Plato

[Akar]

I'm an Aspen tree
I will give no further elaboration

Isn't the triangle the strongest geometric structure? looooooooool <3 </3

-Giammarco

 

[Wyote]

<3

 

[John K]

Explaining the finite through the infinite seems to me the clearest testament that you are an oak and not a bonsai <3

But you know, I have a limited intellect

-Giammarco

Ahh! But I think you understate yourself my friend. But if I am oak, I am also the mistletoe that grows along its limbs.

 

[John K]

I feel the olive grove in you @Akar

 

[Akar]

Ahh! But I think you understate yourself my friend. But if I am oak, I am also the mistletoe that grows along its limbs.

Nahhhh, I think the mycelium better describes what an Oak is capable of creating <3

I feel the olive grove in you @Akar

If only I had the stoicism of an olive tree... prrrr! *love* <3

-Giammarco

 

[Akar]

-Giammarco

 

[Akar]

φιλία

[00:00:17] 'There is little to write. So, friendship... friendship is the highest feeling that can exist in the world, all Greek and Latin intellectuals say so. In Greece, friendship is called... let me write it in Greek for once, it is called: Philia.'

[00:00:37]Philia, from which affectivity, affection [derive]. If you want, even 'loyalty' comes out as a term. Philia is a disinterested friendship. That is, it is not that you pair up with someone because you have something to gain; there is no utility in the Greek philia. It is simply because [the person] is spiritually akin to you, it is your completion, it is something that you could not help but encounter in life.'

[00:01:06]:And it is much more, even than Eros, because Eros is passion and has highs, lows, conclusions, and returns. Philia, on the other hand, is natural, meaning philia is born and cannot die. You can have new friends, but you always keep the true great friends. This is the Greek concept, surely.'

[00:01:33]For the Latins, philia... the friend is called amicus, the root of 'am' is 'love'(amor in latin - thats why he metions the root am of the word). You know, for utility it serves, meaning the advantage is important, that is, for the Latin friends... Then comes Cicero and he writes the Laelius. Lelius will be the father-in-law of his tutor, and Lelius sets three rules for friendship. One, two we have already mentioned. A fundamental one is that friendship must be absolutely... must not require [it], you need someone and so you make them a friend; it must be completely disinterested, and this is the center of friendship.'

[00:02:21]The second rule, and I find it very beautiful, is that rank, power, money, wealth, and profession do not matter. Whether you are equal or different, it is a spark that is born from an equality that is in here [in the heart/soul]. It has absolutely nothing to do with... true, a poor [person], a rich [person], who cares; absolutely, this is not the meaning.'

[00:02:34]The friend is yourself on the other side, and this is the photograph that demonstrates it to us. That is, these two are the same person who unite in an embrace, they are each other's mirror.'

I couldn't find a better way to describe this concept, thank you, Roberto Vecchioni.

-Giammarco

 

[Akar]

The Importance of Intellectual Honesty: From Platonic Philosophy to Gnostic Mysticism

Intellectual honesty is fundamental because it is the very foundation of any human interaction that aspires to be authentic,be it a philosophical debate, a personal relationship, or a simple discussion. Without it, trust collapses, and every conversation devolves into a manipulative game of mirrors.

Those who possess intellectual honesty seek the truth, or at the very least, respect the facts. Being intellectually honest means accepting reality even when it proves us wrong or lays bare our internal inconsistencies. It gives us the strength to say "I was wrong" or "I don't know." When it is lacking, people inevitably resort to mental gymnastics, inventing excuses or retreating into absolute relativism just to avoid accountability. Intellectual honesty is what prevents a discussion from turning into a farce.

The Platonic Correlation: Socrates vs. The Sophists
This battle for authenticity is thousands of years old. In ancient Athens, Plato dedicated most of his dialogues to fighting the Sophists—the "masters of rhetoric." The Sophists were completely uninterested in objective truth; their only goal was to win arguments and persuade the public using word games, emotional manipulation, and reality-reversals.

Whenever a Sophist was backed into a corner by pure logic, they would use their linguistic agility to muddy the waters or retreat into absolute relativism (epitomized by Protagoras’ famous dictum: "Man is the measure of all things", meaning objective truth doesn't exist, and everyone has their own version of it).

Conversely, Socrates (Plato’s mouthpiece) sought objective truth through logical dialogue. For Plato, a true philosopher is someone who willingly accepts being proven wrong if logic demonstrates that their thesis is inconsistent. In dialogues like the Gorgia or Theaetetus, Plato exposes rhetoric without intellectual honesty as nothing more than a form of "flattery" or psychological manipulation.

We can see this clearly in his famous Allegory of the Cave: the majority of people live chained, mistaking mere shadows projected on the wall for reality. And those who hold power within the darkness of the cave have every interest in maintaining those illusions. Smashed logic and objective facts act as the sunlight that dissolves those shadows.

The Gnostic Perspective (2nd–4th Century AD)
While Plato’s Sophists used words to deceive, the ancient Gnostics saw that very deception as the ultimate prison of the soul. In Gnostic mysticism, challenging hypocrisy and demanding intellectual honesty is the first and most critical step toward liberation.:

In texts like the Apocryphon of John, we encounter the figure of the Demiurge (Yaldabaoth)—a minor, blind deity who created the material world and arrogantly proclaims: "I am God, and there is no other God beside me." The Demiurge is entirely driven by ego, ignorance of the Higher Truth, and the desire for control. He represents the artificial authority that crumbles the moment it is confronted with spiritual reality.

Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas places an immense emphasis on absolute authenticity and transparency, fiercely criticizing the hypocrisy of religious rituals performed just for outward appearance. Logion 70 beautifully captures this internal necessity:

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not have within you will kill you."

Living a double, hypocritical life,driven by the shadow self while pretending to uphold sacred principles,is, in Gnostic terms, the definition of spiritual death.

Conclusion
Whether we look at it through the logical lens of Greek philosophy or the mystical depth of Gnostic texts, the verdict is the same: when a bluff is called and a false narrative is exposed, retreating into fogs of relativism or faked philosophy is just a defense mechanism for a bruised ego. Truth and consistency will always remain the only path to genuine connection.

-Giammarco

 

[John K]

The Importance of Intellectual Honesty: From Platonic Philosophy to Gnostic Mysticism

Intellectual honesty is fundamental because it is the very foundation of any human interaction that aspires to be authentic,be it a philosophical debate, a personal relationship, or a simple discussion. Without it, trust collapses, and every conversation devolves into a manipulative game of mirrors.

Those who possess intellectual honesty seek the truth, or at the very least, respect the facts. Being intellectually honest means accepting reality even when it proves us wrong or lays bare our internal inconsistencies. It gives us the strength to say "I was wrong" or "I don't know." When it is lacking, people inevitably resort to mental gymnastics, inventing excuses or retreating into absolute relativism just to avoid accountability. Intellectual honesty is what prevents a discussion from turning into a farce.

The Platonic Correlation: Socrates vs. The Sophists
This battle for authenticity is thousands of years old. In ancient Athens, Plato dedicated most of his dialogues to fighting the Sophists—the "masters of rhetoric." The Sophists were completely uninterested in objective truth; their only goal was to win arguments and persuade the public using word games, emotional manipulation, and reality-reversals.

Whenever a Sophist was backed into a corner by pure logic, they would use their linguistic agility to muddy the waters or retreat into absolute relativism (epitomized by Protagoras’ famous dictum: "Man is the measure of all things", meaning objective truth doesn't exist, and everyone has their own version of it).

Conversely, Socrates (Plato’s mouthpiece) sought objective truth through logical dialogue. For Plato, a true philosopher is someone who willingly accepts being proven wrong if logic demonstrates that their thesis is inconsistent. In dialogues like the Gorgia or Theaetetus, Plato exposes rhetoric without intellectual honesty as nothing more than a form of "flattery" or psychological manipulation.

We can see this clearly in his famous Allegory of the Cave: the majority of people live chained, mistaking mere shadows projected on the wall for reality. And those who hold power within the darkness of the cave have every interest in maintaining those illusions. Smashed logic and objective facts act as the sunlight that dissolves those shadows.

The Gnostic Perspective (2nd–4th Century AD)
While Plato’s Sophists used words to deceive, the ancient Gnostics saw that very deception as the ultimate prison of the soul. In Gnostic mysticism, challenging hypocrisy and demanding intellectual honesty is the first and most critical step toward liberation.:

In texts like the Apocryphon of John, we encounter the figure of the Demiurge (Yaldabaoth)—a minor, blind deity who created the material world and arrogantly proclaims: "I am God, and there is no other God beside me." The Demiurge is entirely driven by ego, ignorance of the Higher Truth, and the desire for control. He represents the artificial authority that crumbles the moment it is confronted with spiritual reality.

Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas places an immense emphasis on absolute authenticity and transparency, fiercely criticizing the hypocrisy of religious rituals performed just for outward appearance. Logion 70 beautifully captures this internal necessity:

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not have within you will kill you."

Living a double, hypocritical life,driven by the shadow self while pretending to uphold sacred principles,is, in Gnostic terms, the definition of spiritual death.

Conclusion
Whether we look at it through the logical lens of Greek philosophy or the mystical depth of Gnostic texts, the verdict is the same: when a bluff is called and a false narrative is exposed, retreating into fogs of relativism or faked philosophy is just a defense mechanism for a bruised ego. Truth and consistency will always remain the only path to genuine connection.

-Giammarco

I think this goes deeper still. Most so-called debates I come across are only superficially presented as logic in action. In almost all cases, at the deepest level each participant has a conviction that is held tightly against all boarders - their aim is to justify that conviction and logic is just a means to that end rather than a vehicle for growing in knowledge and wisdom. It's not surprising this happens because the deepest of our convictions attach themselves to our identity and become part of who we are: to let go of them is like losing a bit of ourselves. It's fascinating that the deepest spiritual and psychological techniques are aimed at letting go of such strong attachments, of dying to self, and acknowledge it's a very hard thing to do that takes a lot of courage.

But we aren't aware of this usually, so we end up entering a debate inauthentically because no matter what we may say and believe on the surface, we are not at all willing to accept that we and our beliefs may be changed by the information and the logic used by the others. It's so rare that I see a debate when there isn't a powerful emotional subtext in the contributions of each person, powerful in the sense that it's much more important to them than the points being made. They aren't usually aware of this, though some skilled and unscrupulous debaters use it to their advantage in the discussion. Often, a clear way of seeing it in action is when folks use double-layered ways of expressing themselves - for example they appear to be making a rational point between adults, but their body-language and forms of expression are pedagogical and delivered from what seems like the ramparts of their castle. They listen in the same way, from the ramparts of their castle. Of course it becomes only too painfully obvious if the discussion settles into ad hominems rather than sticking to the topic. Often it's more like a siege than the meeting of minds.

 

[Wyote]

Often it's more like a siege than the meeting of minds.

On the internet, everyone is Alexander the Great

 

[John K]

On the internet, everyone is Alexander the Great

 

[Wyote]

View attachment 102134

Exactly

 

[Akar]

@John K @Wyote

-G

 

[Akar]

While Plato sought absolute truth in the world of Ideas, Aristotle was a pragmatist.

ENDOXA
His method of inquiry always started from the collection of endoxa (the opinions of notable people, common views, or those of earlier philosophers).
Aristotle never repressed an opinion contrary to his own; on the contrary, he needed it, in a completely objective manner too. Even before presenting his own thesis, he meticulously listed all contrary or pre-existing ideas in order to dissect them right down to their roots. Repressing a contrary idea, for Aristotle, meant depriving oneself of the raw material necessary to build the truth (he needed a contrary opinion because he needed to have all possible perspectives). Those who censor merely demonstrate that they lack the logical tools to refute.

APORIA
The clash between two contrary ideas generates aporia (the "blind alley", the logical difficulty). Aporia is not an enemy to be silenced, but the spark that ignites philosophical research. It is therefore something to be embraced openly without any fear.
Aristotle argued that he who flees from contrary objections is like a blindfolded man walking: he does not even know in which direction he must head to find the solution.

TYRANNY AND FEAR
In the Fifth Book of the Politics, Aristotle explains that tyranny rests on the repression of thought and the destruction of mutual trust among citizens. The tyrant forbids cultural associations, banquets, and free discussion, because he is terrified that brilliant minds might confront each other, discover the truth, and unmask his ignorance. The repression of ideas is, for Aristotle, the formal admission of a political and moral weakness.

RHETORIC
In his work on Rhetoric, Aristotle establishes that a true thinker must be able to argue persuasively both his own thesis and the contrary one. Not to support what is false, but to understand exactly how the opponent reasons and be able to defuse him.

Metaphysics, Book III (Beta), Chapter 1 (Bekker 995a 27-33)

"He who wishes to reach a solution must first raise the difficulties [aporiai] well [...] He who investigates without having first raised the difficulties is like one who does not know where he must walk, and moreover he does not even know whether he has found what he is looking for or not; for the end is not clear to him, but it is clear to the one who has first raised the difficulties."

Politics, Book V, Chapter 11 (Bekker 1313a 41 - 1313b 6)

"[Tyranny must] forbid syssitia [common meals], associations, intellectual education, and all such things, and prevent everything from which two things usually arise: greatness of soul and mutual trust. It must not allow schools or other meetings where discussion takes place, but must take every precaution so that subjects remain as much as possible strangers to one another (because mutual acquaintance creates trust)."

Rhetoric, Book I, Chapter 1 (Bekker 1355a 29-34)

"Furthermore, one must be able to persuade the contraries, as happens in syllogisms, not to do either one or the other indifferently (for one must not persuade people to do base actions), but so that how things stand does not escape us, and if someone else uses arguments unjustly, we ourselves are able to refute them."

In conclusion, attacking the very source of a civilly expressed dissent is, at the same time, a coercive action.

-G

 

[Misty]

While Plato sought absolute truth in the world of Ideas, Aristotle was a pragmatist.

ENDOXA
His method of inquiry always started from the collection of endoxa (the opinions of notable people, common views, or those of earlier philosophers).
Aristotle never repressed an opinion contrary to his own; on the contrary, he needed it, in a completely objective manner too. Even before presenting his own thesis, he meticulously listed all contrary or pre-existing ideas in order to dissect them right down to their roots. Repressing a contrary idea, for Aristotle, meant depriving oneself of the raw material necessary to build the truth (he needed a contrary opinion because he needed to have all possible perspectives). Those who censor merely demonstrate that they lack the logical tools to refute.

APORIA
The clash between two contrary ideas generates aporia (the "blind alley", the logical difficulty). Aporia is not an enemy to be silenced, but the spark that ignites philosophical research. It is therefore something to be embraced openly without any fear.
Aristotle argued that he who flees from contrary objections is like a blindfolded man walking: he does not even know in which direction he must head to find the solution.

TYRANNY AND FEAR
In the Fifth Book of the Politics, Aristotle explains that tyranny rests on the repression of thought and the destruction of mutual trust among citizens. The tyrant forbids cultural associations, banquets, and free discussion, because he is terrified that brilliant minds might confront each other, discover the truth, and unmask his ignorance. The repression of ideas is, for Aristotle, the formal admission of a political and moral weakness.

RHETORIC
In his work on Rhetoric, Aristotle establishes that a true thinker must be able to argue persuasively both his own thesis and the contrary one. Not to support what is false, but to understand exactly how the opponent reasons and be able to defuse him.

Metaphysics, Book III (Beta), Chapter 1 (Bekker 995a 27-33)

"He who wishes to reach a solution must first raise the difficulties [aporiai] well [...] He who investigates without having first raised the difficulties is like one who does not know where he must walk, and moreover he does not even know whether he has found what he is looking for or not; for the end is not clear to him, but it is clear to the one who has first raised the difficulties."

Politics, Book V, Chapter 11 (Bekker 1313a 41 - 1313b 6)

"[Tyranny must] forbid syssitia [common meals], associations, intellectual education, and all such things, and prevent everything from which two things usually arise: greatness of soul and mutual trust. It must not allow schools or other meetings where discussion takes place, but must take every precaution so that subjects remain as much as possible strangers to one another (because mutual acquaintance creates trust)."

Rhetoric, Book I, Chapter 1 (Bekker 1355a 29-34)

"Furthermore, one must be able to persuade the contraries, as happens in syllogisms, not to do either one or the other indifferently (for one must not persuade people to do base actions), but so that how things stand does not escape us, and if someone else uses arguments unjustly, we ourselves are able to refute them."

In conclusion, attacking the very source of a civilly expressed dissent is, at the same time, a coercive action.

-G

 

[John K]

While Plato sought absolute truth in the world of Ideas, Aristotle was a pragmatist.

ENDOXA
His method of inquiry always started from the collection of endoxa (the opinions of notable people, common views, or those of earlier philosophers).
Aristotle never repressed an opinion contrary to his own; on the contrary, he needed it, in a completely objective manner too. Even before presenting his own thesis, he meticulously listed all contrary or pre-existing ideas in order to dissect them right down to their roots. Repressing a contrary idea, for Aristotle, meant depriving oneself of the raw material necessary to build the truth (he needed a contrary opinion because he needed to have all possible perspectives). Those who censor merely demonstrate that they lack the logical tools to refute.

APORIA
The clash between two contrary ideas generates aporia (the "blind alley", the logical difficulty). Aporia is not an enemy to be silenced, but the spark that ignites philosophical research. It is therefore something to be embraced openly without any fear.
Aristotle argued that he who flees from contrary objections is like a blindfolded man walking: he does not even know in which direction he must head to find the solution.

TYRANNY AND FEAR
In the Fifth Book of the Politics, Aristotle explains that tyranny rests on the repression of thought and the destruction of mutual trust among citizens. The tyrant forbids cultural associations, banquets, and free discussion, because he is terrified that brilliant minds might confront each other, discover the truth, and unmask his ignorance. The repression of ideas is, for Aristotle, the formal admission of a political and moral weakness.

RHETORIC
In his work on Rhetoric, Aristotle establishes that a true thinker must be able to argue persuasively both his own thesis and the contrary one. Not to support what is false, but to understand exactly how the opponent reasons and be able to defuse him.

Metaphysics, Book III (Beta), Chapter 1 (Bekker 995a 27-33)

"He who wishes to reach a solution must first raise the difficulties [aporiai] well [...] He who investigates without having first raised the difficulties is like one who does not know where he must walk, and moreover he does not even know whether he has found what he is looking for or not; for the end is not clear to him, but it is clear to the one who has first raised the difficulties."

Politics, Book V, Chapter 11 (Bekker 1313a 41 - 1313b 6)

"[Tyranny must] forbid syssitia [common meals], associations, intellectual education, and all such things, and prevent everything from which two things usually arise: greatness of soul and mutual trust. It must not allow schools or other meetings where discussion takes place, but must take every precaution so that subjects remain as much as possible strangers to one another (because mutual acquaintance creates trust)."

Rhetoric, Book I, Chapter 1 (Bekker 1355a 29-34)

"Furthermore, one must be able to persuade the contraries, as happens in syllogisms, not to do either one or the other indifferently (for one must not persuade people to do base actions), but so that how things stand does not escape us, and if someone else uses arguments unjustly, we ourselves are able to refute them."

In conclusion, attacking the very source of a civilly expressed dissent is, at the same time, a coercive action.

-G

I’ve always thought that no one should be allowed into political office unless they can make a cogent argument in favour of their opponents political positions.

 

[TomasM]

Nice post G.

Not to move away from Aristotle but the thoughts on Plato reminded me of my MBA coursework in ethics.

Plato’s influence on corporate ethics is primarily derived from his theories of virtue, knowledge, and the moral psychology of the soul, which modern business ethicists apply to leadership and organizational behavior.

Virtue and moral psychology is so very important when running and operating an organization. Ethics are generally engaged over a period of time before moving into the legal foundation of society. Amazing that they still teach his work today in academic institution throughout the western world.

 

[Akar]

I’ve always thought that no one should be allowed into political office unless they can make a cogent argument in favour of their opponents political positions.

Nice post G.

Not to move away from Aristotle but the thoughts on Plato reminded me of my MBA coursework in ethics.

Plato’s influence on corporate ethics is primarily derived from his theories of virtue, knowledge, and the moral psychology of the soul, which modern business ethicists apply to leadership and organizational behavior.

Virtue and moral psychology is so very important when running and operating an organization. Ethics are generally engaged over a period of time before moving into the legal foundation of society. Amazing that they still teach his work today in academic institution throughout the western world.

You know, I feel a bit foolish even bringing this up; ultimately, these are problems that were solved just 2,500 years ago... haven't we changed at all?
Thank you for your input; you've brought concrete examples to a very abstract concept of mine.






-G

 

[TomasM]

You know, I feel a bit foolish even bringing this up; ultimately, these are problems that were solved just 2,500 years ago... haven't we changed at all?
Thank you for your input; you've brought concrete examples to a very abstract concept of mine.






-G

Please don’t feel foolish, we learned from many philosophers and not all of them were from the West. Plato’s just stood out to me because of corporate behavior - which has become increasingly poor over the decades.

My statements were but an observation of my academia and not a reflection on your statements. You appear to be far more read in these topics than I and by no means do I consider myself an expert.

I rather enjoy reading your thoughts on the topic.

 

[Akar]

Please don’t feel foolish, we learned from many philosophers and not all of them were from the West. Plato’s just stood out to me because of corporate behavior - which has become increasingly poor over the decades.

My statements were but an observation of my academia and not a reflection on your statements. You appear to be far more read in these topics than I and by no means do I consider myself an expert.

I rather enjoy reading your thoughts on the topic.

Thank you, my friend. I think that a transversal examination of such a specific topic is always useful; more points of view equate to a deeper understanding of the subject matter. My academic background is relative; I would consider it more of a passion that I cultivated after my state exams, nothing more. I thank you deeply, but I am simply a carpenter.

I really appreciated your correlation with corporate ethics. I have used Platonic logic for many things, but never to look at it from a corporate perspective. Thank you for the lenses you provided me.

If we want to delve into the political sphere, I believe Cicero is the highest representative of what we mean. His way of defending the Republic and using the very behavior of the "conspirators" represents one of the highest forms of oratorical skill.

Famous is his phrase: 'How long, O Catiline, will you abuse our patience?


-G