Plato Left the World of Senses ....

[Veritas Aequitas]

In B9 of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason he made the following propositions;

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.

All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
B9

The above theory can be transposed into the reality of what is happening in the human brain as below highlighting the different levels of the brain [ignoring Maclean's triune concept].



Kant presented two aspects of the Understanding [intellect and reasoning faculty] i.e.

• 1. General Understanding - deal with senses
  2. Pure Understanding - involve non-senses.

In the CPR Kant assert that reality is conditioned by the senses and experiences within the lower and mid brain plus being rationalized via the General Understanding in the higher part of the brain. This is how Science [and other credible fields of knowledge] justify the knowledge of reality via empirical-rational verification and testing.

On the other there is the Pure Understanding within certain regions of the higher brain that reasons without any relation to the lower brain and mid brain's data senses and experiences.
This is where Kant mentioned Plato left the World of the Senses and enter into the wings of ideas within Pure Understanding.
Here in Pure Understanding, without solid empirical grounds, the mind is free to speculate freely without rational restraints thus leading and jumping into pure speculations.

The Pure Understanding [pure reason] is the field where the illusory God and gods are speculated and invented without proper grounding but only to serves some psychological yearnings.

Thus when proofs are requested all sort of excuses will be given.

Does the above make any sense?

[fooloso4]

I think Kant was mistaken in treating Plato as a speculative philosopher. Theoria makes no claim to truth. It has no goal beyond the pleasure of contemplative thought. With all his talk of transcendence and the intelligible realm I do not think he intended it to be a truth claim but rather as pointing to the aporia to which claims of truth lead. Like Socrates, he was a zeteric skeptic, knowing that he does not know.

As to what happens in the human brain or any other brain for that matter I do not think neuroscience has advanced enough to form an accurate and coherent view.

The Pure Understanding [pure reason] is the field where the illusory God and gods are speculated and invented without proper grounding but only to serves some psychological yearnings.

I think Plato would agree. He crafts a world that is knowable to the few who escape the cave, thus establishing the absolute authority of philosopher. In addition, it is a salutary teaching about unchanging, unambiguous truth and the good. The salutary teaching hides the truth that no one, including the philosopher, knows the truth regarding the philosophical questions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think Kant was mistaken in treating Plato as a speculative philosopher. Theoria makes no claim to truth. It has no goal beyond the pleasure of contemplative thought. With all his talk of transcendence and the intelligible realm I do not think he intended it to be a truth claim but rather as pointing to the aporia to which claims of truth lead. Like Socrates, he was a zeteric skeptic, knowing that he does not know.

As to what happens in the human brain or any other brain for that matter I do not think neuroscience has advanced enough to form an accurate and coherent view.

The Pure Understanding [pure reason] is the field where the illusory God and gods are speculated and invented without proper grounding but only to serves some psychological yearnings.

I think Plato would agree. He crafts a world that is knowable to the few who escape the cave, thus establishing the absolute authority of philosopher. In addition, it is a salutary teaching about unchanging, unambiguous truth and the good. The salutary teaching hides the truth that no one, including the philosopher, knows the truth regarding the philosophical questions.

My understanding of Plato's Universals is as follows;

Plato believed there to be a sharp distinction between the world of perceivable objects and the world of universals or forms: one can only have mere opinions about the former, but one can have knowledge about the latter.

For Plato it was not possible to have knowledge of anything that could change or was particular, since knowledge had to be forever unfailing and general.[15]
For that reason, the world of the forms is the real world, like sunlight, while the sensible world is only imperfectly or partially real, like shadows.

This Platonic realism, however, in denying that the eternal Forms are mental artifacts, differs sharply with modern forms of idealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_o ... sals#Plato

Plato is speculative specifically in his theory of Ideas, Forms and Universals.

You may not agree, but according to Kant what is 'real' has to be anchored on the sensible, intuitive and the critical faculty.

Re Russell's [..I had posted in another thread]

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogmas as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides, and this No Man’s Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.
-History of Western Philosophy

What Kant is claiming is Plato had taken a leap across that No Man's Land [Russell] into La La Land that is why there is so much controversies surrounding his speculation of Ideas, Forms and Universals.

As for neuroscience, crudely we can understand there are three main levels i.e. the lower, the mid and the higher parts of the brain which exists in the animal kingdom with different dominance. The lower brain is dominant in lower animals within the evolutionary scale.
The midbrain is dominant in animals up to the primates.
The higher brain is dominant only in human beings who can speculate independently using the neo-cortex.
It is only human beings who can speculate the existence of an entity with the typical tri-omni or whatever omnis of a God purely because human beings has the neo-cortex and its speculative faculties free of the senses.

This is a field of knowledge we should strive to be more familiar with.

My point is, the idea of God is not anchored to the definite knowledge of Science and critical thinking. This is activated within certain set of neural activities [to be confirmed in the future] within the brain which is psychological.
When we are able to trace the specific circuits underlying this speculation then we will be able to modulate whether we need to believe in such an entity [could be net-negative] in consideration to other net-positive alternatives.

[fooloso4]

In the following I will be talking about Plato. This may be of no interest to you but on the chance that others are reading this and are interested in Plato I will present it.

My understanding of Plato's Universals is as follows …

In the Phaedrus Socrates addresses the problem of writing - the words say the same thing to whoever reads it. Just as a physician does not administer the same medicine to everyone, Socrates spoke differently to different men depending on their needs. That is a problem Plato had to face if he were to write. If the reader is to understand what Plato says to those who are most thoughtful and attentive they have to read between the lines and connect the dots.

Philosophic esotericism, which is not the same as mystical or perennial esotericism, was once commonly practiced. In the appendix to his “Philosophy Between the Lines”, available as a pdf here: (https://www.press.uchicago.edu/sites/me ... pendix.pdf) Arthur Melzer provides about one hundred pages of quotes from Homer to Wittgenstein regarding the philosophical practice of hiding what you are saying from most of those who will read your work.

Plato is speculative specifically in his theory of Ideas, Forms and Universals.

He is, but it is merely speculative, philosophical play, untethered thought. He provides clues to why such speculation should not be taken as the road to truth or as what is found at the end of the road. In the Republic after Socrates lays out this grand vision he says he does not know if it is true. In the Parmenides the young Socrates meets Parmenides who lays bare the problems with the Forms. In the Theaetetus, the dialogue on knowledge, there is no mention of Forms.

You may not agree, but according to Kant what is 'real' has to be anchored on the sensible, intuitive and the critical faculty.

I am skeptical of the architecture of Kant’s critical faculty, but yes, pure reason tells us nothing about the world or a higher reality.

What Kant is claiming is Plato had taken a leap across that No Man's Land [Russell] into La La Land that is why there is so much controversies surrounding his speculation of Ideas, Forms and Universals.

Right. And what I am claiming is that this is what Plato shows anyone who picks up his work, although he cleverly frames it as if he is letting you in on a secret known only to the few who have escaped the cave. Platonists and Neoplatonists have been fooled by this. It becomes the foundation of their theology. It should be kept in mind that Plato banished the poets. He had to replace that mythology.

As for neuroscience, crudely we can understand there are three main levels i.e. the lower, the mid and the higher parts of the brain which exists in the animal kingdom with different dominance.

I think this is far too simplistic, but I am not prepared to argue neuroscience.

My point is, the idea of God is not anchored to the definite knowledge of Science and critical thinking.

There are theologians, both ancient and contemporary, who would agree that we have no definite knowledge of God.

When we are able to trace the specific circuits underlying this speculation then we will be able to modulate whether we need to believe in such an entity [could be net-negative] in consideration to other net-positive alternatives.

If one wants to play around with their own brain that is up to them, but if you are suggesting that such a procedure should be performed on others without informed consent, that is a frighteningly bad idea!

[Eodnhoj7]

In the following I will be talking about Plato. This may be of no interest to you but on the chance that others are reading this and are interested in Plato I will present it.

My understanding of Plato's Universals is as follows …

In the Phaedrus Socrates addresses the problem of writing - the words say the same thing to whoever reads it. Just as a physician does not administer the same medicine to everyone, Socrates spoke differently to different men depending on their needs. That is a problem Plato had to face if he were to write. If the reader is to understand what Plato says to those who are most thoughtful and attentive they have to read between the lines and connect the dots.

Philosophic esotericism, which is not the same as mystical or perennial esotericism, was once commonly practiced. In the appendix to his “Philosophy Between the Lines”, available as a pdf here: (https://www.press.uchicago.edu/sites/me ... pendix.pdf) Arthur Melzer provides about one hundred pages of quotes from Homer to Wittgenstein regarding the philosophical practice of hiding what you are saying from most of those who will read your work.

Plato is speculative specifically in his theory of Ideas, Forms and Universals.

He is, but it is merely speculative, philosophical play, untethered thought. He provides clues to why such speculation should not be taken as the road to truth or as what is found at the end of the road. In the Republic after Socrates lays out this grand vision he says he does not know if it is true. In the Parmenides the young Socrates meets Parmenides who lays bare the problems with the Forms. In the Theaetetus, the dialogue on knowledge, there is no mention of Forms.

You may not agree, but according to Kant what is 'real' has to be anchored on the sensible, intuitive and the critical faculty.

I am skeptical of the architecture of Kant’s critical faculty, but yes, pure reason tells us nothing about the world or a higher reality.

What Kant is claiming is Plato had taken a leap across that No Man's Land [Russell] into La La Land that is why there is so much controversies surrounding his speculation of Ideas, Forms and Universals.

Right. And what I am claiming is that this is what Plato shows anyone who picks up his work, although he cleverly frames it as if he is letting you in on a secret known only to the few who have escaped the cave. Platonists and Neoplatonists have been fooled by this. It becomes the foundation of their theology. It should be kept in mind that Plato banished the poets. He had to replace that mythology.

As for neuroscience, crudely we can understand there are three main levels i.e. the lower, the mid and the higher parts of the brain which exists in the animal kingdom with different dominance.

I think this is far too simplistic, but I am not prepared to argue neuroscience.

My point is, the idea of God is not anchored to the definite knowledge of Science and critical thinking.

There are theologians, both ancient and contemporary, who would agree that we have no definite knowledge of God.

When we are able to trace the specific circuits underlying this speculation then we will be able to modulate whether we need to believe in such an entity [could be net-negative] in consideration to other net-positive alternatives.

If one wants to play around with their own brain that is up to them, but if you are suggesting that such a procedure should be performed on others without informed consent, that is a frighteningly bad idea!

The link doesn't work, if you can provide a new one or just copy and paste it into a new thread it would be appreciated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You may not agree, but according to Kant what is 'real' has to be anchored on the sensible, intuitive and the critical faculty.

I am skeptical of the architecture of Kant’s critical faculty, but yes, pure reason tells us nothing about the world or a higher reality.

Ok we can skip Plato and Kant aside and agree to the latter, i.e.
"pure reason tells us nothing about the world or a higher reality."

When we are able to trace the specific circuits underlying this speculation then we will be able to modulate whether we need to believe in such an entity [could be net-negative] in consideration to other net-positive alternatives.

If one wants to play around with their own brain that is up to them, but if you are suggesting that such a procedure should be performed on others without informed consent, that is a frighteningly bad idea!

I think it would be relevant to raise the hypothesis of how the activity of 'pure reason' works in the brain since pure reason does [..I claim] lead to a God which in some cases inspire terrible evil and violent acts.

The objective of venturing into the brain is for good intentions and net-positive results carried out using fool proofs methods on a voluntary basis. Note no surgery [lobotomy] will be performed but rather in will involved rewiring of the neural circuits with fool proofs approaches.

This is for the future >50 years >100 years when we have the knowledge & competence, not now.

[fooloso4]

Here's the link. I just tested it.


https://www.press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/index.html

[Eodnhoj7]

Here's the link. I just tested it.


https://www.press.uchicago.edu/sites/melzer/index.html

It works, thanks.

[Walker]

Does the above make any sense?

The sense it makes is limited.

The sense it makes is based on the dualistic relationship between the mind and the objects sensed by the mind.

This is a limited understanding.

The relationship is actually between you and the mind.

The mind holds more than the objects sensed in the present by ear, eye, taste, touch, and smell.

In fact, what the mind holds can captivate all your attention, which would make you like the absent-minded professor.

However, when the mind holds nothing, then the mind is absent. And then, there is no relationship between you and mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Does the above make any sense?

The sense it makes is limited.

The sense it makes is based on the dualistic relationship between the mind and the objects sensed by the mind.

This is a limited understanding.

The relationship is actually between you and the mind.

The mind holds more than the objects sensed in the present by ear, eye, taste, touch, and smell.

In fact, what the mind holds can captivate all your attention, which would make you like the absent-minded professor.

However, when the mind holds nothing, then the mind is absent. And then, there is no relationship between you and mind.

I believe your points are not in line with the OP.

What the OP is pointing to is;
We cannot arrive at conclusions without being grounded on our senses, which in this case cover the empirical with the rational.
As such we cannot conclude solely based merely thoughts and thinking alone.
For example we cannot think of a square-circle which is not empirically possible and more so not logical [a contradiction].

This thinking is done by a separate thinking module in the higher human brain [pic above] which is independent from the rational parts of the brain, i.e. the empirical and rational. This separate thinking module is triggered by various emotions.

This separate thinking module when triggered by emotions/instincts also generate special ideas [philosophical] that are not in line with the empirical-rational elements.
One of the three special philosophical ideas is the idea of God.

Since the fundamental basis of these special philosophical ideas, e.g. God, are triggered by emotions/instincts, thus the basis of theism is psychological and not that there is a real god that pre-existed as real awaiting humans to believe in it.

[Walker]

I believe your points are not in line with the OP.

The world of senses is impermanent.

The brain is also impermanent.

The worship gene prompts vigilance for the permanent.
Once found, vigilance is alert for intelligence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe your points are not in line with the OP.

The world of senses is impermanent.

The brain is also impermanent.

The worship gene prompts vigilance for the permanent.
Once found, vigilance is alert for intelligence.

Yes, senses, brain and everything are impermanent.
There is nothing that is permanent.

Impermanence, also called Anicca, Aanicca, Anitcha or Anitya, is one of the essential doctrines and a part of three marks of existence in Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

The worship gene prompts vigilance for the permanent.
Once found, vigilance is alert for intelligence.

Once "found" [an illusion] as security to the psyche, vigilance is on alert for threats, thus the anxieties [dukkha, sufferings) leading to terrible evil and violent acts by SOME as glaringly evident.

[Walker]

A threat can only threaten with change.

The permanent does not change.

Therefore, the permanent cannot be threatened.