN convince us that the 'real' world is that depicted in the cave. But then people escape from the cave and enter the real world. At first they can't see properly but when their eyes get used to the light they realise that the cave they have left behind showed them a pseudo reality; now they are able to see real sheep and real horses not the shadows of puppets on the cave wall. Some go back to the cave and try to explain this to their former colleagues, but these latter think them mad and refuse to leave the comfort of the cave. This is the reaction we are sometimes greeted with when we tell people that one of the main stream narratives they believe in is false. But Plato's handling of the cave is much more complex than this: it is part of his theory of forms. Plato is an idealist in the sense that he believes that the world consists in ideas: ideas are real and permanent whereas the objects these ideas refer to are less real and transient. For every chair in the world (those in the cave for example) there is a single idea (or form) of a chair somewhere that is the perfect chair and this chair is eternal. The chairs in the cave are imperfect and transient. But for Plato this also applies to ideas such as 'the good'. We have only an imperfect idea of goodness whereas philosophers (through using philosophy) can access the eternal concept or form of goodness. This is why he thought philosophers should rule states. He and Socrates were very suspicious of democracy and both believed in an afterlife in which they would inhabit a different, more perfect and eternal world. This is it roughly - as far as I can remember - but as with lots of things in philosophy it is much more complex when you examine it in detail. Plato is part of the idealist tradition in philosophy whereas his successor and student Aristotle was a materialist. He, in turn, taught Alexander the Great. Bertrand Russel said that Plato's theory of forms was damaging for philosophy and I agree. I doubt I'll be doing any more philosophy because there is very little interest - which is what I expected. But I may try to do it somewhere else: on a different substack - if that's possible.
Just arrived today. Read Ukr update for 8th and consequently am waiting for the next - just received notification of it via e-mail.
Very much enjoyed the 'philosophising' and look forward to its continuation. My duality definitions are 'virtual' and 'real', where the former represent cultural structures - external and internal - that have a subtle connection to the psychology of, what I interpret you mean by, 'real'.
Thinking about my own world-view it feels like being between a rock and a hard place. The rock represents the relevance I place on structuralism and the hard place represents a tendency toward metaphysics. Consequently I think that we are all in Plato's Cave but not necessarily because of some ultimate ideal(ised) reality that, implicitly at least, remains inaccessible to the unitiated.
Anyway that's my positive vote. Now for the Ukr update. Cheers.
I gave up on metaphysics and structuralism a long time ago. My engagement with philosophy, which I practiced for many years doing 'pub philosophy' is at a basic, more pragmatic level. For example, in the book I discuss how emotions, loyalties, prejudices and other things get in the way of clear thinking. I discovered this from personal experience not from reading books. Some of the chapters explore basic concepts in philosophy such as knowledge and belief including my own reflections on these things - but I also analyse the concept of knowledge in the Socratic dialogues which is a little more complex. The Update takes up a lot of my time so I try not to get too involved in debate. I lost two days due to camping so have lots of catching up to do. Thanks for your comments. Best Rob
Thank you for your reply. Agree that pragmatism in the face of the intellectualised forestation that envelopes 'philosophy' is essential. After all what is thought unrelated to action/activity? I do not have a personal history that includess the academic study of 'philosophy' so agree that personal experience colours my thinking and haven't been at it long enough to reject structuralism and metaphysics. Agree that time is a valuable resource especially the case when it comes to spending it with loved ones. Hope the weather wasn't too dampening. Cheers.
Even though I have three degrees in philosophy (between 1990 and 1999) it wasn't until 2018 that I started to realise that my thinking was impaired by loyalties of different sorts, including loyalty to 'the left'. I wasn't suggesting that you have to reject structuralism and metaphysics: it's just that I lost interest in such things a long time ago. Different philosophers have different views on these things. I am in the Bertrand Russel school of thought. He once said: ‘To teach people to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it'.
Well those three degrees didn't go to waste. The BR quote makes alot of sense. The achievement would be a wonderful achievement. The provision of pragmatic replies to our questions in a discussive form would be a valid contribution. For instance; I have come across Arthur B in other forums his questions often pose an opportunity to talk practically. The Plato's Cave question provided you with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate an a-intellectual response - perhaps in relation to the current M$M BS. However, your response seemed academically intellectual. Your decision not to continue 'philosophising' was probably correct - disappointing - and probably for the best.
I have never really understood Plato's cave. Easy enough on the first level: we see shadows of reality. That's alright. I get that. Is that it? It means no more than that? The setup described seems a bit laboured, a bit contrived, for something so simple that I feel I'm missing the subtleties of it or something.
People use the cave as a mataphour for something or other and it suits the idea of a phoney world where TV channels such as CNN convince us that the 'real' world is that depicted in the cave. But then people escape from the cave and enter the real world. At first they can't see properly but when their eyes get used to the light they realise that the cave they have left behind showed them a pseudo reality; now they are able to see real sheep and real horses not the shadows of puppets on the cave wall. Some go back to the cave and try to explain this to their former colleagues, but these latter think them mad and refuse to leave the comfort of the cave. This is the reaction we are sometimes greeted with when we tell people that one of the main stream narratives they believe in is false. But Plato's handling of the cave is much more complex than this: it is part of his theory of forms. Plato is an idealist in the sense that he believes that the world consists in ideas: ideas are real and permanent whereas the objects these ideas refer to are less real and transient. For every chair in the world (those in the cave for example) there is a single idea (or form) of a chair somewhere that is the perfect chair and this chair is eternal. The chairs in the cave are imperfect and transient. But for Plato this also applies to ideas such as 'the good'. We have only an imperfect idea of goodness whereas philosophers (through using philosophy) can access the eternal concept or form of goodness. This is why he thought philosophers should rule states. He and Socrates were very suspicious of democracy and both believed in an afterlife in which they would inhabit a different, more perfect and eternal world. This is it roughly - as far as I can remember - but as with lots of things in philosophy it is much more complex when you examine it in detail. Plato is part of the idealist tradition in philosophy whereas his successor and student Aristotle was a materialist. He, in turn, taught Alexander the Great. Bertrand Russel said that Plato's theory of forms was damaging for philosophy and I agree. I doubt I'll be doing any more philosophy because there is very little interest - which is what I expected. But I may try to do it somewhere else: on a different substack - if that's possible.
Well - as far as I can remember, Russell regarded Plato's positing of another realm of reality as the province of religion rather than philosophy. Indeed, Plato and Socrates were influenced by Orphism. Russell believed that Christianity was a systemization of these earlier belief systems complete with belief in an afterlife. Russell had a very narrow view of what philosophy can help us with. In his later years, he came to believe that: ‘To teach people to live without certainty [i.e. agnosticism], and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it’. I have already used this quote on the substack - but it's a good one. So for Russell, all the debates that have been had around Platonism and neo-Platonism have been a waste of time for philosophers and have taken philosophy in the wrong direction so to speak. I have devoted a chapter of my book to agnosticism and it has served me well. I have studied some of the most complex philosophical systems out there, including those of Hegel and Kant but I came to the conclusion that doing philosophy - i.e. philosophising is more important than studying the systems that philosophers have built for themselves. The existentialism of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were protests against these monoliths. That's why I became involved in community philosophy and that's why I agree with Russell on this issue. If you are interested in what Russel has to say about Plato, have a look at his 'History of Western Philosophy' - just look up the sections on Plato from the index. Russel deals with some very complex philosophical issues in this book and explains them clearly.
I do like your political summaries, precise and no fuss. However I was sceptical about your announcement of sharing philosophical thoughts. Well, I have to admit it was really interesting to read, quite different from what I expected. Please carry on!
I may try to something philosophical on another substack but only a few are interested on this one. To be fair to the vast majority, they subscribed for an Update not philosophy. It's good to hear that you enjoyed what I have written. Thanks.
Somewhere in that book Russell provides more detail, but I haven't the time to look through it all at the moment.
Hi Arthur,
People use the cave as a mataphour for something or other and it suits the idea of a phoney world where TV channels such as CNN convince us that the 'real' world is that depicted in the cave. But then people escape from the cave and enter the real world. At first they can't see properly but when their eyes get used to the light they realise that the cave they have left behind showed them a pseudo reality; now they are able to see real sheep and real horses not the shadows of puppets on the cave wall. Some go back to the cave and try to explain this to their former colleagues, but these latter think them mad and refuse to leave the comfort of the cave. This is the reaction we are sometimes greeted with when we tell people that one of the main stream narratives they believe in is false. But Plato's handling of the cave is much more complex than this: it is part of his theory of forms. Plato is an idealist in the sense that he believes that the world consists in ideas: ideas are real and permanent whereas the objects these ideas refer to are less real and transient. For every chair in the world (those in the cave for example) there is a single idea (or form) of a chair somewhere that is the perfect chair and this chair is eternal. The chairs in the cave are imperfect and transient. But for Plato this also applies to ideas such as 'the good'. We have only an imperfect idea of goodness whereas philosophers (through using philosophy) can access the eternal concept or form of goodness. This is why he thought philosophers should rule states. He and Socrates were very suspicious of democracy and both believed in an afterlife in which they would inhabit a different, more perfect and eternal world. This is it roughly - as far as I can remember - but as with lots of things in philosophy it is much more complex when you examine it in detail. Plato is part of the idealist tradition in philosophy whereas his successor and student Aristotle was a materialist. He, in turn, taught Alexander the Great. Bertrand Russel said that Plato's theory of forms was damaging for philosophy and I agree. I doubt I'll be doing any more philosophy because there is very little interest - which is what I expected. But I may try to do it somewhere else: on a different substack - if that's possible.
Just arrived today. Read Ukr update for 8th and consequently am waiting for the next - just received notification of it via e-mail.
Very much enjoyed the 'philosophising' and look forward to its continuation. My duality definitions are 'virtual' and 'real', where the former represent cultural structures - external and internal - that have a subtle connection to the psychology of, what I interpret you mean by, 'real'.
Thinking about my own world-view it feels like being between a rock and a hard place. The rock represents the relevance I place on structuralism and the hard place represents a tendency toward metaphysics. Consequently I think that we are all in Plato's Cave but not necessarily because of some ultimate ideal(ised) reality that, implicitly at least, remains inaccessible to the unitiated.
Anyway that's my positive vote. Now for the Ukr update. Cheers.
I gave up on metaphysics and structuralism a long time ago. My engagement with philosophy, which I practiced for many years doing 'pub philosophy' is at a basic, more pragmatic level. For example, in the book I discuss how emotions, loyalties, prejudices and other things get in the way of clear thinking. I discovered this from personal experience not from reading books. Some of the chapters explore basic concepts in philosophy such as knowledge and belief including my own reflections on these things - but I also analyse the concept of knowledge in the Socratic dialogues which is a little more complex. The Update takes up a lot of my time so I try not to get too involved in debate. I lost two days due to camping so have lots of catching up to do. Thanks for your comments. Best Rob
Thank you for your reply. Agree that pragmatism in the face of the intellectualised forestation that envelopes 'philosophy' is essential. After all what is thought unrelated to action/activity? I do not have a personal history that includess the academic study of 'philosophy' so agree that personal experience colours my thinking and haven't been at it long enough to reject structuralism and metaphysics. Agree that time is a valuable resource especially the case when it comes to spending it with loved ones. Hope the weather wasn't too dampening. Cheers.
Even though I have three degrees in philosophy (between 1990 and 1999) it wasn't until 2018 that I started to realise that my thinking was impaired by loyalties of different sorts, including loyalty to 'the left'. I wasn't suggesting that you have to reject structuralism and metaphysics: it's just that I lost interest in such things a long time ago. Different philosophers have different views on these things. I am in the Bertrand Russel school of thought. He once said: ‘To teach people to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it'.
Well those three degrees didn't go to waste. The BR quote makes alot of sense. The achievement would be a wonderful achievement. The provision of pragmatic replies to our questions in a discussive form would be a valid contribution. For instance; I have come across Arthur B in other forums his questions often pose an opportunity to talk practically. The Plato's Cave question provided you with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate an a-intellectual response - perhaps in relation to the current M$M BS. However, your response seemed academically intellectual. Your decision not to continue 'philosophising' was probably correct - disappointing - and probably for the best.
I have never really understood Plato's cave. Easy enough on the first level: we see shadows of reality. That's alright. I get that. Is that it? It means no more than that? The setup described seems a bit laboured, a bit contrived, for something so simple that I feel I'm missing the subtleties of it or something.
Hi Arthur,
People use the cave as a mataphour for something or other and it suits the idea of a phoney world where TV channels such as CNN convince us that the 'real' world is that depicted in the cave. But then people escape from the cave and enter the real world. At first they can't see properly but when their eyes get used to the light they realise that the cave they have left behind showed them a pseudo reality; now they are able to see real sheep and real horses not the shadows of puppets on the cave wall. Some go back to the cave and try to explain this to their former colleagues, but these latter think them mad and refuse to leave the comfort of the cave. This is the reaction we are sometimes greeted with when we tell people that one of the main stream narratives they believe in is false. But Plato's handling of the cave is much more complex than this: it is part of his theory of forms. Plato is an idealist in the sense that he believes that the world consists in ideas: ideas are real and permanent whereas the objects these ideas refer to are less real and transient. For every chair in the world (those in the cave for example) there is a single idea (or form) of a chair somewhere that is the perfect chair and this chair is eternal. The chairs in the cave are imperfect and transient. But for Plato this also applies to ideas such as 'the good'. We have only an imperfect idea of goodness whereas philosophers (through using philosophy) can access the eternal concept or form of goodness. This is why he thought philosophers should rule states. He and Socrates were very suspicious of democracy and both believed in an afterlife in which they would inhabit a different, more perfect and eternal world. This is it roughly - as far as I can remember - but as with lots of things in philosophy it is much more complex when you examine it in detail. Plato is part of the idealist tradition in philosophy whereas his successor and student Aristotle was a materialist. He, in turn, taught Alexander the Great. Bertrand Russel said that Plato's theory of forms was damaging for philosophy and I agree. I doubt I'll be doing any more philosophy because there is very little interest - which is what I expected. But I may try to do it somewhere else: on a different substack - if that's possible.
can you extend yourself in that direction just a tad more and explain why Russel thought the theory of forms was damaging for philosophy?
Well - as far as I can remember, Russell regarded Plato's positing of another realm of reality as the province of religion rather than philosophy. Indeed, Plato and Socrates were influenced by Orphism. Russell believed that Christianity was a systemization of these earlier belief systems complete with belief in an afterlife. Russell had a very narrow view of what philosophy can help us with. In his later years, he came to believe that: ‘To teach people to live without certainty [i.e. agnosticism], and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it’. I have already used this quote on the substack - but it's a good one. So for Russell, all the debates that have been had around Platonism and neo-Platonism have been a waste of time for philosophers and have taken philosophy in the wrong direction so to speak. I have devoted a chapter of my book to agnosticism and it has served me well. I have studied some of the most complex philosophical systems out there, including those of Hegel and Kant but I came to the conclusion that doing philosophy - i.e. philosophising is more important than studying the systems that philosophers have built for themselves. The existentialism of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were protests against these monoliths. That's why I became involved in community philosophy and that's why I agree with Russell on this issue. If you are interested in what Russel has to say about Plato, have a look at his 'History of Western Philosophy' - just look up the sections on Plato from the index. Russel deals with some very complex philosophical issues in this book and explains them clearly.
Never saw this until today. Thankyou for it. I will check the book. :)
Very nicely written. Thanks very much.