/lit/ - Literature

soul is self evident to "based" people. people did not question it until more and more philosophy started to become written by "cringe" people. hope this helped

Bleeding

If the existence of your soul is not self-evident to you then you are a bugman and have no business diving into philosophy.

Why as in what are the sources of these ideas or as in for what end? Material cause is heraclitus and pythagoreanism (the latter is more important than the former), final cause is probably his One Over Many argument

>>16610328
>BUT WE WONT THE BIG BIG MONEY
>MAN SIZED CRASS
>THE SHINY STUFF

>>16610318
>>16610328
I am Asian, but that doesn't answer anything. Can you define the soul? What is soul?

>>16610342
I mean why as in the source, sorry for being vague. I simply do not buy Plato's argument for the soul, but I would like to see where he came from or what mistakes I am making.

>>16610298
>plato
>religion

>>16610368
You either have one and understand it or you don't and will never understand it.

>>16610368
>I am Asian
Kek, I certainly hope this is bait

>>9663554
The Son and Spirit are God substantially, the Father is God hypostatically.
>>9663568
God could have created something eternally and this would then be eternal yet still created. It is you one in confusing eternity with God, even tho they always occur together, begotten has nothing inherently to do with eternity (even tho the son is begotten eternally). Technically, hypothetically, God could 'beget' something that isn't eternal, such as some of his Energies. Beget and Proceed (the Spirit) aren't the same thing either yet both are causations.

God isn't the divine substance, the Father, ontologically, preexist the trinity and his own substance. I admit this is something even orthodox theologians can't really wrap their head around.
One eternal thing can cause another eternal thing, an omnipotent entity can be superior to another omnipotent entity, by being the source and basis of the other. The Son depends on the Father and the Father necessarily begets the Son (he can't not beget).
Alternatively one can say that the Father is identical to his Substance, just as the Logos is One and Many with the Logoi (energies). How the substance and father is unknowable, but the image of this (the son) is knowable, the unmanifest and the manifest. The spirit is the interrelation itself both of God with God but also Creation with the Uncreated, the dynamis of all relations. But that's the Mysteries not doctrine.

>>16610390
How do you just "understand" the soul if you have one? If I have a car it does not mean I understand the car.
>>16610400
Only losers and faggots would bait on 4chan.

>>16610368
have a walk in the woods? do something genuinely kind for someone? the community you feel behind all life and your personal responsibility to all life is your soul trying to break through to your STEMtard brain

>>16610406
Meant to delete this copy paste not post it.
Thanks random screen jumping.

>>16610298
Recollection.
Read it literally.
>colligō:
I gather, draw, bring or collect (together), assemble, pick up; contract, draw up, compress, concentrate; harvest.
I make thick, thicken; bind or mass together.
I get, gain, acquire, produce, collect.
I think upon, weigh, consider; deduce, conclude, infer, gather.
(in a reflexive sense) I collect or compose myself, recover my courage or resolution.
(of a number, chiefly a distance) I amount or come to, extend; am reckoned (in a passive sense).

Collection is the natural state of an eternal soul that exists in an ontologically hierarchical reality.
If 'beholding' the Intelligible is the superior state then logically an eternal soul, that also comes from there (is caused by that which is higher than itself), would actually make it into 'recollecting' when finding the apprehension of That, since you've actually been there before, since you are eternal you are re-collecting That as well as your disordered self.
Phaedrus basically covers all three of your questions.

>Also, Socrates' teaching of the slave does not seem to me to be the soul recollecting something, but rather pure logic and reasoning based on basic and fundamental knowledge.
YES.

>>16610407
A soul isn't like a car because a car is external. A better comparison would be your fingers. You just simply understand your fingers, you just simply understand your soul.

>>16610298
>fundamental knowledge
gee and you think plato is unreasonable

>>16610406
So, in simpler terms, the Father is an absolute infinity, and the Son and the Spirit are lesser infinities?
>>16610415
I do all those things, humanitiesfag. Why would me being in STEM directly lead to me being an unkind solipsist? And why must it be chalked up to muh soul? Such actions are not defined by the soul, and vice versa.
>>16610425
Best post yet, thank you anon. So basically, because I am logically descending from the intelligible to thought, etc., this is recollecting?

I imagine public education to be a massive joke. It is self evident that some people just CANNOT learn, and born to be under the capables RULE.

>>16610446
I don't think Plato is unreasonable, I just find this one aspect of his hard to agree with and follow. Although I do prefer Aristotle.

>>16610375
>From the mystical Pythagorean school Plato derived the conception of a mimetic relationship between the individual and the universe of which he is a part. That relationship consisted in the sharing of a common formula or ratio of adjustment.
>The Heraclitean doctrine of "flux", or continuous change, in the sensible world suggested that the permanent realities which are the objects of knowledge are distinct from sensible things.

From these it necessarily follows that humans need some non-sensible principle with which we are able to grasp and have knowledge of immaterial things. Glossing over the details, Platonism established a kind of mathematical mysticism where the One, which is the source of number, acts over Indeterminate Quantity (think of it as an infinite blob of undefined matter) to create the Ideas (non-sensible class of things which acts as the "formula", ratio of number) which in turn acts upon this Indeterminate Quantity to create the sensible world. It is then the chief objective of the rational animal to break from the shackles of the sensible and turn towards the One.

>>16610390
You don't have a soul, verily you are a soul.

>>16610466
This, the soul has a body not the other way around

>>16610455
It's official policy to not educate the masses. I've forgotten what the thing was called but there was a government funded research into it and they figured that the best way to maintain the status quo was to not educate

>>16610328
>>16610368
>>16610390
hadn't read Wittgenstein yet but I can see why he's such a big deal

Because he lived thousands of years before the theory of the mind was understood? He believes in a soul because he is uneducated and ignorant.

>>16610318
Basically this.

>>16610415
What does that have to do with the immortality of the soul?

>>16610508
This is what I think, but your argument is even more shallow than mine.
>Plato uneducated and ignorant
Read a fucking book

>>16610318
>>16610328
>self evident
JFC is this shit for real? How can the fundation of philosophy rely on this bullshit

>>16610368
>chinksects be like

>>16610547
You can read soul as person or mind or consciousness or whatever you want to call that thing which departs the body during sleep and at death.

>>16610407
don’t waste your time, Asians don’t have souls and this has been known for thousands of years

>>16610466
>>16610488
While this is correct, depending on what level of contemplation you currently have and that our soul is One and Many, there is two senses of Soul, your whole being and the eye of the soul. You are what you identify with, thus if you identify with your body then in a sense you only 'have a soul' because your current body is currently the lowest aspect of your 'Greater Soul'. While if you identify with your highest aspect then the entire hierarchy of your soul is recollected into that higher identity. Again, Phaedrus, we fly up with our soulmate together in our chariot (heavenly body), beyond Olympus. There all these divisions fade into Undivided multiplicity.
>>16610447
>Best post yet, thank you anon. So basically, because I am logically descending from the intelligible to thought, etc., this is recollecting?
Meant to also post pic related.

>>16610508
>theory of the mind understood?
what the fuck are you talking about. also soul is the same thing as mind which is why the word is the same in other languages (neither exist)

>>16610553
>>16610566
Shut your fucking mouths. /pol/ stays in /pol/, faggots.
>>16610564
Can we redefine the soul then?

>>16610574
There's no need to redefine it, the existence is self evident. We can argue about the nature of the soul, whether it is immortal and indestructible as OP claims Plato holds.

>>16610589
>soul exists because it just does
Not very much rigour there now

>>16610570
What you call identifying with, I think the better explanation would be degree of self awareness.

The body is the vessel of the soul, some are aware that they are like a pilot of a ship and others do not differentiate the pilot from the ship. It comes back again to the understanding of the true nature of the soul. It's a rather deep topic.

>>16610610
You don't have qualia?
That's all 'soul', in essence, refers to.

>>16610610
are you not reading >>16610564 you cannot deny that you are an entity

>>16610621
The differentiation of pilot and ship is itself an error in the highest sense, as in that you are not the ship, it is true that you are not truly this matter, but are it 'on lease', that is, temporarily. And you will always have a body, as in something to pilot, which will be your irrational soul, and lower soul, through your higher soul (Nous). The Nous pilots the soul, thus Soul is a type of body to Nous, the latter being the true soul. The highest encompasses the lower. And we rarely call Nous 'soul', as in, the Qualitative individual. When the soul becomes Royal it becomes pointless to call it soul anymore than it is to call the ethereal body as 'body'. But it becomes necessary to highlight these things, because people confuse body with solely this fleeting type of body, and soul with solely this lonely closed off self.

>>16610298
It's not so much about "recollecting" like how Plato describes it; rather, it is more about the idea that concepts such as beauty, justice, piety (ect.) exist in the human mind naturally and manifest as we develop. We are not taught what beauty is, it is something we observe. Plato is saying that observation requires some kind of pre-perceived knowledge that exist in the human mind and he connects it to his theory of the immoral and reincarnating soul.

>>16610688
So it is more an innate understanding of certain concepts, like aesthetics and geometry (per the dialogue), than a "recollection"?

>>16610298
Plato is one of the first to sculpt the idea of a soul, once you finish the Greeks and move onto medieval philosophy your questions will be answered, you’ll grow new q’s but remain dedicated and move on from medieval and those too will be answered

Wake me up when you’re caught up to modern philosophy

>>16610707
There's no conflict, REcognizing beauty is recollection. Biologist would call it evolved instinct to be attracted to X and therefore find it beautiful. But you can't find beautiful if you didn't have the pattern for it already in your mind/"brain".

>>16610707
Recollection in the sense that the innate knowing of things is from some preexisting memory. We know things yet we have not learnt them.

>>16610723
In recorded western philosophical history before we could read hieroglyphics*
All philosophical greater western thought began with Plato yes, and he perfectly preserved Egyptian metaphysics, although in riddles—a gift and a curse by God.

>>16610298
>Monkey people don't know what the fuck happens when we die
>Humans develop communication and start rambling about spirits of parents, reincarnation, second lives through your children and their seed, stars...
>They develop scripture and ramblings pass on from Asia to Europe
>Religions begin with diferent myths
>Fast foward
>20th century
>See Star Trek episode about an alien light form who gets brunette telepath alien chick pregnant, who gives birth a baby, that develops as a kid and dies, they cry, Picard included, suddenly kid corpse mutes into light form again
>I just wanted to know more about you, I'm so far... see you in the other life mom! and all of you!

>>16610425
>>16610570
>>16610668
Also, eternity of the soul is also from the presupposition of free will, free will implies self-mover. And, according to some of Plato's argument about self-movers, a true self-mover has to be eternal, since, naturally he can't have been caused to move for then she wouldn't be a true self-mover, but a moved mover.
You can fin this in Phaedrus and Laws, probably somewhere else too, Sophist addresses the non-dichotomy between rest and motion, which the Parmenides Instant also addresses.

>>16610298
>pure logic and reasoning based on basic and fundamental knowledge
What is guaranteeing acess to that "fundamental knowledge" other than what Plato calls soul? His arguments could be seen as similar to Kant's transcedental movement: what accounts for the unity of the manifold?

>>16610768
>he perfectly preserved Egyptian metaphysics
what is this idea based on?

>>16610298
>the soul recollecting something, but rather pure logic and reasoning based on basic and fundamental knowledge
The point is that learning is actually just recovering knowledge. The soul experiences trauma upon reincarnation that jumbles memory. Look up "anamnesis" for more. As time goes on and souls reincarnate again and again, people will gradually become relatively more knowledgeable than past incarnations. This is why the Flynn Effect is.

>>16610947
>a moved mover.
didn't Proclus say that our souls are between unmoved movers and moved things? We are self-movers but we were put in movement by the unmoved mover. We are moved self-moving movers.

>>16611547
Isn't that just playing word games? Like, you can't have a moved self-moving mover, it's nonsense outside of the motion necessary for being in the first place

>>16611446
if the Flynn effect was based on constant increase of knowledge through reincarnation, people must have been dumb as fuck a few hundred years ago, since the measured IQ increased about 3 points per decade

>>16610298
nigga, Plato is like thousands of years old no shit his ideals are dated.

>>16611575
I don't see how that is ''word games''.

>Every being is either immovable or moved. And if moved, it is either moved by itself, or by another: and if it is moved by itself it is self-motive, but if by another it is alter-motive. Every nature, therefore, is either immovable, self-motive, or alter-motive.

>f every alter-motive thing is moved because it is moved by another, motions will be either in a circle, or they will proceed to infinity. But neither will they be in a circle, nor proceed ad infinitum, since all beings are limited by the Principle of things, and that which moves is better than that which is moved. Hence there will be something immovable, which first moves. But if this be so, it is necessary that the self-motive exist. For if all things should stop, what will that be which is first moved? It cannot be the immovable, for this is not naturally adapted to be moved; nor the alter-motive, [14] for that is moved by another. It remains, therefore, that the self-motive nature is that which is primarily moved

bump

>>16610298
>Why does Plato insist on the existence of an immortal and indestructible soul?
Because this sort of question begins with the assumption that qualia exists, and if qualia exists, then an ethereal form also exists from which matter is an inferior blueprint is devised. Plato was a genius who was millenias ahead of the curve.

>>16610298
>>16610368
The soul is the subject, the entity to which consciousness pertains. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>16610622
Shortest and best answer ITT

>>16610298
For Plato, the argument for an immortal soul primarily stems from epistemological motivations.
So the Meno begins with the question whether virtue is something that can be taught, and Socrates argues that to know whether virtue can be taught, we must first know what virtue is. Meno is then asked what virtue is, an in very typical fashion for platonic dialogues, he simply lists many particular kinds of virtue. Socrates tells him that he wants to know what all these particulars have in common which make them virtuous—that is, the universal. But, Socrates argues, knowledge of the universal cannot be known from the particular. Further, if we try to give a definition of the subject (ie. 'virtue is x'), how do we know whether that definition is true? Socrates is someone who is ignorant of the knowledge of virtue, so when he is confronted by the definitions of virtue Meno provides, how can he evaluate them? he cant in any positive method (affirmation) but only in finding inconsistencies in his definitions (negation). And attempts to define virtue by reference to particular virtues (ie. it is just) not only is circular, but runs into the problem of deriving a universal from a particular (justice being a particular virtue). So every attempt to identify virtue stems from something particular about virtues. Typically to make definitions we need to already know the meaning of the word, but it is clear here that neither party already knows what virtue is. It is clear then, that if we don't already know something about virtue, we cannot possibly define it.
This is when Meno raises the core question of the dialogue:
>And how will you inquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?
He is asking a general question about epistemology: How can someone who does not know anything for certain gain knowledge? how can we obtain new knowledge without already knowing precisely what we are looking for? To be able to evaluate new knowledge, it seems, we need to know precisely the truth of the knowledge we are searching for to begin with. Now this is problem, if we take it seriously, seems to rule out any way of gaining new knowledge at all; it the entire idea of trying to gain knowledge completely absurd, as we will never know where, how, or what to look for: we can only know what we already know.

>>16613130
>>16613130
If we can only know what we already know, the way we gain knowledge is not through discovery, but through recollection. But how can we recall something we never learned? by having learned it in some past life. Therefore, If we have a soul that is immortal and continually reincarnated, which has been through all time it has experienced everything, which has within it the traces and memory of all things, then we could indeed recall all knowledge. Thus the pursuit of philosophy is restored! we are still in the position to discover things—not through gaining new knowledge—but through recollection of past knowledge gained.
Thus we find knowledge through internal reflection, which is brought out through questioning. This is what motivates the Socratic method as a way of finding knowledge, and why Socrates considers himself simply "a midwife"— he is birthing the knowledge that others already has within themselves. All this is framed as a mythos, so its difficult to tell how serious Plato is about the immortal soul. He actually says that we 'should' believe the myth because it is useful, so we continue our search for knowledge and don't just give up here.
Which Socrates them demonstrates that through the Slave learning pythagoras' theorem or whatever it was, despite not knowing it initially. The slave is someone who hasn't be taught, so presumably he can only recollect from past lives rather than past teaching. Socrates has only been asking questions, but never giving him answers. So this is taken as evidence of recollection rather than teaching.
An obvious problem: how did the soul learn this knowledge in the first place? after all, we cannot derive it from particulars, so what does it matter that we have seen every particular in our fast incarnations? It can't learn it through recollection after all, as it does not already know them. So the problem of the Meno is just delayed. If you look at some of the other dialogues that the immortal soul appears, it is sometimes able to gave upon the forms in the time it takes to travel between lives (in Phaedrus anyway). We also have a problem of knowing which recollection is the correct or true one. These are all problems that Plato doesn't provide answers for, at least in the Meno.

>>16610298
Because he was smart.

>>16613130
pls be my femboy bf

>>16610508
Whitehead just years ago says souls are real and proved so mathematically. Scientists are starting to doubt their presumptions because they are inadequate

>>16611639
There is no new thing under the sun. Educate yourself

>>16610298

OP you sound like a babbling idiot. Pick a topic. Don't worry about what he is "influenced by" just worry about his arguments. If they are bad, they are bad. If they aren't bad, then what's your objection?

>>16613634
Influences are part of reasoning, and reasoning part of an argument. Plato's core argument I do not agree with, but I want to know what holes there are in my understanding of Plato's Immortal Soul.
>>16613130
>>16613134
Thank you for the in-depth posts. Another question, and I apologise for taking your precious time: i read Meno a couple times, but I sat wondering why the knowledge must be recollected to begin with, as the implications seem to be that knowledge was lost after death. If that is so, did our souls ever actually learn if we simply lost the knowledge and had to regain it? And by what process did our souls "forget", one could say, such knowledge?
>>16613229
why didn't I think of that

>>16613134
>An obvious problem: how did the soul learn this knowledge in the first place? after all, we cannot derive it from particulars, so what does it matter that we have seen every particular in our fast incarnations?

Why do you think "recollection" amounts to "recollection of something learned in a past life"? Your point is well-taken that if he couldn't learn it in this life then how did his soul ever learn it, since it seems "unlearnable" in this mode of being. But he could easily say that souls know lots of things; maybe they have nice immediate contact with the forms or something, and that there is no "learning" of certain things in this life, only finding clarity about what you already knew.
It might sound weird to you but remember that there are deep and puzzling issues about how we can acquire things like mathematical knowledge. It's just one story to say that maybe our "souls" or "intellect" are already in some way pre-loaded with that knowledge but that the cognition of such in a living form is met with all kinds of impediments.

>>16610368
>i'm asian
>what is soul

God, please, make'em get nuked

>>16610368
>Asian
>Souls
This topic doesn't concern you

>>16613130
>>16613134
Good post

>>16610298
No, you are doing it right. You are using your head and applying the proper lines of logic. Which is, of course, all Socrates meant in Phaedo. The "soul" is an idea. It isn't a corporeal literality that can be touched and caressed and weighed. You seem to have the unwavering, undying reasoning that the "soul" is an intangible construct. I'm telling you it doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't. You aren't asking the right questions. The very fact that you are asking the questions that you are, in fact, asking, has lead me to the belief that Socrates was correct in purporting the everlasting attributes of a continually reincarnated "soul". There is nothing "serious" and nothing "joking" about it, we are just talking. Remember, we aren't being literal here. Or, we could be, but it's very hard to gloss over and warp the basic understanding of words and how they are perceived through a single line of discourse on 4channel. My point is... Nah, you got it. But it ain't what you think it is.

>>16614029
>Dude.. what if, the soul... was philosophy!

>>16614183
Precisely not what I said, faggot

>>16610318
>>16610328
Oh shut the fuck up you fucking pseuds.

>>16610298
Very good questions, OP. If you don't mind a little bit of friendly advice, I'd offer that you might want to read a little more slowly, or to try looking back for how certain topics are brought up.

For the Meno, at least, the first appearance of the word soul occurs at 80b; Meno uses the word. Socrates' first use is at 81b, and notice how he brings it up: it's "men and women wise about things divine", "priests and priestesses", and "Pindar...and many others of those poets who are divine" who "declare the human soul to be immortal". Socrates seems in this case not to demand it, but to relate to Meno that these people do as a prelude to the Recollection teaching. One thing you should try to work out is why this presentation appears this way with this intro. Maybe even why Recollection and the soul are only properly introduced here and not earlier.

As for Recollection, the verb "to recollect" appears 3 times before Recollection is introduced as an account of gaining/having knowledge, at 71c, 73c, and 76b, and in all 3 cases Socrates is asking Meno to "recollect/remember" what Gorgias, Meno's teacher, said about virtue. That might be worth mulling over, and why it transforms into this more mythical account with a mathematical demonstration. Additionally, there's a definition of Recollection at 97e-98a that some readers sometimes overlook that seems like a more "rational" definition of Recollection.

>>16610298
hey, stupid pederast, you think it is 2020 now?

>>16610298
>This seems heavily influenced by both lack of knowledge about the human conscious and his religion
Energy/information cannot be created or destroyed.
1st Law of Thermodynamics

>>16615196
Idiot.

>>16613695
>i read Meno a couple times, but I sat wondering why the knowledge must be recollected to begin with
There's a little joke at the beginning where Socrates says he has a poor memory and doesn't recall what Gorgias said virtue is. A question you should ask yourself: Socrates spends a good portion of the dialogue giving examples to Meno of how to answer his question, e.g. how to give a comprehensive definition, how to distinguish between the thing and an example of the thing, how to define in terms of relation, how to hypothesize when you don't know, etc. Keep in mind this dialogue's theme is virtue, not knowledge. Why should it be the case that in *the* Platonic dialogue on virtue, we spend so much of it going over how to inquire, Recollection being the most extravagant example? About half of the dialogue plays out, Recollection is brought in, then it's dropped, then it briefly reappears at the end as effectively true opinion yoked to causative reasoning by memory. What does any of that say about virtue?

>>16615196
based

>>16614631
Death of the author, yes it was.

>>16614843
You are the pseud for seething at the concept of a soul. Try to calm down when ideas dont conform to your passively absorbed atheist shlock

How do you debunk the following argument against the immortality of the soul?
1. The soul is the subject which has experience.
2. The soul is tightly linked to the brain. It is known that when you physically alter the brain (by lobotomy or an injury), your perception fundamentally changes sometimes to the point where you lose the continuity of self, i.e. can't recognize yourself. Conversely, if you think certain thoughts, patterns can be observed in the brain. Things that change in the soul due to physical changes in the brain:
- Memory.
- Personality.
- Intelligence/reasoning ability.
- Outlook on life.
3. We know that after death the brain disintegrates. The physical changes to the brain are more significant than any changes we observe when we're alive.
4. Therefore we expect that after death, the soul is changed so much in its most fundamental aspects that we lose our memory, personality, our intelligence and our outlook on life. Due to such significant changes, whatever remains of the soul, it cannot be said to be the same thing. The soul is lost and what is left (if anything) is something fundamentally different.

>>16616001
>based
>cringe
>bugman
>seething
You are a walking meme. Your opinion is worth less than dirt to me.

>>16616043
Plato would disagree with point two and argue that the soul exists prior to the brain/body, his proof for this is the intrinsic knowledge of logic (equality, inequality, etc) that we all have. He argues that this knowledge comes from the world of forms prior to birth. I tend to agree with your argument though, Plato's entire argument seems to hinge on this theory of recollection which I don't think is very strong. Phaedo is still worth reading imo if you haven't already.

>>16616124
That's standard 4chan lingo.

>>16616124
I agree with you that this is retarded meme terms and should be avoided when dealing with things seriously but he is right. The soul is self-evident.

>>16616043
memory and emotion is imprinted on the soul, but because of its dynamic nature we will eventually lose the memories of lives we lived once all ten/three thousand years of life cycles have passed. Memory isn't in the brain, rather the neurons fire in a set pattern that mentally though faintly recreates the sensory and emotional stimulus. But all three of these are Psychic, the biology merely acts as a trigger, the neuronal pattern is like the reverse of a Form (bottom-up instead of top-down), which is a type of Epistrophe (greater anamnesis).

>>16616043
There are other conceptions of soul that are not as dualistic considering the body as an image of the soul and the lesser part of the soul being not different but the same as the body (in the end what is material is dependent on what is immaterial, in the same way the dimensional on the non-dimensional).

>>16616043
I also think the Thaetetus adresses some interesting points about the relation between soul and body when it comes to knowledge. You say the soul is the subject which has experience but if someone is blindfolded the soul can't have the experience of seeing a flower in front of him. The same way, when someone is asleep there is alteration in someone's perception due to corporeal change, the soul-experiencer does not recognize with precision whether he is in a dream or in reality.
The connection between body and soul may be as tight as you say but this does not mean they are the same thing. All of this has interesting parallel with the forms and their instances.

>>16616043
You are trying to mix oil and water, "the subject which has experience" is merely words, abstract thinking and then you proceed to talk about the brain and measurable physical properties and its phenomena, you say it is tightly linked to the brain but you don't have any proof, only an abstract description, your methodology seems wrong so far.

>>16610298
Just as the lack of contemperary context around the time of early Christian, Gnostic and Hebrew writings tends to leave gaps in their meaning that have to be interpreted to make sense of them, so too does the Greek cultural idea of the soul become confusing when you lack other information. That lack is the Mystery of Eleusis, a festival that took place once a year and only once for life could be attended by any person regardless of being freed men or a slave. With new information coming in to corroborate, it's now thought that the mystery potion drunk at the festival was a form of psilocybin or another form of a psychoactive substance. If you know psychedelics, you know that worldly perceptions and the barriers of the ego are dissolved by them slowly or quickly depending on the dose and type of substance. It was a sacred ritual that served as a cultural tool to deal with the realm of the Other and to deal with the anxiety of death by expanding the mind past animal fears and into the full height of what human thought can reach. When Plato talks about the soul, he really does talk about the human soul, the living spirit that makes us more than animals and less than gods. The idea of a passed down soul I think has to do with epigenetics and that realm of biology, because genetic memory is not only passed down through DNA, but through life experiences. What you experience over the course of your lifetime can and does affect your genetic make-up, and if you have kids at some point then the behaviors or actions you cultivated will be passed on to them in addition to physical traits. This is how you can have your grandmother's nose, your mother's eyes and your father's temper all at once. Look more into the Mystery of Eleusis if you want to read up on the mystery cults surrounding it before Christian orthodoxy began steamrolling all "pagan" practices (i.e. everything and anything that did not accept Christ in some way) and established a spiritual monopoly.

>>16610298
The soul is immaterial and non-noumenal. Why would a material death effect it? Since destruction is a material event, Plato concludes that the soul is therefore immortal from our point of view.

>>16610447
lol are you kidding me, he was right about you being in STEM?

>>16613130
>>16613134
Based effort post

>>16610318
yeah, it helps alot

Soul is literally just a way for a human to believe that he will continue on living when he dies. Because the alternative is oblivion, which is also quite frightening. So the idea you have an immortal and indestructible part of you that carries on even when you turn to dust is quite comforting.

>>16617794
>With new information coming in to corroborate, it's now thought that the mystery potion drunk at the festival was a form of psilocybin or another form of a psychoactive substance. If you know psychedelics, you know that worldly perceptions and the barriers of the ego are dissolved by them slowly or quickly depending on the dose and type of substance. It was a sacred ritual that served as a cultural tool to deal with the realm of the Other and to deal with the anxiety of death by expanding the mind past animal fears and into the full height of what human thought can reach.
You're referring to Brian Muraresku, right? I'd be skeptical of his work until it actually comes out and can be evaluated. He's primarily a lawyer, right? So he's not a classicist, an archeologist, a philologist, a philosopher, a historian, etc. He just has it in his head that he can argue persuasively on account of his experience lawyering. He thinks the Christian eucharist is the same deal, the blood of Christ being some psychedelic drink instead of the thing it's been through all of Christianity's history.

Stuff like that is reminiscent of "The Plato Code" which argued that Plato wrote his dialogues according to a Pythagoreans 12-tone scale with the conversation modulated according to dissonance and harmony, but it's so vague that nothing ended up proven and the author embarrassed themself by asserting something silly (the Greeks focused on an 8-tone scale).

Besides, why would anyone need the Mysteries for context when we have Homer and Hesiod and the playwrights and so on? They all use the words psuche and thumos, the words that meant soul or spirit, and they all do a fine enough job showing you what they mean.

>>16610318

>>16618314
I'm an Asian in STEM, what's it to ya?

>>16613134
How do you know not to touch a hot kettle? You touched one in this life

>>16613134
But how did we get the knowledge in our past life? Did we remember it from an even earlier past life? What about the life before that? It seems like he postulates an infinite regress which doesn't solve the issue at all.

>>16618944
You could go even further; if the soul is immortal, and knows all things, no learning seems to have occurred in its realm.

>>16618735
I understand the skepticism of Brian's work, but he is the latest face of an old effort. That effort is the effort to prove that psychoactive substances are part and parcel with the origins of religion and the origin of human thought arising from animal thought. If you're familiar with the Stoned Ape theory, then the idea of the Eleusian mystery cult revolving around the sanctifying of a psychoactive brew isn't out of place in the slightest, nor is the idea of the soul in relation to the experience of Eleusis out of place in what Plato refers to. The soul is more or less you and your "you-ness" beyond the physical body or the ego, something echoed in Hermetic texts as well. Without understanding the role of the Mystery in the Grecian world, we have no understanding of how the cultural and philosophical idea of "the soul" arose in the first place. Old stories are excellent for details and events, but they lack the origin; Homer mentioned souls, spirits and the Gods but not once did he mention where exactly these ideas came from. They were cultural common sense thanks to the Mystery, just like traffic etiquette is to us and the use of the internet. Imagine leaving out the internet while discussing what happened during the 2016 election, for example. You'd lose enormous amounts of information as to what, how and why the election was influenced and happened the way it did. As for the idea of this being a fluke like Plato's Code, look into psychoactive substance use cross-culturally. The Amazon tribes have ayuhuasca. Native tribes in the West have peyote. The Egyptians used the blue river lotus. Acacia tree species with notable amounts of naturally occurring DMT in their bark were burnt in the Middle East. Amanita Muscaria mushrooms were used by Siberian shamans for rituals and trances, and Psilocybin Cubensis is used wherever people can get it. The notion of the Mystery being easily dismissable is a notion that lacks the ability to look at historical trends or even bother research why the Mystery was an event at all.
While Brian Muraresku is a classicist-trained lawyer, that doesn't mean he can't do independent research with other people who are experts in their respective fields. If you look at the sources he spoke with, you'll understand that he isn't making claims out if his ass or is uninformed; he did the smart thing which was to ask experts who were already experts for help instead of trying to become an expert himself in everything. Don't be a midwit and assume that a person's job and career determines if they're smart and can see connections instead of just being competent enough to do their job.

>>16610298

><100 IQ - "I have soul but Im nut a soldier!!!"
>101 - 115 IQ - "Show me some peer reviewed sources which prove that souls are real"
>>115 IQ - "“All soul is immortal. For that which is always in movement is immortal; that which moves something else, and is moved by something else, in ceasing from movement ceases from living. So only that which moves itself, because it does not abandon itself, never stops moving. But it is also source and first principle of movement for the other things which move. Now a first principle is something which does not come into being. For all that comes into being must come into being from a first principle, but a first principle itself cannot come into being from anything at all; for if a first principle came into being from anything, it would not do so from a first principle. Since it is something that does not come into being, it must also be something which does not perish. For if a first principle is destroyed, neither will it ever come into being from anything itself nor will anything else come into being from it, given that all things must come into being from a first principle. It is in this way, then, that that which moves itself is a first principle of movement. It is not possible for this either to be destroyed or to come into being, or else the whole universe and the whole of that which comes to be might collapse together and come to a halt, and never again have a source from which things will be moved and come to be. And since that which is moved by itself has been shown to be immortal, it will incur no shame to say that this is the essence and the definition of the soul”

>>16610622
So stupid. There is nothing "yours" about qualia.

The soul is transcendental. Think of it as Schopenhauers Will

Horrific thread. Have half of you even read Plato?

>>16610298
He has no basis for why he does. He just assumes the soul is immortal because otherwise he can't trick future generations into perpetuating his will.

>>16618686
The Monadology goes into why certain things must be indestructible if you're interested in the elaborations on Pre-Socratic/Platonic philosophy.

>>16613130
>>16613134
damn i feel like i learned a lot reading this.

>>16610368
Why did you feel the need to mention you were Asian in this post? It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. You didn’t even a specific nationality at that, just “Asian”
Oh right because you’re falseflagging /pol/tard

>>16621147
Lol thats gold

>>16620759
Idiot. Hasn't read Plato or the thread. A dunce.

>>16610318
Based

>>16616043
The soul is like your computer and the brain is like your computer monitor. When the latter is damaged or destroyed then the output is altered, but the soul is untouched. We simply cannot channel or interpret the soul without the brain.

>>16619672
>t. 117 iq

>>16611701
Nonsense.
There is nothing immovable in physics or meta physics. All things can be influenced and all things influence.

If all things are stopped, then all things will begin to move in the direction of entropy. That's exactly the infinity to which all things are destined.

I love most of Plato's works, but I find it hard to reconcile some of his views with today's scientific ones, and those views are some of his major ones.

>>16622237
you sure?

>>16622301
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

>>16621770
So show what basis he has for it. No one in the thread has done so, not even the anime poster. Plato's argument for the immortality of the soul is weak.

>>16622075
And the reason for thinking this is...

>>16622156
>There is nothing immovable in physics
you are right, bodies are alter-motif.

>or meta physics
the ideas of rest and movement themselves are meta-physical

>entropy
this has nothing to do with what we are discussing

>>16610318
based

>>16621147
Asians are notorious for being bugmen. I'm Chinese, if that makes you feel better. I do not ever lurk /pol/, and i'll be damned if I do. They called me a bugman, I'll call it what it is, namely me being Asian.

>>16622837
The basis for the immortal soul has to be treated on a dialogue by dialogue basis, since Plato avoided writing straightforward treatises. In the case of the Meno, that basis is grounded in two things: appeal to authorities in the divine (priests, priestesses, poets), and accepted opinion (Meno already believes in the soul, and probably its immortality since Socrates notes he was busy with the lesser mysteries the day before). This is an intentionally weak basis, which is why Recollection transitions into a discussion of True Opinion and the method of Hypothesis.

>>16610298
>Why does Plato insist on the existence of an immortal and indestructible soul?
There's an entire book written on exactly this subject.
>The concept of immortality of the soul seems misguided and misinformed
Perhaps you are the one who is misguided and misinformed, be careful not to be too certain of your knowledge.

>>16622837
Even if the basis is weak, it is still a basis.

>>16622913
>>16622934
The soul is an interpretation. It's as immortal as the bodies that produce it. There's no strong basis for it because it's nothing more than this.

>>16610298
Because, like everyone else in his time, too little was known about neurophysiology to formulate any other reasonably coherent postulate about consciousness. One can still do so now, but only by a kind of willful neglect, since in the case of natural stupidity, coherence isn't a factor.

>>16622958
1) An interpretation *of what*?

2) We're presumably discussing the soul in Plato's writings, right, and not just in general? If Plato has a passage in the middle of dialogue with a weak basis for the immortal soul, *which would be weak by Plato's own standards*, then two explanations have to be offered: a) why the weak argument appears, and b) whether Plato offers alternatives as either dogmas or to work out further.

As per >>16622913, I think that basis is intentionally weak in the Meno, and serves the purpose of keeping Meno invested in the conversation (he's using his paradox to threaten to end the conversation, and the initial treatment of Recollection appeals to his interests in both "tragical" answers and in the Mysteries; by using the slave boy as an example, it also aims at his manliness, if his young slave can follow a math demonstration and he can't investigate in the same way), and as per >>16615764, the alternative given is a rationalistic account of Recollection that leaves behind the immortal soul in favor of True Opinions yoked by causal chains of reasoning by memory.

>>16623016
>An interpretation *of what*?
Consciousness, or so I gather.

>>16622845
Can be one interpretation to make from the hard problem of consciousness.

>>16622904
>according to some /pol/tards
I know how to say "I'll fuck your old mother" in Chinese but I don't know how to do the transliteration into Latin script.

>>16623107
Are you also a chink, or just a white sinofag

This is the guy Socrates is talking to, according to Xenophon (Menon=Meno):

"During their passage over the mountains into the plain, two companies of Menon's army were lost. Some said they had been cut down by the Cilicians, while engaged on some pillaging affair; another account was that they had been left behind, and being unable to overtake the main body, or discover the route, had gone astray and perished. However it was, they numbered one hundred hoplites; and when the rest arrived, being in a fury at the destruction of their fellow soldiers, they vented their spleen by pillaging the city of Tarsus and the palace to boot."

"Menon, indeed, before it was clear what the rest of the soldiers would do—whether, in fact they would follow Cyrus or not—collected his own troops apart and made them the following speech; "Men," he said, "if you will listen to me, there is a method by which, without risk or toil, you may win the special favour of Cyrus beyond the rest of the soldiers. You ask what it is I would have you to do? I will tell you. Cyrus at this instant is begging the Hellenes to follow him to attack the king. I say then: Cross the Euphrates at once, before it is clear what answer the rest will make; if they vote in favour of following, you will get the credit of having set the example, and Cyrus will be grateful to you. He will look upon you as being the heartiest in his cause; he will repay, as of all others he best knows how; while, if the rest vote against crossing, we shall go back again; but as the sole adherents, whose fidelity he can altogether trust, it is you whom Cyrus will turn to account, as commandants of garrisons or captains of companies. You need only ask him for whatever you want, and you will get it from him, as being the friends of Cyrus."

The men heard and obeyed, and before the rest had given their answer, they were already across. But when Cyrus perceived that Menon's troops had crossed, he was well pleased, and he sent Glus to the division in question, with this message: "Soldiers, accept my thanks at present; eventually you shall thank me. I will see to that, or my name is not Cyrus." The soldiers therefore could not but pray heartily for his success; so high their hopes ran. But to Menon, it was said, he sent gifts with lordly liberality."

(Cont.)

>>16624419
"Some dispute or other here occurred between the soldiers of Menon and Clearchus, in which Clearchus sentenced one of Menon's men, as the delinquent, and had him flogged. The man went back to his own division and told them. Hearing what had been done to their comrade, his fellows fretted and fumed, and were highly incensed against Clearchus. The same day Clearchus visited the passage of the river, and after inspecting the market there, was returning with a few followers, on horseback, to his tent, and had to pass through Menon's quarters. Cyrus had not yet come up, but was riding up in the same direction. One of Menon's men, who was splitting wood, caught sight of Clearchus as he rode past, and aimed a blow at him with his axe. The aim took no effect; when another hurled a stone at him, and a third, and then several, with shouts and hisses. Clearchus made a rapid retreat to his own troops, and at once ordered them to get under arms. He bade his hoplites remain in position with their shields resting against their knees, while he, at the head of his Thracians and horsemen, of which he had more than forty in his army—Thracians for the most part—advanced against Menon's soldiers, so that the latter, with Menon himself, were panic-stricken, and ran to seize their arms; some even stood riveted to the spot, in perplexity at the occurrence."

"...and [Tissaphernes] rejoined: "Then are not those worthy of the worst penalties who, in spite of all that exists to cement our friendship, endeavour by slander to make us enemies?" "Even so," replied Tissaphernes, "and if your generals and captains care to come in some open and public way, I will name to you those who tell me that you are plotting against me and the army under me." "Good," replied Clearchus. "I will bring all, and I will show you, on my side, the source from which I derive my information concerning you."

After this conversation Tissaphernes, with kindliest expression, invited Clearchus to remain with him at the time, and entertained him at dinner. Next day Clearchus returned to the camp, and made no secret of his persuasion that he at any rate stood high in the affections of Tissaphernes, and he reported what he had said, insisting that those invited ought to go to Tissaphernes, and that any Hellene convicted of calumnious language ought to be punished, not only as traitors themselves, but as disaffected to their fellow-countrymen. The slanderer and traducer was Menon; so, at any rate, he suspected, because he knew that he had had meetings with Tissaphernes whilst he was with Ariaeus, and was factiously opposed to himself, plotting how to win over the whole army to him, as a means of winning the good graces of Tissaphernes."

"...Ariaeus said: "Hellenes, Clearchus being shown to have committed perjury and to have broken the truce, has suffered the penalty, and he is dead; but Proxenus and Menon, in return for having given information of his treachery, are in high esteem and honour..."

>>16624436
"As to Menon the Thessalian, the mainspring of his action was obvious; what he sought after insatiably was wealth. Rule he sought after only as a stepping-stone to larger spoils. Honours and high estate he craved for simply that he might extend the area of his gains; and if he studied to be on friendly terms with the powerful, it was in order that he might commit wrong with impunity. The shortest road to the achievement of his desires lay, he thought, through false swearing, lying, and cheating; for in his vocabulary simplicity and truth were synonyms of folly. Natural affection he clearly entertained for nobody. If he called a man his friend it might be looked upon as certain that he was bent on ensnaring him. Laughter at an enemy he considered out of place, but his whole conversation turned upon the ridicule of his associates. In like manner, the possessions of his foes were secure from his designs, since it was no easy task, he thought, to steal from people on their guard; but it was his particular good fortune to have discovered how easy it is to rob a friend in the midst of his security. If it were a perjured person or a wrongdoer, he dreaded him as well armed and intrenched; but the honourable and the truth-loving he tried to practise on, regarding them as weaklings devoid of manhood. And as other men pride themselves on piety and truth and righteousness, so Menon prided himself on a capacity for fraud, on the fabrication of lies, on the mockery and scorn of friends. The man who was not a rogue he ever looked upon as only half educated. Did he aspire to the first place in another man's friendship, he set about his object by slandering those who stood nearest to him in affection. He contrived to secure the obedience of his solders by making himself an accomplice in their misdeeds, and the fluency with which he vaunted his own capacity and readiness for enormous guilt was a sufficient title to be honoured and courted by them. Or if any one stood aloof from him, he set it down as a meritorious act of kindness on his part that during their intercourse he had not robbed him of existence... When his fellow-generals were put to death on the plea that they had marched with Cyrus against the king, he alone, although he had shared their conduct, was exempted from their fate. But after their deaths the vengeance of the king fell upon him, and he was put to death, not like Clearchus and the others by what would appear to be the speediest of deaths—decapitation—but, as report says, he lived for a year in pain and disgrace and died the death of a felon."

>>16623162
Mind your own fucking business, faggot, this isn't your social media.

>>16610318
this. if you haven't noticed already, the soul is consciousness

>>16610318
yeah it's super obvious dude, you just refuse to accept it because it's metaphysically terrifying