maldor

Has this thread died ? My understanding of The Republic is that it is a discussion about how to move people towards enlightenment in order to better move other people towards enlightenment. It is about the role of the enlightened ("wise" people) to help society and direct education towards increasing the number of enlightened people in society. We can argue that it is about society or the individual. I think the main point that it is about both. There are plenty of examples in ancient philosophy of metaphors for the mind and I am sure this wasn't lost upon the readers of the time.

"I haven't seen too many people combine Pythagoras, Kant and Heidegger." Its the phenomenological tradition. Heidegger bastardised Husserl though.

I have experienced "bliss". It is very hard to describe. I would characterise it as "loss of ego", but it is more about realisation than a "loss" and I am at odds with expressing what I mean by ego. All I know is I felt like everyone was my newly born child and I theirs. It was extraordinary. Happiness was irrelevant. Also the above reply to Karl is patronising and unwilling to accept different uses of terminology in a field that has very little in the way of solid definitions.

War and Peace

Anyone who has experienced "unique states" will see it in everything. Was this what Plato was talking about, or was he simply trying to figure out a good way for cities to work? I think one leads to the other. In the famous Cave it is clear to see he was showing how perspectives that are radically different are considered madness by others that hav eno comprehension.

I would not say that it is popular opinion that The Republic is only a political work. Maybe that is what is expected from the title.

As someone else has accused me of "trolling" maybe they'd like to discuss here and maybe read what has been said by me than make snap judgements. My problem is with how people discern the so called "out there" (reality) compared to the "in here" (mental construct). My point is that they are distinctions that hold no validity. They are only terms to distinguish experientially constructed objects (ie. mental objects).

My reply was to spotless ... I will ask questions when and where I want to. I am open minded and tolerant. Try to be the same with me please.

I'll wait for spotless's reply .. thanks though.

Why is it called the "philosophers stone" ?

I just cannot see it as anything other than a mental process. When I say "other than" I do not mean that to sound flippant, far from it! I have no idea what practice I am supposed to progress in. I am aware of techniques that somewhat loosen consciousness and leaves yourself open to suggestibility. When I dream there are characters in my dream that seem to act beyond my control, during certain conscious episodes there are been independant voices in my head. Trance? So I should probably dance around and chant? I've done that. It was extremely uplifting. I've also practiced meditation, but admit my heart just wasn't in it - although I found it also to be a pleasant experience. Maybe I expereince "entities" all the timeand I just simply view them as extentions of myself into the supposed reality we call reality? When I see people talking about chatting to Satan I know for certain they are chatting to themselves, because Satan is a fiction made by man. I do believe there is something that current culture adapts to these processes. I am inclined towards Jungian archetypes as being the reason for belief in these kind of entities. This is not to dismiss the whole thing as useless nonsense because they are powerful things that can help you to understand yourself and alter yourself for better or worse.

I am stating that people have a horrible habit of taking things too literally. Its raining cats and dogs outside, gotta go!

Have people forgotten what a "metaphor" is ? Lead into gold ... Seriously?

I am baffled why people believe these "entities" are something other than themselves?

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ?