Your link is broken Works for me. Just do a search for your posts... the forms in the caves are the concept of perfection, of ideals, of perfect norms. While they are hard to grasp and see for man the forms do exist. I did not say forms do not exist. What I am saying is that they don't exist in the two dimensional fundamentalist way people think. The forms are transcendental, meaning they transcend simplistic human thinking, which is exactly the type of thinking that gravitates to fundamentalist thought. Plato required his students to be highly educated and able to reason for themselves, not followers of someone else's thought process. You are so afraid of thinking you had to pollute your discourse with a fear of fundamentalism. Again liberal knee jerk. Nonsense. More arguments, less statements please. For Plato the tough question would not be is there a right and wrong, but who is nominated to figure out what is in the caves and how to conform the laws as closely as possible with what is just and right. Who gets to say what must be in the cave. Those who can go in the cave, see what is in the cave. Those who are capable of transcending the simplistic dull minded two dimension thought process have a shot of progressing toward more abstract truths. Plato suggested Philospher Kings. Yes, and their kinship was a developed level of consciousness, not royal parents. People who believe in Natural Law and God also come to similar conclusion. Most don't. Some do, but from the looks of this world, clearly most don't. The law must conform to what is right. When the law is wrong it must be improved. This is where I think you are missing the depth of Plato. Law doesn't conform to what is right. At the level of the forms, there is no distinction between right and law. Divine right of kings, in principle was a deeply philosophical concept, where the king was so evolved as to have surrendered his human mind to God, and upon doing so, his mind was fully Divinized. The Divinized mind of the King was nothing more than God speaking through the king, there was no King separate from God, so whatever the King said or did, was truth and law accordingly. What we saw in practice was nothing at all like this. People who say is is wrong because it is illegal (statutory) as you suggest have not really thought the concept of society and law through very far. That may be true, but age of consent is a very practical approach to the masses. What should the law embody. What is just. Only God knows what is just. We humans flip coins in our mind and call out heads or tails. Saying it is wrong because it is illegal. Allows perverts and wack jobs to potentially legalize man boy sex if they get enough votes. Is that what should make an act legal? Majority rule. A liberal like you should shudder at the concept. Judge not...
Another excerpt from the Reuters article. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said. It makes me feel better to know they're looking out for the welfare of the animals.
Zzz I am not sure if you really read plato or did a quick check on the net. You got completely off base again when you were speaking about fundamentalism and also when you spoke of the the divine right of kings. You so want to force fundamentalism into the conversation you seem to be missing the whole point. zzz let us review. Inside the cave there is the perfect form. One form would be don't sodomize 10 year olds. Do you need to be a philosopher king to understand that? Could a uneducated assbackwards fundamentalist from any religion comprehend that if it were taught to them. Your arguments about the fundamentalists and divine kingship manifests a misunderstanding of Plato points. in my no so humble opinion of this subject. So let me try this for you. Absolute truth is like a perfect beer. In the fridge there are a many beers one of them being the perfect beer and other being not as good or even bad. Only you do no really know there good or bad because you have never had a beer before. Could the fundamentalist pick you out the perfect beer, could a king, could anybody yes. Brilliance is not usually necessary but purity may be. Who are you going to put in charge of the myriad fridges for each question a society will ask. Who will remain pure to attempting to do their best to come close to the perfect beer each time they reach in? Of course this analogy is not perfect, I am not Plato, but it should point out to you why your knee jerk reactions are misplaced.
Zzz I am not sure if you really read plato or did a quick check on the net. I feel the same about you. You got completely off base again when you were speaking about fundamentalism and also when you spoke of the the divine right of kings. I don't see it as off base at all. Fundamentalism is sort of like kids who dress up as their parents and play house. They may mimic the actions of their parents, but they have zero understanding of parenthood. Fundamentalist thinking, due to its rigidity, is devoid of the inner experiences necessary to qualify one to receive any type of enlightenment. You so want to force fundamentalism into the conversation you seem to be missing the whole point. I have no desire to force fundamentalism on anything or anyone. It exists, when a person is devoid of the ability receive internal guidance, so people look to external rules and regulations, and not only that, they typically focus on the actions of others with their own fundamentalism. zzz let us review. Inside the cave there is the perfect form. Yes, there is perfect form inside the cave, a non formed form which is not bound by the dimensions of the cave. One form would be don't sodomize 10 year olds. I don't sodomize 10 year olds, and I don't recommend the practice to others.... Do you need to be a philosopher king to understand that? I don't, do you? Could a uneducated assbackwards fundamentalist from any religion comprehend that if it were taught to them. A dog can be taught certain tricks, like fetching the paper, but they still like to lick their own ass....a dog has its limitations of mental evolution. Your arguments about the fundamentalists and divine kingship manifests a misunderstanding of Plato points. in my no so humble opinion of this subject. That is your opinion. So let me try this for you. Absolute truth is like a perfect beer. In the fridge there are a many beers one of them being the perfect beer and other being not as good or even bad. Only you do no really know there good or bad because you have never had a beer before. No, I disagree. Absolute truth has no opposite value. There is no such thing as relative truth compared to absolute truth, it is just an illusion that we are bound to by our material nature. People so often forget God is the creator of both good and evil, but God is beyond both good and evil, as God is neither, having no opposite value. Could the fundamentalist pick you out the perfect beer, could a king, could anybody yes. Brilliance is not usually necessary but purity may be. Who are you going to put in charge of the myriad fridges for each question a society will ask. Who will remain pure to attempting to do their best to come close to the perfect beer each time they reach in? Of course this analogy is not perfect, I am not Plato, but it should point out to you why your knee jerk reactions are misplaced. Again, you are stuck in the relativistic logic trap, where Plato was referring to transcendental values. When it comes to perfection, only God can judge perfection according to God's own perfection. All we do is engage in comparative analysis of opposite values. All beer is flat and tasteless next to the nectar of God.
To make such a statement, you must have tasted the nectar of God. Please tell us of this experience. (This is a fair question, isn't it?)
as if my being Christian has anything to do with this thread. ----more liberal hypocrisy. As if I walk around here more holy than thou. Did I just see the troll lose control? What is the matter, the troll really did not understand Plato?