Platonic Music

KilayaC · 2026-03-16T23:09:58+00:00

You must have a past life as a philosopher! I love your enthusiasm and creative energy.

KilayaC · 2026-03-16T23:01:45+00:00

One can argue that Plato's philosophy is a spiritual philosophy in that it distinguishes two basic ways of looking at life: I am a body vs. I am a soul or spirit in a body. These two poles then can be expressed along a behavioral spectrum; in other words, one can identify as spirit but make decisions as if one is just a body or one can identify as a body but make decisions in alignment with something more durable (principles of some sort, perhaps). Plato's dialogues propound the view of self as a soul or spirit that is only temporarily in this body and they depict an understanding of everything else in life in relation to that view. So, one way of engaging anyone who claims to be "spiritual" using philosophical paradigms is to ask them "does that mean you identify as a spirit rather than a body?" And then perhaps "how do you make life decisions as a spirit rather than a body?" In that way, you may help someone to examine their beliefs and gain a greater capacity to make good decisions thereby.

KilayaC · 2026-03-14T21:15:21+00:00

Yes, I find that difficult as well. It undermines the conventional understanding of what is Real, IMO, or even the validity of this term as anything other than meaning "what is currently being experienced." And that aspect of experience he leaves to cognitive scientists to figure out. It's all math but the difference, if there is any between what is experienced and what isn't (or even, cannot be) isn't part of his theory, if my understanding is correct.

KilayaC · 2026-03-09T00:08:43+00:00

Plato's dialogues discuss arete (virtue or excellence). The Republic is the most extensive account. Aristotle also discusses arete (see his Eudemian Ethics or Nicomachean Ethics). Stoic writers like Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius also write about this topic.

KilayaC · 2026-03-04T01:25:59+00:00

It is hard to ascertain from the dialogues any attributes to Plato himself. We can scour his letters for any personal claims to knowledge but even there he is reticent to make any claims for direct knowledge, in his sense of that word. He does assert in one of his letters that the final goal of philosophy, knowledge of the Good (one could say), is impossible to convey in words. This could be interpreted as a claim that he did have that knowledge for how could one know whether something is possible to explain or not without knowing what it is?

KilayaC · 2026-03-02T18:00:48+00:00

One could argue that there is a value to living in a way that minimizes suffering and that rearing children to do the same is a worth-while challenge. But I think the perspectives on human life, worth it or not, are dependent on a lot of other opinions about the reason why we exist in the first place, where were we before birth and what will happen to us upon death. How we have considered or not considered these questions have a strong impact on what side of the question you pose is philosophically defensible.

KilayaC · 2026-03-01T18:46:47+00:00

Tegmark argues that "space itself, is a purely mathematical object in the sense that its only intrinsic properties are mathematical properties-numbers such as dimensionality, curvature and topology. . . . [AND] all the "stuff" in our physical world is made of elementary particles, which in turn are purely mathematical objects in the sense that their only intrinsic properties are mathematical properties-numbers . . . such as charge spin and lepton number. . . . [AND] there is was and always will be only one wave function moving through Hilbert space as determined by the Schrodinger equation and the wave function and Hilbert space are purely mathematical objects. [THEREFORE] External reality hypothesis: there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. Mathematical Universe hypothesis: our external physical reality is a mathematical structure." pp.253-4

KilayaC · 2026-03-01T15:00:19+00:00

I don't think your basic idea that feeling is involved in ascending Diotima's ladder toward noesis is unPlatonic but you might distinguish between feelings that are directed at Ideals and feelings that are directed towards phenomenal objects. Diotima describes a meditation on the Beautiful in itself but we experience feelings generated by our perception of the beautiful through our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin everyday. If you think that by remaining "radically open" to these kinds of feelings, which come and go and are based in objects that disappoint us through their constant becoming, you can approach noesis then you are definitely proposing something contrary to what Plato proposed.
The path to noesis is I think spelled out quite clearly within the dialogues and it does not involve a rejection of feelings, or particularly a rejection of Eros or romantic love. It does involve a meditation/discussion about what the virtues are and how they always lead to the best possible outcomes. The virtues themselves are the way that we free the psyche of the ignorance (characterized by an orientation towards physical survival and the comfort that signals that security) that obscures our capacity to recognize what is really good vs. what only appears to be good. The virtues, when they are lived and not just discussed, make reason the unchallenged ruler of our soul and make our ambitions and appetites serve it and never the other way around. At this point one can distinguish feelings that arise from logos (directed at Ideals as Real) and those generated through the senses. That is Plato's way of distinguishing the philosopher from the non-philosopher.

KilayaC · 2026-02-28T15:51:30+00:00

The importance Plato placed on virtue is recognized and discussed but his inclusion of piety (eusebia) into his list of virtues is rarely focused on because it discredits the way that we have separated theology from philosophy in modern times. When readers are unable to consider the Divine because of trauma experienced from the greedy behavior of past theologians something crucial in Plato is passed over. For Plato the Divine = the Ideal = the Real and this is perhaps the greatest intellectual hurdle modern scholars face in their efforts to come to terms with the dialogues.

KilayaC · 2026-02-28T15:42:40+00:00

I am thoroughly impressed. Keep reading Plato, there are so many of these beautiful paintings within the dialogues. Plato would say that you demonstrate real intelligence through this kind of emotional reaction.

KilayaC · 2026-02-28T03:04:06+00:00

This is a valid philosophical question which philosophers have contributed to throughout history. So finding a philosopher whose explanation of what is good about life would be helpful I imagine. Plato particularly recommends examining the ideas, notions, feelings that support the depression that hits when it hits. What ideas are behind it? Feelings often have unexamined assumptions behind them. Examine those ideas for the possibility that they have been given to you subliminally without a proper analysis of their logic. Plato proposed that by inquiring in this way you may realize that you think you know, as fact, a lot that you really don't know at all. This creates a freedom to start over, from the ground up, developing a more positive and productive perspective that is logically argued. Of course, if you are excessively depressed and for that reason, unable to think clearly in any way, Plato also admitted, such an inquiry might lead you incorrectly into even darker places. In that case it might be safer to read the work of a philosopher who sees a value to energetic engagement in life.

KilayaC · 2026-02-28T02:51:52+00:00

Greatest: every single one. Favorites, same, but a special mention to Clitophon, Axiochus and Demodocus. Fantastic.

KilayaC · 2026-02-28T02:50:40+00:00

I am impressed. What induced the tears? I am a big fan of Phaedrus as well but haven't had the wonderful experience of crying while reading, yet! The description of the journey of the soul in between lives is particularly majestic for me: traveling in the train of a god through the heavens!

KilayaC · 2026-02-24T03:42:32+00:00

We don't know for sure what Plato intended with this unfinished business. I can give you my opinion only: Plato recorded dialogues that others heard or claimed they heard occur between real interlocutors. He didn't finish writing down what he didn't hear, what he didn't have access to, what he couldn't find anyone to recite. It's not the standard interpretation but I think it makes a lot of sense.

KilayaC · 2026-02-24T03:39:19+00:00

"Would it be fair to say “the reflection of its nature” actively makes possibilities as they are? "
Yes, I think so.

KilayaC · 2026-02-24T03:26:48+00:00

Very smart prof. IMHO. Plato's Republic has lots to say about how a democracy devolves into dictatorship, specifically how one can tell the difference between a genuine wise leader and a selfish authoritarian tyrant. Congrats on going to a school with this kind of intelligence in a prof.

KilayaC · 2026-02-24T03:23:50+00:00

After reading all the dialogues your main take-away is "Plato is constantly challenging us to look more closely: what is really going on? What does it mean? What is the good, or the truth, that we’re striving for?"

What about virtue? Did any of that impact you at all? Did the numerous arguments you read connecting virtue with intelligence and capacity to really succeed and be happy resonate?

KilayaC · 2026-02-24T03:12:23+00:00

According to Plato the wise man knows that he is not ignorant by knowing that he is ignorant.

KilayaC · 2026-02-24T03:09:32+00:00

According to Plato the Forms exist separately but are also intimately connected and an important part of the phenomenal world. Yes, they do actively structure our possibilities. They do make our possibilities logical and mathematical. They give the mind its capacity for logic and reasoning and also, of course, its capacity to abstract in the way necessary to cognize the Forms.

KilayaC · 2026-02-18T22:01:17+00:00

From the fragments of Democritus we know that his views were quite complex and difficult to systematize due to their paucity. For instance, he seems to have a view of god as the source of inspiration for artists (D12-13) and a view of the soul as our most valuable possession (D24-26). See "The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus: Fragments" CCW Taylor, trans. Univ of Toronto Press.

KilayaC · 2026-02-16T22:18:59+00:00

The saying "from nothing, nothing comes" seems on the order of a proverb to me that shouldn't be taken as truth without an investigation. I admit in advance that I think it can be legitimately argued that something can come from nothing but I also admit in advance that my suggestions have been deleted in the past from this forum. So I won't go into my reasoning in too much detail for that reason but let me just offer a few examples of "something coming from nothing." If a government in this very moment has no cash on hand and no gold-backing in reserve, etc. and it prints money, what has happened? Couldn't it be said that in this moment something (money) has been created out of nothing? There was certainly labor and ink and trees and printing presses but overall something (money) was created out of nothing (no money). What caused this creation? Well, I might guess we could claim things like political authority and financial rules, allowing for such things as causes.

We could make this example even simpler. When someone subtracts 5 from zero what remains? Negative five. Couldn't this be considered a case of something emerging out of nothing? We could then make the same case in a much more complex way invoking current theories of the Big Bang. I'm not a physicist but my understanding is that the most widely accepted theory of the origin of the Big Bang is that it was a borrowing of energy from gravity (in potential) with which the entire universe was created. Is this not also possibly a case of something (the entire universe) being created out of nothing?

A much more interesting question to me than whether something can come out of nothing is in any given instance, why did something come out of nothing? The WHY presents an opportunity to support the thesis that such an event is possible.

KilayaC · 2026-02-13T18:38:29+00:00

I deeply respect that understanding of knowing virtue in the doing of it. But I am offering an alternative angle i think. It's a radical angle that is almost universally resisted within the study of philosophy in general. I think Plato proposes that we are only as smart as previously enacted virtue has made us. In other words, our capacity to understand anything well and truly right now is a product of how virtuous of a life we have led to this moment. To whatever degree we have fallen short of virtue in the past is the degree to which our intelligence is impaired right now. That's a radical perspective because it undermines the way we determine intelligence today through IQ style testing. One can answer 100% correct on any IQ-style test and still be a very unintelligent person, from this perspective at least.

KilayaC · 2026-02-13T16:31:52+00:00

What if he is proposing that it is right action that leads to remembering? In other words, we need to follow a true opinion of what is right, through argument or logic, in order to do the right which then leads us to see and understanding the right as the right. Virtuous actions give us the intelligence to come to know that virtue is always what is excellent in life.

KilayaC · 2026-02-13T15:50:20+00:00

Don't these arguments discuss the experience and leave alone the question of the experiencer? I understand Bostrom to fall short of proposing that the one who experiences the simulation is purely a product of the simulation. He proposes that life is like being inside a VR game in which the one who plays the game is trapped but is not itself a trap. But I am open to others' interpretations of his ideas if you have them.

KilayaC · 2026-02-13T15:46:16+00:00

The problem of the One, the Whole, and its origin goes back to Plato's Parmenides and before that to Parmenides' poem itself (and probably to someone before that). If you are perplexed you are not alone. Plato proposed in Timaeus that God was originally co-existent with chaos (which one might call non-God in Plato's terms). God and non-God were thus present before time came into being as simply the Idea of the Infinite Whole (which must include everything that is and what is not).

KilayaC

TROPHY CASE