Hi everybody.

I wanted and have been thinking about this. It is basically doing Plato and Socrates all over again; and Glaucon too of course, and Sisyphus is probably in there somewhere.... and we probably have our Saquists and Crunchy Cats.

But it is nothing at all similar to the actual Plato's Republic idea I think, or at least it is "somewhat" similar to that.

Okay if this idea works let me start:


This world is totally and utterly blemished with necessity, works which have already been done and things which continue to be debated. There's no end in sight. There's no answer. There's no way that we can find any answer am I right?

But anyway my fellow men, what IS there to do... Poor place.
[ (little sarcasm.
This thread would also be likend by a friend of mine). ]


BEGIN!

There's no end in sight. There's no answer. There's no way that we can find any answer am I right?

But anyway my fellow men, what IS there to do... Poor place.



BEGIN!



Empathy, sympathy and forgiveness are the common answers.

I almost typed in "Pluto is not a planet, getover it!" but then I realized you meant Plato...

Somewhere I heard that Mars is smaller than the Earth which surprised me, somehow I thought Mars was much larger than Earth.

Empathy, sympathy and forgiveness are the common answers.


Personaly I find the forgiveness part almost impossible but attempting to understand where they're coming from is the work of sympathy and empathy.

From there the world at least begins to make more sense.

There's no way that we can find any answer am I right?

Everyone must find their own "path" in life whatever it may be. If you don't want to look then you will never find anything.

Need help? 1-800 Dial.agogue for your latest wether fashion.

Empathy, sympathy and forgiveness are the common answers.

I don't care about that.
I know that sympathy and empathy and all of the other regrets are important. Especially when considering ones own state of affairs.


But I know this, and I also know how important it is for people to realize that when they are in a bad state or position in life. These are just natural things that are important to us.

Everyone must find their own "path" in life whatever it may be. If you don't want to look then you will never find anything.

Absolutely.

One also must not be dismissed from discussing anything in paticular either.

Especially the state the world exists in.
Or how one may go about talking with people who apparently understand

"what the fuck"

They are talking about.

'There's no answer concerning right action in a world that is totally and utterly blemished with necessity'?...And you don't accept that sympathy and empathy 'help' ease the struggle.

hehe.
Should I get socratic?

Afterall I am the Plato of this thread!

Hmmm.... (plato, lunar, lunacy, Pluto... make any sense anybody :p)
Um, yes I am certain empathy would help it. But,
I said,

This world is totally and utterly blemished with necessity, works which have already been done and things which continue to be debated. There's no end in sight. There's no answer. There's no way that we can find any answer am I right?


Also, empathy and sympathy are of concern. But in finding answers about the world itself is a different matter. See ^.
I am asking, what is wrong with this world?
Empathy and sympathy may help the world but it won't preform the task of understanding the nature of things; except so to say that


The things are at least discussed.
Debated.
Considered.

What about a "nature of the platotonic discussions" hah.
It's like Plato and them moved way too slowly... It is an interesting form though.

This world is totally and utterly blemished with necessity, works which have already been done and things which continue to be debated. There's no end in sight. There's no answer. There's no way that we can find any answer am I right?

An answer could be in becomming what you envy that's an end and a beginning.





Also, empathy and sympathy are of concern. But in finding answers about the world itself is a different matter. See ^..

Yes I see empathy and sympathy could be viewed as a unecessary in the scientific method of enquiry.


I am asking, what is wrong with this world?
Empathy and sympathy may help the world but it won't preform the task of understanding the nature of things; except so to say that


The things are at least discussed.
Debated.
Considered

I think you are able to sympathize with an idea that John Wayne Gacy could have brilliance and insight that would be a crime to withold from public scrutiny, however just not in person.

Maybe that can indicate some nature of things.

Emotional blackmail? :bawl:

I'd attach a value to any moral law higher than any nature of anything.

I think Epicurus said it best. There is no absolute purpose or "answer" to which people can relate. The best goal is to maximize your pleasure and enjoyment of life, which necessarily includes a degree of restraint.

I wonder about the phrase "blemished by necessity". Aren't our necessities also a source of pleasure? To be a being that can enjoy pleasure is to be a being that can also suffer. However, it would not benefit a being to suffer as a way of life, since life's activities are better enacted when the being is happy and content.

How do you learn, except to suffer.

I could think of a few, but my point isn't that we should never suffer. Pain and suffering certainly have a purpose, but we should not be too worried about it, since evolution has provided that it will be temporary.

I agree.

What would you say as to the nature of pleasure?
Just something to go about existing in a typical manner?

I'd attach a value to any moral law higher than any nature of anything.

Yeah, we went over this elsewhere...Subjective moral judgements take precedence over ethical conduct.

A typical existence can be full of simple pleasures, food, drink, love, springtime, art in all it's forms.

I think a rewarding existence might include wandering around space as in Star Trek, but until then, I think we should be concerned with the life we can construct here on Earth. Why should we need more than that? The universe of the mind is infinite.

Star Treck huh?

Yeah, we went over this elsewhere...Subjective moral judgements take precedence over ethical conduct.

And it is usually like that is it?

Yes. Nationalities have different opinions on what is moraly acceptable.

I'm glad your confident with that.

Yes, I plan to be Moroccan someday.

Star Treck huh?

I think space is where our species is heading. Finding happiness out there could be far more difficult.

That is what I like to hear.

The question is why. The hound is revealed. But, in doing so, what do I do? How do I resurrect him?

Let's see.

Space, the final frontieer.
Absolutely. Perhaps it would require lots of vodka (damn i should get some someof that... I know.

part in free thoughts 30 minutes SG. We'll talk about plato and how stupid I am. I don't care anymore. I'm trapped to others empathy and emotion. It's tearing me apart.

I wish the best for them and try to figure out existence on ways in which would be benificial. Although at the time, and although this is not really relevant... Sigh.
I might just start crying. LOOK! Spidergoat! I'd say.

Vodka Party it will be.
hahahahaha...

Not like I need to party though right.
Afterall, I think it's more important to concern existence in a way in which it is examineable. In doing so we'd achieve a defination which would be proper and absolute.

I think it's more important to concern existence in a way in which it is examineable. In doing so we'd achieve a defination which would be proper and absolute.


Wasn't the search for absolutes already completed sometime in ancient history?

Right there isn't a book. (hint)

A confession: I don't know what a Plato dialogue is; Does it revolve around virtues?

Is this an absolute?:
Catch 22: Virtue is defined by subjective moral standard; the virtue of a mid-western bible-belter is not the virtue of an ancient greek.

I'd say that the ethics of "Treat people the way you want to be treated " supersedes morals and Nationalities thus in effect making morals and Nationalities vainglorious.

It can be a frightening proposition that in fact ethics is predominant to morals. I think it's quite understandable that enclaves of moral preference do occur, and that one moral subdivision should think it's ethics superior to another's.