PHILOSOPHY: Relearning the Forms

[RealityShowedUp]

Thanks you many times over for this video,

No forms as a encompassing everything,

no where to go and see or understand,

Reality is you , and everything existing at all the moments of changes,,,, because of change doesn't mean unreal, bizarre as it seems the consciousness that never changes and everything existing is all one

Creations exist our minds cannot fathom , but we all as real as the unknown absolute..

we are it

[RobMathMiller]

As Plato develops his doctrine of forms, he realizes not all possible universals are Forms in the sense of being eternal, immutable non invented standards beyond the mind! So for true Platonism, not all things mentioned in this video are true Platonic Forms! This is clearly not based on a careful reading of Plato's texts!!

[RomanPhilosopher]

Thank you so very much for bringing this up, Perhaps I'll make a followup video to this then. Can you provide me with some good quotes to use? I'm assuming your referring to works from the latter period, which have very little of Socrates influence. Perhaps the Universals were what the ugly one believed and his student, over time, came in opposition to it?

I would also add it is more than likely to refer to Platonisms rather than Platonism. There are many Platonists with different views.

[1nf4m0uz]

Can you really say that the kid that knew that "~~~" was straight all his life would be wrong? Where did the Universal truth that you speak of came from?

[RomanPhilosopher]

I would say that after the big bang, numerous forces came into effect, Strong Force, Weak Force, Gravity, etc. These forces set the starting conditions for our universe, allowing electrons and protons to form hydrogen. Allowing hydrogen atoms to pull together to make proto stars, protostars fused hydrogen together in their cores making helium... so on and so forth... billions of years later, we come along, and there are certain laws of nature and logical science which is perfectly knowable

[RomanPhilosopher]

part of Einstein's General Relativity states that what is true in one part of space must be true in another. That the laws of physics and chemistry, etc do not change throughout the universe. So what is true in our solar system is also true on some distant solar system in a far away galaxy.

[1nf4m0uz]

Can you really say which one of them is right or wrong? Of course, if you based it on your own perspective it would naturally mean that you would say that "~~~~~" this is not a straight line, rather a curve. The basis for your own answer would be because that is what you were taught when you were once young and then ended up believing it as your own truth. The true question is, how do you really know if what was taught to you was true?

[RomanPhilosopher]

Because I was taught a word that describes a concept and is accepted by my society to mean a set thing. Dictionaries would be pointless if your perspective is true, instead, they are highly useful. I think Language is a lousy place to make your stand mate. Language is a very fluid thing. Words CAN change meanings when society chooses. Such as "Gay", "Negro", "Faggot", "Ass", etc. But most of that comes from slang.

[1nf4m0uz]

I definitely agree about the universal string theory but what bothered me is when you mentioned the universal truth. To start off, there are really no definite truth in everything. Again it is all a matter of perspective and how you perceive things. Followed by the choice of wether to believe it or not. i.e. If there was two kids that was raised at the opposite sides of the world and one was raised believing that "----" this is a straight line. While the other, "~~~~".

[RomanPhilosopher]

Well this video is about Platonism, which is a philosophical school that believes in Universal Truth. And yes, you can tell one of the children they are wrong, because the word straight in our language has a precise definition. Language is not simply taught, it is socially accepted. It is a tool that a group of people uses to describe their world and communicate with others. Its very clumsy, but in our language that would be far closer to a straight line. If a straight line existed that is.

[1nf4m0uz]

So in short you claim that Language is only a matter of social acceptance for it to be regarded as the "truth". Same goes for history. What people accept as history shall be true? If christianity is accepted by 60% of the worlds population would it make it true? would that make atheism wrong? Would that make Deism wrong? In japanese moshi-moshi means hello as to English it is hello. Can you tell me which of them uses it wrong? Different words yet same meaning. Isn't that a matter perspective?

[RomanPhilosopher]

Not at all. I am not suggestion democracy here at all. Far from that clumsy institution. Mob rule has nothing to do with it. Majority's and all that has nothing to do with TRUTH. You are trying to twist what I said friend. LANGUAGE is generated by social acceptance by any group of people. That has nothing to do with language to be regarded as truth, I in fact said the opposite, I said it was clumsy. Same with religion. Popular acceptance proves nothing of validity. Research and logic prove that.

[RomanPhilosopher]

I never said one language was right and another was wrong. Where on earth did you get that idea from? We have been talking in English about the definition of English words. If straight is straight, not if Moshi-Moshi is right or wrong. Try arguing with logic and build an argument rather than try and put words into my mouth when what you insinuate in response has nothing to do with my reply. When you're ready to debate in a serious fashion, I'll be here waiting. But until then man, bugger off.

[tupNtess]

Thank you so much for this video! I'm writing an English essay on Scarlett Thomas' novel The End of Mr. Y, and this is the thesis I'm trying to prove. This video really helped me focus on what i want to say and how I want to say it. I'll probably end up quoting you (although it won't be counted as a valid secondary source). Thanks for the spring board!

[casti1965]

Nice! Perhaps more practice with the guitar will enhance your video.

Brother you got me thinking!

Thank you.

[santakaoss]

Cool video, nice & simple...

[lookingfordetroit]

great video...thank you

[cheriebibo]

i need to watch this again. really great! *****

[RomanPhilosopher]

thanks. I really appreciate that. The song came to me in the span of about an hour, the words are all inspired from the works of Plato and Plotinus.

[Iminto60sstuff]

Cherie Is A Real Nice Lady I Hope You Guys Become Friends!

[RomanPhilosopher]

um... cool? Where do you two know each other from?

[Iminto60sstuff]

The Tube!!She Was And Has Been A Dear Friend From When I Opened My First Account

Plus Were Both Midwesterners!

[RomanPhilosopher]

groovy. Dakota, Illinois, kansas, iowa? The midwest often seems like a very ambiguous term. At any rate this southern boy is looking for an escape. I'm actually considering just selling everything and hitchhiking for the fun of it.

[Iminto60sstuff]

Southern!! My Favarite President Was Jefferson Davis

Its Missouri For Me And I Have Done What You Are

Thinking About! At 15 I Stuck My Thumb Out

And ended Up In Long Beach California Now Im 48 Im Not Going Anywhere!

[RomanPhilosopher]

75 is quite different from 08... sure both have a ton of disillusioned by corrupt war presidents who refuse to be impeached or bring the troops home. The difference is that now the masses are subdued by televised propaganda, and things seem to happen faster than back then, the news, the events, everything, and as a result the newscycle is so quick that something that would have been on the news for weeks is now on only a few hours before some new scandal is making airwaves.

[Iminto60sstuff]

Getting Back To Hitchin A Ride The Times Have Changed But The Road Is The Same A Tough One!

But It Sounds Like A Fine Adventure!

[RomanPhilosopher]

i'd love to hear some of your stories from '75.

[cheriebibo]

very well put! television is the opiate of the people.

[cheriebibo]

the above didn't appear in the right place exactly ~~ i was responding to ehat you said about corrupt war presidents and the masses being subdued by televised propaganda. i have this very strong feeling/sense that we are like dorothy and her crew when the wizard was exposed and they heard ~~ "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" i am not sure exactly who is behind the curtain, but i know that someone(s) we don't see is pulling all the strings.

[RomanPhilosopher]

its my opinion that over the past 200 years there has been a great effort to rewrite history and redesign culture. Those who fought that imposed view of the world have been slandered with propaganda. Napoleon would be one example, all of Europe came against him... twice. Another is Lenin. And look how the powers that be put Stalin in as his replacement, even when his will and expressed wish was for Leon Trotsky to take over.

[RomanPhilosopher]

If you look at the life of Lenin you realize he saw the power of propaganda and how it was used by the powers behind the curtain. He used it against them and that is why his Red October Revolution worked so well. Lenin was a pacifist who believed in Ideals. Stalin was a war mongerer who believed in the Will-To-Power. You could even make arguments for Hitler, he had many accomplishments under his regime, but all you ever hear is 6 million Jews.

[RomanPhilosopher]

The West had no idea about the concentration camps until the Allies took Germany at the end of the war. But the way history books make it sound, the holocaust was the reason for the war... forget the reason that Hitler came to power was due to the harsh economic slump Germany entered after Paris and London said, you have to pay us indefinitely for war-costs. Hitler got them out of that slump and led the biggest technological jump in history. WWII started because he wouldn't play by their rules.

[RomanPhilosopher]

A concept that is gone today is that of national soveriegnty. The idea that a nation can govern itself however it sees fit, regardless of whether or not its neighbors like it or not. With this in mind, what right did we have to invade Iraq? So Saddam killed Kurds in the early 80s. Nothing was done about it for 20 years. And if the Iraqis didn't like him they could revolt.

[matywaldy]

Look at the way iraq country runs,its dangerious to even go there.most of them r maniacs.If they cant behave themselves why shouldnt we go in with guns blazing???

[RomanPhilosopher]

you went there before the war? THe US fucked that country up. They intentionally disbanded the army and allowed a civil war to break out, they all are fighting each other and their occupiers. Point is the USA is why Iraq is fucked up now.

[matywaldy]

What im saying is you dont see any other countries acting like them.Can you believe there trying to incourage tourist again.Ive juat been on holiday and it pisses me off that england have all theses laws to follow,but others dont,its slap bang out of order.

[RomanPhilosopher]

from YOUR point of view. Other countries have every right to rule & govern themselfs however they see fit. If they want a law saying they can stone adulterers. I disagree, but I also realize that countries make their own laws. And if people don't like it, there are ways to sneak out of their country to somewhere else, or they can fight and overturn their government. Bush said we'd enter Iraq and be greeted as liberators. I don't think people like al Sadr view us as anything other than occupiers.

[matywaldy]

Tell me what sensible rules the iraq goverment has?.you sound like one of them people who is so stubben,appinionated and you just wont ever change your mind about anythink.

[RomanPhilosopher]

lol not at all I am very open minded. I just also have done a lot of research into this topic and don't believe the propaganda the Bush administration puts out.

The Iraq Government at current is a puppet government that bickers with itself over whether they should do what Bush wants them too or not. When they are independant and given ten years to settle out, then we can assess.

[matywaldy]

Sorry it all gets on my tits anyway.perhaps there should be certain world rules for everyone and by-laws for each country.

[matywaldy]

No they dont have every right to govern how they want.Because that sort of atitude is exactly why Iraq are out of control and mental patients.Bet you still cant see my point of view,can you?

[RomanPhilosopher]

no, because I don't see people fighting for their independence... freedom fighters... as mental patients. I don't see them as being any more out of control than say, Samuel Adams and Ben Franklin... or Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky... or the countless other people throughout history who overthrew oppression with a goal of establishing a society they saw as best for their people.

[cheriebibo]

Mark is in st. louis. i'm in illinois. we met somehow on the tube because we were both Beatles fans.

[RomanPhilosopher]

her profile and stuff seems very cool. I think we'll get along great. Is she single? :D

[Iminto60sstuff]

I Think Right Now

[RomanPhilosopher]

I think, therefore I am

[Iminto60sstuff]

Ya Think!

[cheriebibo]

my modification: amo, ergo sum ~~ or cogito, ergo amo? there is a reason why the conjugation of the verb "to love" {amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant} has stuck with me i think. love is, in fact, the answer.

[RomanPhilosopher]

can we know love without knowing hate?

[cheriebibo]

well, i think that we can know love without knowing hate. i believe that we incarnate to this place to play and love. i once read about a little toddler who asked his baby sister what god was like because he said he was starting to forget. i think that babies are closely in touch with the source and that we enculturate this out of them so that they forget that they came here to play and create. i believe this will change sooner than many realize. maybe crazy? but what i think. namaste ~cherie

[Iminto60sstuff]

You Awesome Cookie!

[RomanPhilosopher]

so you agree with the notion of re-learning what we forget due to the human condition? name the enslavement/imprisonment to the flesh.

[cheriebibo]

hi again Rick. i agree with the notion of re-learning what we have been conditioned to forget through indoctrination. i completely embrace the concept of our being co-creators. we are all monads, extensions of the source, capable of manifesting energy into matter, but from a very early age, this knowledge is driven deep inside us. it won't be long tough before more and more wake up to this and if all of us concentrate on manifesting a world based on love, it will be done.

~~namaste

[cheriebibo]

lol, RomanPhilosopher! i am single in this dimension ~~ but judging from your profile, darlin', wayyyyy too old for you. ;)

[RomanPhilosopher]

age is a number. I lost my virginity to a 56 year old woman. All that being said, my only true love thus far in this life was 19 at the time. LOL Watch my video on Diotima... its one of my first ones on this channel. That expresses perfectly my views on love.

[cheriebibo]

i really like the song, and i think you should call it ONE.

[Iminto60sstuff]

Any Thought?

[RomanPhilosopher]

always thinking.

[cheriebibo]

well, Lord Byron, i have kind of taken Plato's ideas about our seeing shadows and reflections (on the cave wall) to an extreme. i have come to believe that, as weird as it may seem, we are actually creating our own reality. we actually incarnated here in order to play ~~ by creating our reality. however, we have forgotten this, and now we are still creating our reality but we are creating a reality which is dictated to us and into which we are carefully and continually indoctrinated. crazy?

[RomanPhilosopher]

so are you really a nice lady? ;-)

[cheriebibo]

hi Richard ...

well, are you speaking of nice lady as a form or as an imperfect approximation of that form? ;)i try to live by the golden rule and to do what i can to amplify positive energy.

[JohnHarryBatuyios]

YOU ARE A GENIUS. THANK YOU.

[RomanPhilosopher]

No thank you for checking the video out. Got any thoughts on all of it?

[matywaldy]

Now im on one ,thinking life is one big musicial tune.Help someone,help

[Iminto60sstuff]

It Is Matywaldy Just Watch The Sharps!!

[cheriebibo]

fancy meeting you here, markie! yayyyyy! ya gotta watch the flats too, i think! don't ever let the flats get ya down! i love you markie!

[Iminto60sstuff]

Hi Pumkin Pie!! Did You Read All My Hazari?

This Guy Is A Real Smart Cookie And Has A Good Mind! Did You Watch Again And Comment?

I Definetly Want To Know Your Thoughts Cherbear!

PS

Stop By!

[Iminto60sstuff]

I Know One Thing Where Ever We Go We Have To Take Earth With Us These Are The Chains That Bind Us!But If I Take A Baby And Tell Them

A Dog Is Really A Cat That Baby Will Grow Up

Looking At A Dog And Say Here Kitty!

[RomanPhilosopher]

we don't take Earth with us into space. The chains that bind us are culture. Religion, money, marriage, calendars, media, ego, politics, etc. That is what binds us. Marx had the right idea, none of his followers did. But if we were to abolish those institutions, and live in cooperation we could have true freedom.

[matywaldy]

Perfect plucking,must be a magic plectrum.nice tune,fits the video perfectly

[RomanPhilosopher]

it just came to me. I should work on it some more... i had a handful of mistakes, but none too atrocious to the untrained ear. I'll always be tougher on myself than most listeners, and I understand that, so its all good. What would you call this song... it seems to have an optimistic feel to it... It should have a one word virtuous name... like Liberty or something.

[Iminto60sstuff]

The Song I Would Call. "One"!A Few Bad Notes Dont Make It Wrong!!

But If You Dont Take Earth Into Space You Dont Go Into Space You Could Not Servive

With Out It!But These Thing You Mention Only Bind You Cause They Matter I Never Studied

Marx So I Have No Real Idea Of What He Thought

But I Still Like The Video And Thanks For Replying!

[RomanPhilosopher]

What do you mean we take Earth with us into Space? And what about Sailors on ships, they don't haul dirt onto ships or rockets to allow people to survive on them. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. People could live in space for decades, the only issue is with lower gravity their muscles atrophy. That has nothing to do with Earth not being in the space station with them

[Iminto60sstuff]

Yes But Not Without Water, Air, The Pressure

That We Live In! Meaning We Live Within A Small

Spectrum Of Enviroment And Humans Have To Stay In This! The Space Suit Is Earth And Has Nothing To Do With Dirt Or Ground Sorry Im Not Convaying What Im Trying To Say!Its Meaning We Are Bound To This .We Can Build A Space Station But It Better Be 74 Degress With

Roughly 30Pounds Of Air Preasure On Our Bodys

Thanks For The Coversation!

[RomanPhilosopher]

water air pressure and whatnot are not soley found on Earth. Our atmosphere is made up as well with Nitrogen. But we don't breathe that. In fact I cant think of a creature that does. Yes life on this planet evolved with the ability to survive in the Earths atmosphere, but Oxygen is a Nobel Gas I believe, it can be generated I'd imagine with a ton of fancy equipment, If not converted the old fashion way with plants, plants which can be grown hydroponically, using only water.

[Iminto60sstuff]

See You Have To Take Earth With You!

So What About That Song Title  You Got Some Thought On That?

[RomanPhilosopher]

what's a plectrum anyways?

[matywaldy]

Its a pick silly.Did I spell it wrong?

[scurry1965]

Thank you. It is obvious you are knowledgable in philosophy/Christian theology. Christ make a wonderful archetype of/for the forgiveness, martyrdom to atone for the curse brought on by Adam/Eve the primordial human race. Is there any other atonement offered for Judeic curse? his demi god status as messiah is almost based on supersceding his father's decree, yet it is his father's will.

[RomanPhilosopher]

You are to generous in your praise. But thank you all the same.

As far as Adam and Eve. If one keeps the commandments of the Old Testament and sacrifices a unblemished lamb, which they had kept in their house, with their family, for I believe 3 days prior to slaughter on passover, then their sins are atoned. But please keep in mind, Sin is a very Hebrew concept. In the rest of the world, Moral Philosophy or Karma dealt with the same issue. Moral Philosophy being the strong suit of Socrates.

[scurry1965]

What is it about Jesus Christ did to propel him to "God/Son walking the Earth"? Saul(roman citizen) who became apostle Paul was given respnsibility for a great deal of law's of the church in the new testament. Hell... he saw a blinding light. This blood atonement to fulfill a prophesy paradigm has a lot of power over the psyche of a lot of people. These are people who desire the fufillment of thier prophesies as a part of the faith in my opinion. Its yoke is base.. using human fear.

[RomanPhilosopher]

First off let me say that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a historical Jesus. Yes documents talk about him, but not any official texts, and no texts outside of the "believers" atest to a historical Jesus. No none believer met him and wrote anything. So its similar to men in 2000 years finding Spiderman comics and thinking they are Gospel. Was he only a literary character, or much much more...

[RomanPhilosopher]

one interesting facet about the Galilean, is that prior to his death he only showed signs of being a demi-god. By that I mean minor miracles. multiplying bread and fish healing wounds resuscitating the recently passed calming storms casting out demons etc but after his death he had major miracles walking on water levitating/flying teleportation passing through solid matter etc This to me is consistent with him going from demi-god to full god.

[RomanPhilosopher]

a similar but much older myth is that of Heracles. While on Earth as a Demi-God he had small feats. Mainly superhuman strength. But when he died, he died sacrificially. He built a pyre, and had his assistant tie him to a stake, and he lit it on fire, and while tied at the stake was burned alive. But in the process, since he was not guilty so to speak, his mortal element burned away leaving only his immortal aspect. After this he was the God of the gymnastics/weights and protector of humanity.

[RomanPhilosopher]

logically if you follow the logic of the 1st Century CE religious folk for whom Christianity was addressed to, Europeans living in Anatolia, Hellas, Macedonia, and eventually in Roma, then you'll come to the conclusion that Jesus WAS a demi-god.

A demi-god being the offspring of a Mortal woman and an immortal god. Hellenic Mythos is full of such stories.

It is through the Galilean's death on a cross that his human aspect is shed from him, and he emerges like a butterfly, as a full god.

[RomanPhilosopher]

there is also the theory, assuming the opposite, that Paul made the whole thing up. Paul was the first and only person to write about Christ for a period of close to 20 years. After his death and Peter's deaths, suddenly all of the Gospels are written, first Mark's, Mark being a disciple of Peters, followed/copied a few years later by Luke, disciple of Paul, and Matthew, who is believed to have been written by another disciple of Paul, but its authorship is in question.

[RomanPhilosopher]

The Jesus that Paul writes about, and some of the events he refers to in his epistles do not relate to the Gospels and the Acts. Some have questioned if Acts is even accurate based on this. As far as the Gospels. Paul fails to mention any of Christs miracles such as water to wine, multiplying loafs and fishes, etc. Yet he writes a dozen or so letters and founds churches, without once conveying the miracles of his physical ministry... why not? Seems like that would have been a slam dunk.

[RomanPhilosopher]

So the theory goes that Paul, being a Roman Citizen, was a member of one of the mystery religions of the Romans/Hellenes, such as the Dionysian Mysteries or the Cult of Mithras. Both of whom have similar ideas and characteristics of the character, Jesus Christ. Both were birth-death-rebirth deities, both were "saviors of souls", both had physical ministries on the Earth, Dionysos turned water into wine... Paul took this knowledge with him back to Jerusalem, where he was a Pharisee.

[RomanPhilosopher]

He was well versed in Hebrew tradition and customs, something the outside world longed for, but that the Judeans refused to share. Their religion was for devoted converts only. An issue the Temple had with Paul's ministry in the first place... not to mention he didn't require his followers to circumsize in contradiction to the Torah.

[RomanPhilosopher]

So Paul married Hebrew cosmonology with Mytstery Religions, which also were invite only organizations, like Freemasons today, and he sold this new religion to the poor and uneducated, who before never would have heard of such things.

Its interesting, to the Judeans, the Galilean isn't even possible to be the Messiah. Why? Because he fails Messianic Prophecies for one, but also because the entire story is so Gentile/Pagan. The Hebrew often fell back into Paganism, they dont take it lightly.

[scurry1965]

Thank you.

[RomanPhilosopher]

what for, if i might ask...

[scurry1965]

After I comment on a video or on other comments it is appreciated when the video creator expands/answers my comment. This is my interest and discussion further evolves collective knowledge. Since my intent is pure so is my appreciation. So once again thank you.

[RomanPhilosopher]

oh cool. I wasn't sure if it was sarcasm from its conciseness. Any further questions or anything else to expand on to continue this dialog?

[scurry1965]

I wonder What Would Jesus Read? He studied with the Rabbis. His family was middle class in my perspective and although they were David lineage there must have been some classism in Judaic Society. Their Prophesy of Isaiah made clear that certain criteria had to be met and the manifestation of the Messiah would become realized. Plato was available at that time. Maybe he had it right there next to his Anthony Robbins books. Did Mary carry the blood of David?...and...He was born of a woman.

[RomanPhilosopher]

many men born between ~50 bce and 200 BCE claimed to be messiah. The closest to fulfilling was Simon bar Kokhba, who archeologists now say probably DID rebuild the temple, albeit short-lived. He was even anointed by the priests and declared Messiah. But then he fell short. Jesus only fulfilled about 1/2 of the prophecies, and some the opposite of the prophecies came true. He was upper class by birth, but Ascetic by choice. Traveled. Probably to India. Knew of Buddhism. He was probably an Essene.

[RomanPhilosopher]

Noone knows whose blood marry carried, but she was married supposedly into the Davidic line. Joseph was a Mason by trade prior to marrying Mary. No clue after. No clue on how an intact virgin gives birth either. Did Jesus bust her hymen? Where did the birth account come from? Mary to the Disciples 34 years after it occured? then it took them another 30 years to write it down? Only 2 gospel writers, neither knew Jesus, wrote them. Weird. I could go on and on, man. I've looked into this much.

[RomanPhilosopher]

Oh and we don't even know if Jesus could read. HIs disciples and most of his followers could not. Why would a prostitute or a fisherman need with reading and writing? He taught to peasants without education or free access to information. He probably could. But even his existence is still in some debate. Half his ministry is ripped from the Dionysian mysteries. Such as being born again, the immortality of the soul, etc, etc.

[scurry1965]

And super symmetry has been compared to a guitar string vibrated. If particles were excited by a particle then it stands to reason that we are all connected. The music for this video kicked ass.

[RomanPhilosopher]

Pythagoras was one of the first, if not the first, to notice the perfection of the harmonic tones that make up the Ionic Scale of music (essentially the 8 note system of music in the west).

Different tones have been shown to have different effects on the mind. I think the notes F#, G, and A are the ones that stand out in Indian thought. It corelates to Indian music used during Meditation as well as in chanting (such as the frequency of the chant Om)

[RomanPhilosopher]

contrastingly Plato was flatly against music and the arts. It was his opinion that Art, Drama, Painting, etc played one's emotions. When one is emotional they are less capable of rational thought. Think of how black and white an issue is until you see a battered child or the carcus of a young woman. Your emotions are pulled, and your rationality is perverted or discarded. The ideal Platonist would be a Vulcan. Devoid of emotion.

[RomanPhilosopher]

It isn't that Mr Spock is without emotions, really, he just was beyond them impacting his reasoning. Think of Start Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. Spock's love for Captain Kirk and his friends was so great he gave his own life to save them. Spock loved a perfect love, how, why? Because his emotions didn't rule him and he was enlightened, making him thusly capable of understanding the higher form of Love, Justice, Peace, etc. He could was free of reality and seeing things as they truly are.

[scurry1965]

This is also what happens,... at least in Trungpa Rinpoches's version's of "Tibetin Book of the Dead". In the course of losing "ones self" and because of the halucinatory nature of the states of disintegration, bad decisions are made on "where to get off".

[RomanPhilosopher]

in my imagination of the choice after death is the soul slowly departs the body over the course of 49 days, during those 49 days the Gods or Angels or whatever you wish to call them, prepare your soul for returning to the source. Once there, we have two choices, but it may not be obvious. One will be very tempting. Probably look like heaven, you will be thirsty, and the water looks so cool. The other way are guardians and a path. They probably are menacing to the appearance.

[RomanPhilosopher]

Most who are not prepared would drink of the water of forgetfulness, and then they'd perhaps even have a few choices of which family to be born to and what path to follow, but I think based on the past life, it allows only so many options based on helping one to grow.

Those who were atrocious in life I think do not get an option, they are sent to Tartarus for a period of learning through that method before being able to drink of forgetfulness.

Those who are prepared know what to do.

[RomanPhilosopher]

From my reading, the correct response is to go to the Guardians, and tell them you are a child of Heaven and Earth, but Heaven is from where you once came. That you are the same as them, and that you seek to drink of the waters of memory. At this, they will let you pass, and when you drink of the waters of memory, you gain entrance to Elysia or Paradise, or whatever your tradition calls it.

This is of course simplified, but the knowledge is out there in the Orphic texts, Books of the Dead, etc

[RomanPhilosopher]

The purpose of life is the Quest for Truth. We come back and come back and come back until we find enlightenment and realize our faults and our inability to know anything in a world of shadows, embracing the truth of the light. When one's mind is opened to such things, the truth reveals itself to you. I don't think people even will seek the truth though until the life they are meant to find it, perhaps on occasion, the life before. But everyone lives as long as they are intended to.

[RomanPhilosopher]

we all accomplish in each lifetime, that we are meant to. And upon understanding the mysteries, and that really takes more than being told the answers, but to really understand them and how they fit together in the big picture, then once we get a grasp of how this is all a giant system, all gogs and screws that make everything work.

[RomanPhilosopher]

I think in the west there is a vast misunderstanding of the Caste System. Its viewed as keeping people from moving up. But this is such a limited view of it. You are only limited mobility per life. In their thought, if you live a good life as a peasant, in the next life you'll come back as a higher caste, and those in the higher castes, if they live poorly and abuse power, they come back as peasants. I think this gives their system a balance... it gives it justice.

[scurry1965]

What keeps attracting me back to this samsara? hmmmm.....Oh yeah it is all the human forms.

[scurry1965]

Also the music sounded great and reflected the spirit of the informative video in my opinion. Thanks

[RomanPhilosopher]

thanks... I fuck up some, but considering I wrote the piece 30 minute prior... not too bad.

[RomanPhilosopher]

what brings you back to reincarnating and coming back? well depends on your religious point of view. In my opinion it comes from making the wrong choice after death and choosing to drink from the lake of forgetfulness rather than the lake of memory and returning to the source. An idea found in Hellenic, Vedic, and Aegytpian afterlife accounts.

[SerenaHein]

I'm a fan of forms as well. A couple of questions.

Do you consider Forms and Universals synonymous? If not how do you differentiate between them?

Not so sure on some of the forms you claim like Love or Peace or Marxism and Capitalism. What would be the particular of those?

[RomanPhilosopher]

my reasoning is that a pure marxist state a a pure free market economy does not exist in reality. To me the forms are perfect forms of all the imperfect things of our reality. Oh and Love is a form that dates back to Plato's Symposium. Peace as well is a perfect ideal the world has yet to truly see in a pure form.

I'd need you to define Universals before I could make a judgement on them.

To me, the forms exist beyond the human mind, such as the rectilinear triangle or the perfect circle.

[SerenaHein]

Marxism is an idea, not something that can exist in reality. I can see Justice as a form and Marxism as a particular of that form but not Marxism by itself.

Even in a "pure Marxist state" what would be the real world particular?

I don't see Love being referred to as a form in Symposium but we may have different understandings of a form.

[RomanPhilosopher]

well to me I suppose. Anything we can label is a shadow of a form, the only things that are forms are perfect states, which obviously cannot exist in reality. So by that definition, I view Marxism as a great idea that can never truly be achieved. Since it cannot exist anywhere but on paper, it therefore is in a perfect theoretical state, only existing in our minds, and thusly a form. Just like a Rectilinear Triangle.

On Love watch my diotima video. But I think it goes without saying

[SerenaHein]

Forms do exist in reality, you just can't perceive them because they are constant and unchanging.

Any"thing" you can label may be a form but Marxism isn't a thing it's an idea. Marx himself is a particular of the form of Man so Marxism has to be some kind of ideological particular of a form but not a form itself.

Love as a form is fine as long as you have a particular for it such as a God. Like in Plato's view, God is the particular for the form of Good.

[RomanPhilosopher]

Are you implying Plato was a monotheist? I'll give you the idea thing... but what form exists in reality, as opposed to existing in the source.

[SerenaHein]

No I was saying that god was his particular for good like Aphrodite would be their particular for love. I think Plato was more of a panenthiest.

The Forms are reality, what you see as reality is just their shadows on the cave wall.

What do you mean by the source?

[RomanPhilosopher]

I disagree. I don't think any God is All Good. That would completely nullify the way our world is. If an all powerful all knowing undying entity was all good, so would his domain. And if he is complacent to man causing evil or some devil figure causing evil (neither of which are theories I subscribe to) then he is guilty of negligence.

Plato was a Monist in a Polytheistic culture... from my reading of his work, plus the book The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley.

"the source" = One

[SerenaHein]

Check out my video about evil The Stripper's Guide to Christianity Lesson one, it outlines my views on evil. I don't believe in evil or sky daddys.

I wasn't saying that God is good as a quality but that he actually is good, as in a creative force in the Universe.

The source being the one makes your previous response about the forms existing in reality confusing, does reality not exist in the one?

[RomanPhilosopher]

reality is the word for the world we percieve. What is actual is the forms. We cannot percieve the forms, they cannot be understood empirically, it is rationality. Just like a Rectilinear triangle. You can not draw or see one anywhere in reality. But we know the equation for one is A^2 + B^2 = C^2. We can conceptualize it, but none can be seen. Our attempts are mere shadows of Rectilinear triangle-ness. This obviously goes back to Pythagoras.

[RomanPhilosopher]

As far as God is Good. What is Good?

Is God Good because Good is Good? Or is Good, Good, because God is Good. If God promoted rape, then would rape be good, or is rape good independant of God.

As far as Good simply being God or the Demiurge. Then why is evil created. I'll check your video on it later, but that doesnt make sense to me based on our world. It seems more logical to have many Gods who do not agree on things.

[RomanPhilosopher]

I highly doubt Plato believed in One God, he may believe in the One, but he believed in the Gods as being part of the one. The one is not God, it is everything, man, God, form, creator, creation, stars, planets, fire, water, earth, air... everything.

Now Heraclitus was more of a Panenthiest. But Heraclitus was an empirical pre-socratic, he influenced Aristotle far more than Plato, who was more influenced by Heraclitus' rival Zeno of Elea, a rationalist.

[SerenaHein]

I think Plato was a dualist between the ideal and the material and Heraclitus was the Monist with his theory of everything being change/fire.

[SerenaHein]

Democritus thought everything was atoms and void, then Heraclitus came along and said everything was change, then Socrates came in and said everything we see is change. Plato expanded this in his allegory of the cave, we are chained facing the material/sensible side of the universe we are physically limited in only being able to see that which changes but we are able to conceive of aspects of the universe that are constant.

[RomanPhilosopher]

you passed Zeno who said nothing ever changes in responce to Heraclitus. Quote me something that says Socrates said everything is change. Socrates didn't bother himself with theories, your speaking out of your ass on that one. Socrates wrote nothing down. All we know of him and his teachings is from Plato's early diologs and from Xenophon. Plato was very theoretical, Socrates dealt more with moral philosophy than the makings of the universe, based on the dialogs describing him.

[RomanPhilosopher]

no Aristotle was the dualist, he was the one who brought matter into the debate. To Plato everything was the One. The forms encompass everything.

[RomanPhilosopher]

in Plato's dialog, "Cratylus" he actually argues against Heraclitus's' theory on everything in constant state of change. So I highly doubt he'd view the Gods or the universe much like someone whose philosophical theorems he rejected and who relied upon senses for knowledge instead of reason.

The Forms are not reality though. Think of the allegory of the cave. Are the servants carrying things along the highway carrying actually horses and objects? no. Percieved Reality is the shadows on the wall

[RomanPhilosopher]

The Monad though is pythagorean in origin. And Pythagoras DID influence Plato extremely.

The Forms are like the sun, and "Reality" is the moon. At night, all we can see is the reflection of the light of the sun. It is dim, it seems like the moon, as well as Venus, and Mars, and Jupiter, and Mercury, and Saturn, all are visible and seem to be radiating stars that move around the Earth in much faster than other stars. Perception plays tricks. Reality is that the sun is the source of all light.

[RomanPhilosopher]

and the sun illuminates the planets and our moon, and they simply reflect light back, they produce no light of their own. Likewise, the forms radiate into our world, and all we see is speeding stars, not the truth of reflecting planets. It is only through research, investigation, determination, logic, and a good amount of reasoning, that we can understand the truth of the sun and the moon/planets. Once we do, things still look the same, but we comprehend how they work now. That is enlightenment.

[SerenaHein]

What the actors are holding up may not be real horses but they're more real then the shadows on the wall. The material world is just a cheep knock off of the constant unchanging world.

There is a difference between the God that created everything and gods that represent aspects of the universe. I don't know how knowable or alien his concept of the creator god was.

[RomanPhilosopher]

i doubt he'd call it a creator God, the term most platonists in antiquity would use is the demiurge. Which is more of a creative force which is a part of the system that is the One. As are Hypercosmic Gods which rule over physical laws and universal occurances. As are cosmic deities such as the Olympians, who rule over the Solar system and influence things like civics, the arts, agriculture, and aid in the development of life in our corner of the cosmos. Thats rudimentary, but thats platonism

[SerenaHein]

Demiurge is not the creator god he was created. He is seen as the ruler of the material universe not the creator of everything.

I said Socrates said everything we "see" is change, he is credited with the concept of the sensible universe.

I have to go to work now, but I'll write more later.

[RomanPhilosopher]

why all the male pronouns?

The Demiurge is the creative force, not a God. At least in my view, why do you disagree with that? Why do you think there is a ruler of the material universe? And why do you assume it has a gender, and if so, that the gender is male?

As far as you quoting Socrates. You are quoting PLATO. That is from a middle dialog when Plato used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas. Its from his dialog, "Cratylus".

[RomanPhilosopher]

Cratylus was Plato's teacher before Socrates. He was an extreme Heraclitan, later in life he refused to call any object by its name, instead insisting on pointing. He didn't believe you could ever even cross a river twice. Plato grew past his philosophy, found it lacking, and studied from Socrates 20 years before founding his Academy. His piece Cratylus, was his response to those who were of a similar mindset or of the school of his former teacher. A denunciation.

[SerenaHein]

Pronouns shouldn't be a problem unless you're anthropomorphizing your God/s. I usually call God male because male is associated with being and female with non being. I see it as, if god equals one then the void is zero.

For me the creative force and God are equivalent or at least too difficult for me to differentiate. I don't mean a ruler as in a Genie or Super powered king hanging out in the sky, I'm talking about the physical limitations/rules/laws that we all have to obey without question.

[RomanPhilosopher]

I was just curious as to your background with the He aspect of God is all. For me I see no reason why the "owner" of a pocketwatch must be the same as the "watchmaker" of said pocketwatch. That to me is the claim you are making. Both are part of the same system, yes. To me Gods are seperate from the Demiurge.

[SerenaHein]

I believe in one God/one creator, gods plural to me represent natural forces in the universe.

[RomanPhilosopher]

The Old Testament God to me is Saturn, as the Star of David = the Star of Saturn minus a circle around it. Saturn in Roman mythos was exiled from Olympus. To me he found Abram and became the God of his descendents. He often says in Exodus he is the God of the Israelites, most certainly not the God of the universe.

For millenia YHWH gave prophets, scriptures, laws, kings, great temples and judges to Israel, while he ignored the rest of the us. To me he is the God of the Hebrew and nothing else.

[SerenaHein]

I find Demiurge more associated with the Devil because I found Plato through Christ via the Gnostics. Demiurge didn't create the One he is an emanation of the One or some other higher power, he's associated with the Old Testament god, sometimes good and sometimes bad.

I didn't quote anybody but telling me that Plato wrote for/of Socrates is like telling me that Jesus didn't write the gospels, its common knowledge.

[RomanPhilosopher]

I agree that the Demiurge is beneath the One. As are the Hypercosmic Gods and the Cosmic Gods and the Forms... The One was always, for if it wasn't it'd be the None. The Demiurge to me is not personal, not good or bad... well... equally good and bad. Ying and Yang.

And the Socrates comment, I just wanted it to be clear that all we know of his positions is from Plato and Aristotle, and they are clear he never messed with metaphysics, he was a strictly moral philosopher.

[RomanPhilosopher]

You ascribed a theory if you will to Socrates, the origin of that theory in regards from Socrates comes from one of Plato's dialogs, it is the logical source of where you'd say that. I was simply stating that taking what Socrates says in that late of a piece would relate to quoting Plato's views, not Socrates'. Socrates had no opinion on the changing debate.

[SerenaHein]

Socrates talked about the sensible side of the universe in Plato's dialogues if you want to say they are Plato's ideas then fine. Craytlus isn't about the sensible side of the universe versus the eternal side, it's about the nature of names.

For books, off the top of my head I'd probably go with Phaedo, Timaeus and Parmenides (who was probably the person who gave Socrates the idea, that is if you don't believe that Plato made it all up himself.)

[RomanPhilosopher]

I believe it was in Aristotle's Metaphysics where he accounts for what Socrates taught and what was plato. Xenophon also wrote of Socrates. It is from that, that we base which are predominantly Plato accounting Socrates arguments, and which he used him as a literary character to express his points. Cratylus is about Change. He was a Heraclitan to the extreme. Heraclitis believed you couldn't cross the same river twice, Cratylus didn't believe you could even once.

[RomanPhilosopher]

"Percieved Reality" is what is intended. Actual Reality is only possible to be comprehended, not observed, as is the nature of our world. When one is enlightened all dogs don't magically turn into the ideal dogs, all cars don't turn into the ideal cars. They are still shadows. But when ones mind is open to the light, and we are free of cave, we can stare into the sun, and become one with the brightest light, and reach enlightenment and understand reality, imperfection, and the truth that we seek

[PhilosopherFresh]

interesting stuff man!

[RomanPhilosopher]

thanks! Any questions on platonism and my view of it? I mean I know I take Plato's and Plotinus' views and intermingle them with newer thought like string theory... I mean I fashion myself a Platonic philosopher... the biggest area of discontent is on the issue of the arts. Plato was very opposed to the arts, music, drama, etc as things that play into the senses and emotions and distract us from our quest for enlightenment. I disagree a bit on that. Do you have any questions for me?

[av1497]

i couldnt disagree with you more but good video man

[RomanPhilosopher]

thanks? You disagree with Platonism you mean? Care to elaborate more?

[av1497]

i forgot what i was thinking i have a very short attention span

[sinfultictac]

I have met some Christians who the "one" is the christian God

But I highly doubt that

[RomanPhilosopher]

lol well considering Plato lived before even Alexander the Great, his works definitely were available to Jesus, and Platonism was still a very major philosophy of the Roman Empire until the Christianization of Rome. At which time Aristotle's school surpassed Plato's. Aristotle relied upn his sense perception, while Plato didn't trust it. But yes, many Gnostics hold to this philosophy. As do a few mainstream christians

[PhilosopherFresh]

have you ever heard of Dr. David R. Hawkins?

[RomanPhilosopher]

only casually. I haven't heard his lectures I dont think.

[PhilosopherFresh]

yeah i think you'd like some of his stuff , he has a very interesting look on things... you should check it out.

[RomanPhilosopher]

i definitely will, looking at his site now.