Have you ever studied, "The Allegory of the Cave?"

[WilliamC]

I've posted this before but it seems to fit in this thread so at the risk of being pompous I'll repost in case anyone missed it.

Something I've long denied to myself but I know in my heart to be true
Is the presence in me of a spirit transcending my body, my mind, even you.
Why is it so hard for me to accept? Why have I fought against it for so long?
When all it wants is for me to be free and to help me find my life's song.

It entered me with my first breath it will dwell in my body until I die.
Will it continue onward then? I don't know, if so will it still be "I"?
Or am I only a moment in its infinite journey, one of many it will possess?
Just a dalliance on its eternal voyage, a brief pause in it's endless quest?

Could there be a life after this one in which it will have to atone for my sins?
Will it have to do penance for all my mistakes before it can start over again?
Does its future condition rely on my present acts and how I account for my time?
If I fail will it suffer the consequence, if I succeed will I cause it to shine?

For this spirit within is a creature of light that permeates the flesh I call me,
A cold flame burns through my body leaving behind an essence of energy.
Will the fire be extinguished when I pass away or grow dim as I become old?
Or will my death bring release from this mortal shell and let escape my soul?

In dreams I sometimes catch a glimpse for when I sleep my ego drops guard.
Unfettered at last my spirit wakes and travels to realms that are distant and far.
There I experience worlds without end I witness marvels and mysteries,
I am humbled and awed while it moves through it all in majestic lucidity.

Psychedelic molecules, keys to the mind, can unfold the wings of its perception.
While I am under their spell I see through the veil that hides truth behind deception.
For one glorious moment my spirit and I become One with the Universe,
Would that all of humanity share what I know and be blessed to live without curse.

At times I feel that I am incomplete as if it is missing a part of itself.
Could somewhere exist a mate for my soul who would bring to it untold wealth?
Why should it ever be alone in a world where it only seeks to share love?
How can we the burdens of greed and the boundries of pride rise above?

So I acknowledge my spirit and ask for its help to guide me through my life's quest.
I will pray to whatever gods may exist to forgive it should I ever transgress.
For my spirit is pure in intention even though I may be sullied with sin,
And when my life's run it's course I will have no remorse for my spirit anew will begin.

 

[BlueFloyd]

A wise man has something to say, a fool has to say something - Plato

 

[outspoken]

YouTube it. Basically, to summarize it many people don't want nor will believe the truth when presented with it. The blue pill is easier to swallow... But then there is that small, tireless, fearless minority that wants the truth no matter how painful. Many people's initial thoughts to Ron Paul's message is disbelief and hostility. You have to win their hearts over before you can win their minds

 

[beardedlinen]

Have you ever studied "The Allegory of the Cave?" Written by Plato, told by Socrates to Glaucon. In the allegory of the cave, there are prisoners chained to the floor. These prisoners have no clue of reality, and all they've ever known is those shackles and those caves. They cannot see anything but darkness, and hear themselves. However, "free society (puppeteers)" contribute to misleading them, about this false perception of reality. By presenting objects on the roadway, in front of the flame. This flame reflects the shadow onto the wall in front of the prisoners, and this is how they learn new things about reality. One day, a prisoner escaped--he also discovered the truths about their reality. He later returned, to forewarn his fellow imprisoned companions. They did not listen to him, as they considered it to be crazy-talk. He was dismissed, and the escapee went on his way.

Why am I talking of this? Very simple. It's a reflection of Ron Paul's story, our society, and our nation. The man which discovers truth, and attempts to forewarn those that he also use to be imprisoned with. That man now possessed what appears to be a leadership role. The Media and our current Politicians, reflect the shadow to the masses by using the flame (the flame & shadow, is parallel to media and the television). Giving them a false perception of reality. The masses easily ignore those which question the societal construct and perception of reality they've come to acknowledge as "absolute." Ron Paul is the man questioning our system, and telling people to open their eyes and see for themselves. The masses are those chained to the floor inside the cave, and those of us which you have inspired are slowly waking up to your words.

Many philosophers, had issues with democracy (the masses). Now can you see? The major crux of the problem? The masses are easily mislead. The issue is ensuring we get the proper people into those leadership roles, to avoid this misleading intention.

. . .and Ron Paul, is the start of that long overdue leadership, truly believe that.

I agree with your comparison, but let's not forget the "Philosopher King" idea Plato espouses in "The Republic". He feels that in order to have a true leader a human must be both a "mover and shaker" and a philosopher. From my recollection of the book, he eventually comes to the conclusion that someone encompassing both characteristics is not possible.

Hence people like Perry. Smooth, handsome, powerful, most likely "anointed" by the ruling elites, but not the least bit concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. We seem to worship these vapid people in the US.

Paul is already a philosopher, but how does he approach the "King" part?

Maybe I'm rambling, but in general, what do you think about Plato's "Philosopher King" idea? Is it either or? Can one human embody both at the same time and rise to political power? Or are they mutually exclusive as Plato surmises?

 

[Revolution9]

Thank you! So, anyone wish to learn some basics in philosophy?

If you do just smoke a phatty and ask yourself..why??

Rev9

 

[sailingaway]

I agree with your comparison, but let's not forget the "Philosopher King" idea Plato espouses in "The Republic". He feels that in order to have a true leader a human must be both a "mover and shaker" and a philosopher. From my recollection of the book, he eventually comes to the conclusion that someone encompassing both characteristics is not possible.

Hence people like Perry. Smooth, handsome, powerful, most likely "anointed" by the ruling elites, but not the least bit concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. We seem to worship these vapid people in the US.

Paul is already a philosopher, but how does he approach the "King" part?

Maybe I'm rambling, but in general, what do you think about Plato's "Philosopher King" idea? Is it either or? Can one human embody both at the same time and rise to political power? Or are they mutually exclusive as Plato surmises?

I saw a great quote, either here or on twitter, of a comment from someone who lived outside the US, something like "You Americans have to stop looking for a good ruler and start looking for a good servant."

I disagree with Plato's whole 'imposed' government concept. That is essentially my biggest problem with Plato. He wants to force you to have it for your own good -- a very statist idea.

 

[beardedlinen]

I saw a great quote, either here or on twitter, of a comment from someone who lived outside the US, something like "You Americans have to stop looking for a good ruler and start looking for a good servant."

I disagree with Plato's whole 'imposed' government concept. That is essentially my biggest problem with Plato. He wants to force you to have it for your own good -- a very statist idea.

Well, these people are supposed to be "Servants of the People". So that guy was spot on.

And agreed about Plato. The Republic is profound, but at the same time he advocates eugenics and certain "nurseries" where children are raised by others and never know their biological predecessors, and so on and so on. Still a fascinating read. And for some reason it's considered one of the "Utopian" novels as opposed to the two major "Dystopian (sic)" novels, Brave New World and 1984. The Utopians being The Republic and Utopia by Thomas Moore.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

May I add something intended to be uplifting and in no way disrespectful to the tenure of the site? Not having studied the art of philosophy, this great movement seems to be led, aside from Ron Paul, by a largely younger crowd. I think it's awesome, but, I
think it is sometimes hard for those who are older, and still stuck in the cave, to heed advice from an age-group associated with
the buttocks they once powdered. Is that okay to say? I'm proud to have ascended into this movement, but as a former cave-
dweller, it's been a bit blinding at times.

Yes, it's true Ron Paul draws in a large demographic of the younger generation. It's also very apparent that generations have a subconscious prejudice against other generations. You commonly see this, when you hear people talking about "Life Experience." While very true you should respect your elders, it's also equally important for elders to remember that just because you're younger and more inexperienced [by comparison]. This does not also mean they're not wiser, or more intelligent than first perceived. I have always been a deep minded critical thinker growing up, and I remember the stage when people told me "I have a lot to learn yet." When in actuality, I already did know what they were telling me. Humanity is rather prejudice by nature, and much social power is abused unintentionally, as that social power is often unrecognized.

You see a lot of polarization, due to such issues. Polarization is probably one of the key words I would use, to describe modern day society. This society has grown very unstable socially, and polarization of intelligent and/or wise points of discussion is one very big culprit (based on my studies). This happens regardless of skin color, sexuality, age-differentials, beauty, style, materials, etc.

Another big issue in this society, is pride. What do i mean by pride? Let me explain first, that pride is not bad for individual accomplishments, or even assembled accomplishments. But then how is pride bad? Think of some of the most controversial topics in our society, and the groups associated with them?

Some Common Topics/Groups:
-Feminist Movement
-Religious Movement
-Gay Rights Movement
-Atheist Movement
-All Political Parties

Does anyone ever stop to realize, these groups have a fundamental core belief, and that these core beliefs are beneficial for them? Yes, I think we all know that. But then what's the problem? Based on my studies, and analyzing the behavior of these things on a daily basis. I've came to a conclusion (perhaps multiple), to further understand why pride can be a bad thing. What is it then, you ask? This requires some detail, and forgive me for any details I leave out. Refer back to "CORE BELIEFS", and think for a moment how pride and core beliefs are often polarized.
----------------------------------

A is the core belief.
B is the pride associated to a group.
It progresses into political parties.
Becomes catered to by law.
Then impacts society.
At what cost?

This pride often leads to reverse-intolerance, polarization, and hatred. It forms a shell around the core belief of what the group stands for. The pride disguises the core belief, and outsiders of the group often forget what the core belief of that party is. The pride becomes consuming, and people of this group unintentionally (they're unaware) start an assault against others. They essentially become just as spiteful, intolerant, and hateful of the opposition. They become the mentality, they're initially against.

When you become a unified group, you earn a social status, along with social status comes social power. Power that is unrecognized, is hard to channel into responsible uses. How is that power abused? The pride on the exterior of the core belief, is parallel to pride in a belief system. Let's use Atheism as an example. Atheists that take pride in their belief, are very much opposed when a Christian argues that god does exist. This is an argument no group can prove, but they have faith in their belief. Often what they deem "faith" is actually them taking pride in their belief. The same can be said regarding African-Americans, shouting racism for whenever a Caucasian male disapproves of an action commonly seen in the African-American community, as well as vice versa. But is it racism? Refer to the Martin Luther King reference, "Judge me for my actions, not my skin color."

You also see it in politics. This is a huge issue right now in this country. People polarize the points of the entire party, and condemn a party for what they are, rather than what policies they support. They do this because most people often enough, don't know the policies they're voting for. This issue becomes compounded, when politicians can switch parties, lie, then run on their originally intended platform (this is apparent with Obama right now, video evidence is all you need to confirm this). So they condemn the party which says things they don't like, and a lot of this is due to politicians intentionally playing this inner-war of ideologies (belief systems). But people often condemn a party (belief system) entirely, for the acts or words of one individual. This in itself, creates more pride within a group.

Example:

Group 1 angered them, so they choose Group 2.
Group 2 welcomes them with open arms, by saying "Our group supports <This!>, but Group 1 doesn't!"
Now you have competition, based on arbitrary pride.

Where do you often see this? Gay Rights Movement, for a modern example. Your modern day Democratic party, caters to many of these groups. While the Republican party often does not. What's the advantage? Political Gain, through voting. This ensures their party climbs to power. You see this in regards to many minorities, communities, and pride groups. Essentially, these political groups are playing pride groups like a musical instrument, and because they value their pride so easily--they're incapable of seeing how it impacts the system. This is what i mean above, by the abuse of social power. Pride groups can be devastating, to a political spectrum. Now that they're part of Group 2, they begin to take substantial pride in their words (which is mistakenly perceived as for what they stand for). Instantly, this creates a divide. This divide prevents critical thinking, and offers only mere disagreement. Mere disagreement can very frequently, prevent any such compromise, critical thinking, tolerance, wisdom, or civil discussion. Now that each group has taken far to much pride, in their established group. It has created an inner-culture war, and you see this with all of these groups. Feminism, Gay Rights, Political Groups, Minority Groups, etc.

Why do you think civil war began anyway? Two opposing ideologies, an over-abundance of pride, and a giant push of ideologies on one another. Even though abolishing slavery was justified to fight for, there is a lot of reverse-racism/division going on even to this day. It's because of pride, that unity isn't being achieved.
-----------------------------

To resolve a lot of these issues, we need to educate and inform as many of us as we can. Through understanding the fundamentals of argument, critical thinking, and conceptual analysis--which are all found in philosophy. We can resolve these issues as a society entirely.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. And I see many other supporters of Ron which attack others for not agreeing with him, we cannot become prideful of our beliefs, and attack others that disagree. We must use education, and the above philosophical approach if we wish to inspire, educate, and create a better society for all of us. This is how we'll get Ron Paul into office as well. Ron understands all of this very well.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I agree with your comparison, but let's not forget the "Philosopher King" idea Plato espouses in "The Republic". He feels that in order to have a true leader a human must be both a "mover and shaker" and a philosopher. From my recollection of the book, he eventually comes to the conclusion that someone encompassing both characteristics is not possible.

Hence people like Perry. Smooth, handsome, powerful, most likely "anointed" by the ruling elites, but not the least bit concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. We seem to worship these vapid people in the US.

Paul is already a philosopher, but how does he approach the "King" part?

Maybe I'm rambling, but in general, what do you think about Plato's "Philosopher King" idea? Is it either or? Can one human embody both at the same time and rise to political power? Or are they mutually exclusive as Plato surmises?

Assuming we have the same definition of movers and shakers. I've always believed there is a small percentage of people in the world, which are both movers and shakers. I've always considered myself a mover, and a shaker. I'm not afraid of hard labor, and I'm not afraid of deep critical thinking. Could it be said that one could use a "movers method" in his "shaker approach?" Yes i believe so. Could it be possible, human beings can do this, while being in a philosophical approach? Yes, I believe so. I just feel that there's an even smaller percentage of people which have all 3.

Ron Paul has been relentless, and he grows tiresome fighting the good fight (mover). He has a strong work ethic, and takes his position seriously. He tries to educate people, in anyway he can. He wants to shape their opinions, from what I believe to be non-manipulative intent (shaker). He also understands philosophy, and he even uses a lot of his understanding of philosophy in his writing. He would have had to study philosophy, for the kind of economic structure he supports. I think Plato's "Philosopher King" does exist, just very uncommon/rare. I've always believed the "Philosopher King's" come to power, in times of great need in a society experiencing turmoil. I also disagree with Plato, in the regard that one human being can't possess all 3 traits.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Well, these people are supposed to be "Servants of the People". So that guy was spot on.

And agreed about Plato. The Republic is profound, but at the same time he advocates eugenics and certain "nurseries" where children are raised by others and never know their biological predecessors, and so on and so on. Still a fascinating read. And for some reason it's considered one of the "Utopian" novels as opposed to the two major "Dystopian (sic)" novels, Brave New World and 1984. The Utopians being The Republic and Utopia by Thomas Moore.

The things you and Sailing mentioned are precisely my problems with Plato. There were some ideas introduced in the Republic that sounded exactly like what the Nazis advocated. Sorry to invoke Godwin's law here, but there were some scary ideas ... separating children from their parents? Carefully controlling ancestry and genealogical lines? The whole concept of the oligarchy ruling over the masses, and their suitability being based on the fact that they happened to be born to a "superior race"?

I realize it was ancient Greece and you really can't expect a whole lot of philosophical development beyond statism, but that doesn't make it easy to excuse Plato. Some of his ideas were really messed up as we have stated.

Maybe I'm rambling, but in general, what do you think about Plato's "Philosopher King" idea? Is it either or? Can one human embody both at the same time and rise to political power? Or are they mutually exclusive as Plato surmises?

Interesting question, and that is the same one I asked after finishing my reading of the Republic (I haven't read the whole thing, only selected portions). I think Ron Paul actually exemplifies what Plato was talking about to a certain extent; he does wield some amount of power and sway with people, and his philosophy is definitely very consistent and what defines him. Has he reached ultimate power yet? No, but it's a matter of time. It's definitely a very interesting question to ask and I'm still not sure of the answer.

 

[WilliamC]

Don't have time to really think about this right now but I believe that allmost all humans with normally functioning brains (and yes I realize 'normal' can be debated but I'm talking about physical brain damage as happens with stroke, injury, excessive alcohol/drug abuse, ect) have the capacity to be both doers and thinkers, or 'movers and shakers' as well as philosophers. Maybe not everyone has the same ultimate potentials to acheive great things but being able to both think and do basically defines us humans.

If you've never seen it I suggest looking at the enneagram system of personality clasification, it makes a lot of sense to me. I'll post a snippet from wikipedia here just so folks don't have to click the link if they don't want to.

The Enneagram of Personality (or simply the Enneagram, from the Greek words ennea [nine] and grammos [something written or drawn]) is a typology of human personality. Principally developed by Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo, it is also partly based on earlier teachings of G. I. Gurdjieff. The typology defines nine personality types (also called "enneatypes"), which are also indicated by the points of a geometric figure, called an enneagram,[1] which also indicate some of the connections between the types. As there are different schools of thought among Enneagram theorists about some aspects of how it is understood, its interpretation is not always unified or consistent.[1]

The Enneagram of Personality is not a typology that is commonly taught or researched in academic psychology. It has been widely promoted in both business management and spiritual contexts through seminars, conferences, books, magazines and DVDs.[2][3] In business contexts it is generally used as a typology to gain insights into workplace dynamics; in spirituality it is more commonly presented as a path to higher states of being, essence and enlightenment. It has been described as a method for self-understanding and self-development[2] but has been criticized as being subject to interpretation, making it difficult to test or validate scientifically.[4]

One thing I've come to realize is that people can behave in essentially the same manner (their external actions are the same) but do so for completely different reasons (their internal motivations are different). I don't mean simple behavior, like getting a drink of water because you are thirsty, but complex behaviors like deciding what career to persue or what political system to support. So just because someone supports Ron Paul, for instance, doesn't mean they do so for the same reasons I do.

One of the basic lessons I get out of the enneagram is that it is part of our life's quest to integrate our personality, that is to deliberately do things to take oneself out of ones comfort zone and make one grow as a person. How each person should approach this partially depends on ones inherent personality, so while the goal is the same for all the journey isn't.

Anyway, gotta stop sitting here thinking and go do some doing.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

If you do just smoke a phatty and ask yourself..why??

Rev9

Sometimes that's all that's necessary.

 

[pacelli]

Sure have...studied Epictetus as well.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Sure have...studied Epictetus as well.

Lol. Just a reply to the thread title huh?

 

[KingNothing]

Paul is a Christian so he draws his inspiration from that font. Those of us who are non-believers need to find other sources. Through my eyes, starting with existentialism, running through Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, etc and bouncing to the Golden Age Russian thinkers like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, then rolling through American transcendental schools, Greek and Roman stoic thought, and Buddhism and the Tao, something seems really obvious to me: man was created to be free, and he was created to lead a life of virtue. In all major schools of thought, the notion that man was destined for Liberty and the responsibility that comes with it seems obvious. Plato's Cave enters when when we realize that modern society effectively works to encourage us to lead unexamined lives. We waste our lives in cubicles doing pointless tasks, watching mind-numbing programs on television, while we consume thought and emotion-killing food and medication. On the other hand, when we delve into philosophy, when we examine life, we can come to no other conclusion -- Libertarian principles are the only ones that pass the test of logic; all of us should be free from the coercion of others, and every one of us has a responsibility to contribute to humanity by working with one another, showing compassion and tolerance, and caring for those in need.

 

[KingNothing]

Don't have time to really think about this right now but I believe that allmost all humans with normally functioning brains (and yes I realize 'normal' can be debated but I'm talking about physical brain damage as happens with stroke, injury, excessive alcohol/drug abuse, ect) have the capacity to be both doers and thinkers, or 'movers and shakers' as well as philosophers. Maybe not everyone has the same ultimate potentials to acheive great things but being able to both think and do basically defines us humans.

If you've never seen it I suggest looking at the enneagram system of personality clasification, it makes a lot of sense to me. I'll post a snippet from wikipedia here just so folks don't have to click the link if they don't want to.



One thing I've come to realize is that people can behave in essentially the same manner (their external actions are the same) but do so for completely different reasons (their internal motivations are different). I don't mean simple behavior, like getting a drink of water because you are thirsty, but complex behaviors like deciding what career to persue or what political system to support. So just because someone supports Ron Paul, for instance, doesn't mean they do so for the same reasons I do.

One of the basic lessons I get out of the enneagram is that it is part of our life's quest to integrate our personality, that is to deliberately do things to take oneself out of ones comfort zone and make one grow as a person. How each person should approach this partially depends on ones inherent personality, so while the goal is the same for all the journey isn't.

Anyway, gotta stop sitting here thinking and go do some doing.

Really interesting post, sir. Thank you for that.

 

[Eric21ND]

I agree with your comparison, but let's not forget the "Philosopher King" idea Plato espouses in "The Republic". He feels that in order to have a true leader a human must be both a "mover and shaker" and a philosopher. From my recollection of the book, he eventually comes to the conclusion that someone encompassing both characteristics is not possible.

Hence people like Perry. Smooth, handsome, powerful, most likely "anointed" by the ruling elites, but not the least bit concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. We seem to worship these vapid people in the US.

Paul is already a philosopher, but how does he approach the "King" part?

Maybe I'm rambling, but in general, what do you think about Plato's "Philosopher King" idea? Is it either or? Can one human embody both at the same time and rise to political power? Or are they mutually exclusive as Plato surmises?

Marcus Aurelius is probably the closet embodiment of that.

 

[Carole]

Philosophy_of_Politics said:

"Have you ever studied, "The Allegory of the Cave?" "

Well done and welcome.

I forced myself to read Plato about ten years ago. The cave allegory stayed with me for a long time. Thanks for the reminder. Your interpretation is a good one.

Two days ago I revisited Animal Farm. I did the online sparknotes version which had some nice features and helpful analysis, test questions, etc. I had read it as a teenager, but had forgotten most of it. Glad I revisited the book as it certainly echoes what has been happening for decades in America.

Here is the url if you wish to visit it:

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/animalfarm/context.html

 

[Crickett]

This post and allegory really got to me. I do not remember discussing this when I took philosophy. I used to like all the differing views until I finally found Truth, and then never messed with it again. The thing that disturbs me about this is something quite different than I have seen mentioned. See, darkness flees when light comes in, and I have often said that darkness has never even SEEN light. I mean to get rid of darkness you do not carry buckets of it out, you just bring in light. Shadows, on the other hand, seem to be pieces of darkness that can not SURVIVE without light. They would not exist without it. Light illuminates the shadows. This was not a false light, and the fire surely illuminated faces so the people could not possibly think ALL life was shadow, could they? I never thought about shadows like this before. It actually is scary.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Paul is a Christian so he draws his inspiration from that font. Those of us who are non-believers need to find other sources. Through my eyes, starting with existentialism, running through Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, etc and bouncing to the Golden Age Russian thinkers like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, then rolling through American transcendental schools, Greek and Roman stoic thought, and Buddhism and the Tao, something seems really obvious to me: man was created to be free, and he was created to lead a life of virtue. In all major schools of thought, the notion that man was destined for Liberty and the responsibility that comes with it seems obvious. Plato's Cave enters when when we realize that modern society effectively works to encourage us to lead unexamined lives. We waste our lives in cubicles doing pointless tasks, watching mind-numbing programs on television, while we consume thought and emotion-killing food and medication. On the other hand, when we delve into philosophy, when we examine life, we can come to no other conclusion -- Libertarian principles are the only ones that pass the test of logic; all of us should be free from the coercion of others, and every one of us has a responsibility to contribute to humanity by working with one another, showing compassion and tolerance, and caring for those in need.

I agree. However, when considering how to survive financially, as a part of the society we inhabit. I think "conservation" also has its merits, that the core population of the Conservative party has strayed from.