GENIUS FORUMS

"How is it, Plato asks, that we can 'know' about truth and falsehood, when there is nothing in our experience which would lead us to be so certain about the difference , of right from wrong, of truth from a lie, and yet we make all kinds of judgements in these matters...?"

In what context (or directed to what context) is he trying to make this point?

I suspect you have, at best, a schoolboy's knowledge of Plato, else you wouldn't have asked such a silly question, nevertheless, I'll try to clarify things for you. The question in question comes from Plato's Phaedrus - Writing as deception, words as magic ( Parmenides, Theaetetus, the Sophist: what is knowledge and how do we come to know its forms? In terms of right, wrong, truth, lie, we make all kinds of judgements, but our existence is not just a kind of uniformed soupy mess i.e. a sequence of disordered and inconsistent experiences. Plato believed that it was instead an imperfect copy of a perfect world, the world of the Forms, and that each Form was an 'ideal', a model for its equivalent in human experience e.g the cave of Un-reality.

When we appreciate the truth of (say) a geometrical theorum, we are already tapping an essential reality, the truth of which is external and absolute. Take for example Pythagoras' Theorum ( do I need to explain this? ) which is always true. According to Ol' Plato, it would be true even if there were no human beings to work it out. The same may be said of moral truths, political values and personal values: somewhere inside us we 'recognise' them because they are a sign of another reality, that of the Forms. Plato believed that we didn't learn these truths from our experiences, maintaining that our knowledge of perfection is 'inbuilt...' yet most of us remain very poor, stupid creatures, stumbling from one error to the next. Plato developed the idea of knowledge as the human being's dim recollection of the Forms, which we saw in another existence and promptly forgot ( doctrine of anamnesis ) when we were born. The good life is one which tries to move back towards the lost perfection of the Forms, and this pilgrimage usually begins with mathematics. I hope this clarifies things for you a little Danny Boy. The question which plagues a young non-believer like me is how the fuck can we even 'talk about' these forms using an imperfect ( and unreliable ) form of discourse? Words........

Plato also believed - and I agree with him on this one - that only few human beings genuinely seek the real, the others choosing instead to view existence through the veil (Un-reality). A good example of this can be found in the consistantly 'bad' arguments ( or lack of ) found in this forum regarding the nature of metaphysics, ultimate reality, bla, bla, wherein the participants seem to go round and round in circles and always come back to the place they started ( BORING, BORING, BORING!) with the same questions which they believe are unresolvable, but they still Insist on wasting time, when they know the results will NEVER change, so they conclude: 'there must be a god!' Or some equally stupid conclusion...small minds....

z

Looks like another (insert the name of a well known philosopher here) vs the QRS thread.

*grabs popcorn and awaits the impending battles*

Those who demonstrate their ignorance with nasty little 'stabs' do nothing but illucidate how mean and SHALLOW they are. Plato's ideas - of which Boyan knows 'O' - are very related to the nature of ultimate reality, enlightenment, truth, courage (QRS) bla, bla, bla. But instead of considering what the most fundamental and influential thinker in the history of philosophy has to say, this ignoramus chooses to attack the contributor - me - by making some wise crack...could he contribute to the argument? If not, he should keep his mouth, like his mind, shut, and stay focused on what he knows best: Buddha sticks and incense!

Question: is this forum like, a moderator's fanclub? On the one side we have the true 'belivers' ( the great majority ) the other, heritics and blow ins...I think the sign on the gate reads 'discussion...'

z

zarathustra wrote:Those who demonstrate their ignorance with nasty little 'stabs' do nothing but illucidate how mean and SHALLOW they are. Plato's ideas - of which Boyan knows 'O' - are very related to the nature of ultimate reality, enlightenment, truth, courage (QRS) bla, bla, bla. But instead of considering what the most fundamental and influential thinker in the history of philosophy has to say, this ignoramus chooses to attack the contributor - me - by making some wise crack...could he contribute to the argument? If not, he should keep his mouth, like his mind, shut, and stay focused on what he knows best: Buddha sticks and incense!

Question: is this forum like, a moderator's fanclub? On the one side we have the true 'belivers' ( the great majority ) the other, heritics and blow ins...I think the sign on the gate reads 'discussion...'
z

Hahaha, what an outburst! You got some issues there lol. I was just joking, and didn't tried 'stabbing' anyone. Every time someone posts about some well known philosopher in order to challenge the views of QRS it becomes a multi -page thread with David i.e. holding that the thinker in question agrees with him and others try to prove otherwise. Like with Hume, when it was ridiculous.

How can you possibly know whether I am familiar with Plato's works or not, you knee-jerk, frustrated retard?

Buddha sticks? I have never even read any work of eastern philosophy, you moron. I read Plato when I was 15 lol. I got introduced to philosophy through Plato's world of ideas actually.


'The question which plagues a young non-believer like me is how the fuck can we even 'talk about' these forms using an imperfect ( and unreliable ) form of discourse? Words........'

Ask Plato, he sure was able to talk on and on about it.

'Question: is this forum like, a moderator's fanclub? On the one side we have the true 'belivers' ( the great majority ) the other, heritics and blow ins...I think the sign on the gate reads 'discussion...'
z[/quote]'

It's getting boring now. This part of the dissident, the opposing one who bravely goes against the majority on the forum. Oh, how boldly he questions, pulling up any philosopher who ever expressed some views not held by 'the majority on Gf', but alas... he gets discouraged by all the brainwashed, mindless followers of those that go by the QRS.
I'm feeling sorry for the mods. To have to deal with the same old 'attacks' on their views every other day.



And Dan, David and Kevin... I don't know what it is, but something about you makes a number of people on this forum to become obsessed with you. What are you doing to them, lol?

zarathustra wrote:"How is it, Plato asks, that we can 'know' about truth and falsehood, when there is nothing in our experience which would lead us to be so certain about the difference , of right from wrong, of truth from a lie, and yet we make all kinds of judgements in these matters...?"

This is a fascinating question. But I think you answered it yourself. We know about truth and falsehood because, according to Plato, we can recollect truths from past lives. We can do so because our soul is immortal. See Plato's Meno.

Example of a-priori knowledge: A new born baby knows how to suckle, cry and laugh. Such actions cannot be the result of experience. Plato himself provides a beautiful example in the Phaedo. Plato points out that we know about equality a-priori. He points out that we know that 'two sticks = two stones' even thought sticks are not stones.

But there is problem, Plato pointed out. The problem is that the moment we are born we start forgetting and lose some of our knowledge. By the time we are teenagers we only have bits of what we originally had.

---

So what does all this add up to? Several things. First, if we lose our knowledge by forgetting it, it might be that some of us lose more and some of us lose less, depending on how we were brought up. If so, some of our judgments would be true and others false. Those judgments based on the knowledge we kept are more likely to be true than those we based on opinions.

Second, if we can recall knowledge/truths, it follows that as we mature we will gain back some of our knowledge. Some of us will gain more, some of us less. As Plato did, we can try to pass this knowledge to the generations to come so that recollection can become easier. As such knowledge accumulates, we being to see the big picture. But there is a problem.
As you pointed out, accumulated knowledge has to be passed down to us through language which is learned.

Plato himself pointed out the problem of language in the Euthyphro when he asked Euthyphro to define Piety. The same problem is seen in the Republic when Justice was to be defined. I myself have already pointed out this problem in a post on this forum. Here is my post:

[[[

A definition always has this relation: "Part-Whole" relation.
A definition tries to capture the essence of some "Whole" by it "Parts". Said a bit differently, a definition attempts to express a "Thing" by its "Properties".


Take for example the word car and its definition. (Car="Whole", definition="tires, engine, steering, etc."=Parts)

An interesting question: Can you teach a man about X only by giving him X's definition? Plato asked a similar version of this question.

In other word's, given some/all the "Parts" of a "Whole", can a man who doesn't know the "Whole" learn it from the "Parts" at hand?

Example: I have a puzzle consisting of 20 pieces. If I show you each piece by itself, can you tell me what the whole puzzle will look like? How about if I show you only 12 pieces?

Analogy: A piece is to the puzzle, as a part is to the whole.


Bottom line:
A definition is useless to the person who does not know a-priori some/all of the terms/things involved in the definition. Even if the person knows all the "Parts", it does not follow s/he knows the "Whole".

Lets not ask for definitions but point to the "Thing/Whole" to be defined so that everyone can see it for them self. A picture is worth a thousand words.

]]]

As you pointed out, definitions and language are not a very good method to learn and recall things. Images would be better in my opinion. But if you have noticed, language tries to do exactly that - paint an image piece by piece. It is not a perfect system, I agree.

A suggestion: Lets not make intellectual arguments become personal.

Knowing from 'past lives' still doesn't cut it with me. Doesn't solve the problem. The basic problem being how we can even talk about the Forms using an imperfect ( and unreliable ) form of discourse? For Plato, words were to be used only as a means of creating argument (dialectic) and only as a way of challanging accepted ideas.

These are all the more likely to be wrong if generally accepted. And if speech is a tricky business, writing is even more likely to provide new illusions (e.g. when the metaphysicians so naively say: I will argue for the existence of god by writing about it ! ). Sophists, poets and politicians use rhetoric to make their points, and generally speaking 'art' is too sophisticated, too concerned with attracting admiration, to be a vehicle for travelling back towards the Forms. Language can be a means to communication or a barrier. What do you think it is?

A sense of something 'beyond words' is what Plato is getting at with his concept of the Forms. This is at least more promising than contemporary existential thinkers and the wishy-washy metaphysicians who simply see a 'void' or 'god' (same thing ) beyond the artificial networks of language...And yet, is there thinking without language? Think about it!

Plato rejects art as a means of reaching the Forms (ideals) but he does offer two other routes: the way or Eros and the way of Cosmos...

Aside 1: Images are an essential part of language i.e. we already have them ( symbolism, similes, metaphors, bla, bla ) but lets face it, even when used at their highest potential the best they can do is represent 'something else' i.e. the Forms...

Aside 2: Boyan, the key word was 'introduced', its time to let go or move on mate. Do you have anything constructive to say, like, on the topic? Since you are choosing to hang around, what do you think of this discussion? Do you have any ideas? Do you think Plato is right? wrong?

z

zarathustra wrote:Knowing from 'past lives' still doesn't cut it with me. Doesn't solve the problem. The basic problem being how we can even talk about the Forms using an imperfect ( and unreliable ) form of discourse? For Plato, words were to be used only as a means of creating argument (dialectic) and only as a way of challanging accepted ideas.

These are all the more likely to be wrong if generally accepted. And if speech is a tricky business, writing is even more likely to provide new illusions (e.g. when the metaphysicians so naively say: I will argue for the existence of god by writing about it ! ). Sophists, poets and politicians use rhetoric to make their points, and generally speaking 'art' is too sophisticated, too concerned with attracting admiration, to be a vehicle for travelling back towards the Forms. Language can be a means to communication or a barrier. What do you think it is?

A sense of something 'beyond words' is what Plato is getting at with his concept of the Forms. This is at least more promising than contemporary existential thinkers and the wishy-washy metaphysicians who simply see a 'void' or 'god' (same thing ) beyond the artificial networks of language...And yet, is there thinking without language? Think about it!

Plato rejects art as a means of reaching the Forms (ideals) but he does offer two other routes: the way or Eros and the way of Cosmos...

Aside 1: Images are an essential part of language i.e. we already have them ( symbolism, similes, metaphors, bla, bla ) but lets face it, even when used at their highest potential the best they can do is represent 'something else' i.e. the Forms...

Aside 2: Boyan, the key word was 'introduced', its time to let go or move on mate. Do you have anything constructive to say, like, on the topic? Since you are choosing to hang around, what do you think of this discussion? Do you have any ideas? Do you think Plato is right? wrong?

z

Zarathustra, I agree with you. I know that language has its pros and cons. I consider language to be an illusionist often making truths appear where none exist. But what you are missing is this:

If two people 'know' the same Form a-priori, they don't need language. Nothing to talk about.

Imagine that Plato and I were having a conversation and we agreed to talk about Justice. Does he really need to explain what Justice is if I know it? This is no different than if you had two computers running the same protocol. In this case, language/words serve as a label and nothing more.

Language fails, when we use it to capture the essence of a Form via a definition so that it can be explained/thought to those who forgot the Form after birth. With this in mind, consider again my previous post.

If anything, we are at fault for believing that a definition can actually capture the essence of a Form. Language is our invention, and therefore our inadequacy.

Plato does not "talk" about the Forms. He tries to awake/actualize the Forms with in you. Big difference! There is a method behind his attempt. He is not using language alone. There is logic, paradoxes, contradictions, limits, opposites, causes, whole/parts, contexts, becoming, etc. Some of these ideas are First Principles. Think of his method as instructions and
rules by which you get to discover the Forms yourself. Not as a description of the Forms themselves.

Boyan wrote: And Dan, David and Kevin... I don't know what it is, but something about you makes a number of people on this forum to become obsessed with you. What are you doing to them, lol?

I found this on amazon

How to become a Cult Guru, June 6, 2006

By Daniel W. Shirley

or You too can Induce Mass Suicide

Becoming a cult leader is not as tough as you might think. All it takes is a little charisma and some insecure, feeble-minded followers. As a cult guru, it is kind of tough to get health insurance benefits, but that's really about the only downside to a career as a leader of men, women and bastard offspring.

To be a messiah you don't have to be big (Charles Manson was only 5'2"), you don't have to be smart (David Koresh had an IQ of 89), and you don't have to be good-looking ('though it doesn't hurt). All you have to be is confident, to the absolute.

Once you've established your basic set of core beliefs -- your schtick, as it were -- no matter how ridiculous they may be, entertain no doubts and brook no arguments. They are the truth.

Keep in mind that it doesn't really matter what tripe you feed your troupe, so long as you feed it to them with unswerving conviction. Rev. Thomas Lake Harris, who founded a colony in upstate New York in the 19th century believed that a race of tiny fairies inhabited women's breasts, with kings and queens in the left breast and priests and priestesses in the right." And people fell for it.

There's an audience of willing believers out there for almost any kind of manifesto. Take one that already exists, add a few elements from another, twist it into you own words and presto, you've got a dogma worthy of any small band of mayonaisse-eaters.

Locating your marks is one of the easiest steps in building a cult of your own, because they practically grow on trees. A favored method is to figure out a particular personality that might be most prone to falling for your schtick, and go after that type exclusively.

To paraphrase Elvis, white trash is as white trash does, there's no in-between, you're either with it all the way or you've blown the scene. In other words, try the laundromat... or the student union...Go where the feebs go


Not that I think Q, R, and S don't have something valuable to offer. It's just that, if you want to know why people respond so strongly to the moderators intentions, it's the same reason why humans have always responded strongly to 'a particular type of willing'.

Confidence, unwavering conviction, an appeal to passion, absolute certainty, etc.

That's what this forum and it's moderators offer. And so, we have what we have.

Its obvious that QRS share a tunnel vision when it comes to their own philosophical perspectives and that they have rigged the game before it starts, by not questioning the reality of their pet concepts: 'ultimate' reality and enlightenment.
in other words - before any discussion - the existance of these things are taken for granted, all we need to do then is discuss 'their nature...'not the possibility or impossibility of their existance, but then, that is the nature of metaphysics: first, they 'invent' the premise, then talk about it. I have enjoyed reading their work, but am always aware that their sometimes eloquent arguments are based on NOTHING...The way they hold to their beliefs, is, of course, indicative of guru mentality, and why they have managed to attract a little army of true belivers (closed minds) to their cause. On the other hand, they have my respect, as their actions speak louder than their philosophy...what I mean is that they have set up this site, which most of us enjoy, and have allowed for a range of opinions to flourish, and have not, during the process, been very stringent censors. Their criticism is also not that stringent, and is often based on dismissive one liners, which lead 'the ignorant' back to their works, 'its 'obvious that you haven't read my work bla, bla, bla...

z

zarathustra wrote:"How is it, Plato asks, that we can 'know' about truth and falsehood, when there is nothing in our experience which would lead us to be so certain about the difference , of right from wrong, of truth from a lie, and yet we make all kinds of judgements in these matters...?"

We can know it by first defining what "truth" is and then seeking what in the world, if anything, conforms to it.

For example, I define truth as anything that cannot be rationally challenged anywhere or anytime. When something is beyond all rational doubt and beyond all possibility of being falsified, that is enough to satisfy me personally that it is "true".

-

make an arbitrary choice?
z

To the degree that it is personally meaningful to me, it isn't arbitrary. At least, from my point of view.

-

Yes....

Reality is dense and complex, human beings are frail and ill-equipped to make sense of their lives, and most of us prefer to hide from this truth and live in a fantasy - world rather than accept our frailty. This frailty should not be confused with weakness. As Iris Murdoch wrote in her brilliant essay on Plato, The Fire and the Sun:' we are not free choosers, monarchs of all we survey, but benighted creatures sunk in a reality whose nature we are constantly and over whelmingly tempted to deform by fantasy...It is this frailty that makes us HUMAN, and as she puts it ' substantial, impenetrable, individual, indefinable and valuable...' Belive what you like mate...good on ya! Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zlqMmK19S0

z

I had a feeling that my last comment would go clear over your head......

-

like a leaf in the wind...

if you believe in '............' which is personally meaningful to you, it isn't arbitrary, at least from your point of view.

You can fill in the dots with the following: the tooth fairy, santa clause, pink elephants......................................

how over my head!

z

zarathustra wrote:like a leaf in the wind...

if you believe in '............' which is personally meaningful to you, it isn't arbitrary, at least from your point of view.

You can fill in the dots with the following: the tooth fairy, santa clause, pink elephants......................................

how over my head!

z

Truth is often defined as a founded belief. Of course then you have the problem of defining belief and foundations for it, and the context they are being used in too.

Even from a standpoint of analytic philosophy David's definition of truth he posted, couldn't be much further analyzed and therefore challenged. David basically said that he has a founded belief something is true. You can't go much further than that without analyzing the language and its use.

Plato believed there is only one good, one beauty etc... and that the contingent things that exhibit it are taking it from a higher source of ideal forms.

Which reminds me of this

David wrote

[qoute]We can know it by first defining what "truth" is and then seeking what in the world, if anything, conforms to it.[/quote]

Plato also understood that truth, ultimately, cannot be defined, and the moment it is, it would cease to be true.It's not as simple or dogmatic as DQ 'believes'. I refer to the old Greek bloke's story about 'The Cave' - remember? It depends 'where' DQ is in relation to his 'Ideal', which would determine what he 'believes' ( based on his experience ). Is he looking at the shadows on the wall? The statues? The figures passing by? The light reflected by the fire? Perhaps he believes he is looking into the 'source' itself, in which case his vision would be impaired...If DQ had any substantial knowledge of Plato's understanding concerning the nature of truth and falsehood, he would not attempt to squeeze it all into some tunnel vision perspective, intombed by his own personal observations, which he then sums up with a smart arse one liner...what a joke...he's still in the cave...obviously.And so are you. I mean all you've done is taken a miniscule aspect of Plato's philosophy, which you then quote out of context, in order to defend someone else's 'belief...' Plato also said that truth was 'relative', as truth_justice points out above, 'like a piece in a puzzle...' Has DQ worked out the puzzle? Has he put all the pieces together? His arbitary 'belief' is exactly what it is a 'subjectively conceived idea' (PLATO). He's seen a shadow on the wall, projected by something else, then concludes, that for him - its the truth! Then he expects his audience to agree with him, to make a choice. My way or the highway? Sounds like guru-speak to me...

z

zarathustra wrote:Plato also understood that truth, ultimately, cannot be defined, and the moment it is, it would cease to be true.

The trouble is, Plato reached this belief out his own conception of truth, a conception that he had already defined for himself.

It's not as simple or dogmatic as DQ 'believes'.

On the contrary, these issues are very simple. But people like to complicate them so that they can hide away in the fog of uncertainty and mystery.

I refer to the old Greek bloke's story about 'The Cave' - remember? It depends 'where' DQ is in relation to his 'Ideal', which would determine what he 'believes' ( based on his experience ). Is he looking at the shadows on the wall? The statues? The figures passing by? The light reflected by the fire? Perhaps he believes he is looking into the 'source' itself, in which case his vision would be impaired... If DQ had any substantial knowledge of Plato's understanding concerning the nature of truth and falsehood, he would not attempt to squeeze it all into some tunnel vision perspective, intombed by his own personal observations, which he then sums up with a smart arse one liner...what a joke..

I consider my perspective to be infinitely broad. But to reach it one does have to squeeze through the tiny avenue of truth.

If you're stuck in a cave in the middle of a mountain, you have no choice but to squeeze through a narrow tunnel until you reach the outside.

The problem is, nowadays, people want this freedom without having to make the effort to squeeze through the tunnel, and thus, the only way they can achieve some semblance of freedom is by insisting that there is no tunnel to the outside, that the cave is all there is.

.he's still in the cave...obviously.And so are you.

Ah ah!

Plato also said that truth was 'relative', as truth_justice points out above, 'like a piece in a puzzle...' Has DQ worked out the puzzle? Has he put all the pieces together? His arbitary 'belief' is exactly what it is a 'subjectively conceived idea' (PLATO). He's seen a shadow on the wall, projected by something else, then concludes, that for him - its the truth! Then he expects his audience to agree with him, to make a choice. My way or the highway? Sounds like guru-speak to me...

I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But I do expect them to make every effort possible to uncover the tunnel of truth and crawl through it themselves.

There is far more to life than being a cave-dweller.

-

DQ said that Plato reached his belief out of his own 'conception' of the truth, a conception he had already defined for himself. Well, that's the whole point isn't it? DQs sums it up in a nutshell ( lets give him a little clap) And therein lies the paradox: Plato has his truth, you have your truth, I have mine and so on...As far as the cave goes, it doesn't really matter if you're inside or out, the difference is only one of proportion in relation to reality ( not truth). DQ's arbitary assertions that the above issues are 'very simple' and that people like to complicate them is true - it's called thinking. And when DQ says his perception of the infinity is infininty broad, I take it to mean big and empty. And what is this 'tiny avenue' of truth? Is there only one route?

So, when you get out of the cave, what do you see? I'll tell you what DQ sees - NOTHING, because his eyes are shut. If he'd really emerged from the cave and opened them what he'd see are the FORMS (ideals) and above THE SUN ( the source ) which he couldn't look at for long, let alone experience directly or understand.

Then DQ goes on to say that 'truth' is the tunnel (ha! ha!)...this is so funny. And when you crawl through this tunnel, according to him, you will see the infinite, which you would then have to somehow construct into your 'truth...' whatever way you cut it, DQ's back in the cave!!!!

Obviously DQ has no f---ing idea what Plato was on about, and pontificating from the pulpit of his ignorance sounds more like a Sunday school teacher than a philosopher...

FROM ACASTOS: A PLATONIC DIALOGUE

Timonax: You think there really are gods and he really sees them? You should ask him how large they are!
Socrates: Acastos means that for him there are gods. Thales tells us there are gods everywhere.
Antagoras: That's poetic, just a metaphor...

z

zarathustra wrote: Plato believed that it was instead an imperfect copy of a perfect world, the world of the Forms, and that each Form was an 'ideal', a model for its equivalent in human experience e.g the cave of Un-reality.

It's true that Plato thought like that. It's also the case that Plato was completely mistaken. There is no world of "Forms" that exists separate from human thought. He had it kind of backward; a "form" is a mental abstraction of some category of objects that are taken to have something "essential" in common. But the objects exist first, and the abstraction of the shared characteristics is a mental activity, part of language.

This is the old debate of Essentialism (Platonism) vs. Existentialism. Essentialism is incorrect. It's based on a misunderstanding of language, really. Essentialism seems to be the natural, default point of view that people have, until they have actually thought the issues through in some depth; most people are probably essentialists. In my view this is likely the biggest and most common metaphysical error people make.

H, I don't think your generalizations cut it mate. Plato's 'Theory of Forms' is quite esoteric and difficult to grasp. You can't just dismiss it with a few one liners. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, but reading his work is an 'illuminating experience' more akin to poetry than philosophy. What Plato is asking is how it is we can come to know about truth and falsehood? This question is so profound...when you really think about it: HOW IS IT? When there is nothing in our experience that would lead us to be CERTAIN about the difference of right from wrong, of truth from a lie, and yet we make all kinds of judgements in these matters. To explain this he postulated that our existence was ' an imperfect copy of a perfect world, the world of FORMS...' he further reasoned that each Form is an ideal, a model for its equivalent in human experience i.e. IN THE CAVE. In other words, he believed that the knowledge of 'perfection was inbuilt...'

z

zarathustra wrote:Plato also understood that truth, ultimately, cannot be defined, and the moment it is, it would cease to be true.It's not as simple or dogmatic as DQ 'believes'. I refer to the old Greek bloke's story about 'The Cave' - remember? It depends 'where' DQ is in relation to his 'Ideal', which would determine what he 'believes' ( based on his experience ). Is he looking at the shadows on the wall? The statues? The figures passing by? The light reflected by the fire? Perhaps he believes he is looking into the 'source' itself, in which case his vision would be impaired...If DQ had any substantial knowledge of Plato's understanding concerning the nature of truth and falsehood, he would not attempt to squeeze it all into some tunnel vision perspective, intombed by his own personal observations, which he then sums up with a smart arse one liner...what a joke...he's still in the cave...obviously.And so are you. I mean all you've done is taken a miniscule aspect of Plato's philosophy, which you then quote out of context, in order to defend someone else's 'belief...' Plato also said that truth was 'relative', as truth_justice points out above, 'like a piece in a puzzle...' Has DQ worked out the puzzle? Has he put all the pieces together? His arbitary 'belief' is exactly what it is a 'subjectively conceived idea' (PLATO). He's seen a shadow on the wall, projected by something else, then concludes, that for him - its the truth! Then he expects his audience to agree with him, to make a choice. My way or the highway? Sounds like guru-speak to me...

z

I don't even care about this discussion much. If you think there is no absolute truth, and that something is true only within a certain context, that what is true to you might not be for me etc... how can you say I'm in the cave?

You made some points which serve to challenge David's conception of truth in relation to Plato that were interesting. But you just concluded like usual that truth is relative and therefore QRS can't make a claim to absolute truths. Nothing new.

I did not defend David, just made an observation.

I am not a follower of David's, and I never came out as one, which makes me wonder why did you labeled me like that. You jump to conclusions. He might be correct that there are absolute truths, and that he is aware of some. He might be wrong. What do I care? I have only a superficial grasp of his philosophy anyway.

zarathustra wrote:To explain this he postulated that our existence was ' an imperfect copy of a perfect world, the world of FORMS...' he further reasoned that each Form is an ideal, a model for its equivalent in human experience i.e. IN THE CAVE. In other words, he believed that the knowledge of 'perfection was inbuilt...'

Yeah, I know.

He was wrong.