God! In or Out?

[Euklid]

As illustrated on the past, the planet essentially can be divided into 2 major groups, i once called them corporealists and incorporealists. A clarification first, these terms are not exactly accurate, however i 'll make use of them as i simply cannot figure out any 2 better terms for the notion that i aim to describe. Now, let me explain what i mean with these 2 terms.

A "corporealist" is one that sees everything as related, a grand thread, a grand Chain of Being with God at the top, at the start of the Chain and within the Chain, since God by definition is Omni, that makes the chain omni, which means that the chain(universe) is infinite. Since God is Holy, that makes the Chain Holy, consequently that makes everything holy.

On the other hand, stands the "incorporealist", the incorporealist can be divided into 2 groups:

a) The one who does not accept Gods existence at all. AKA Atheists.
b) The one who accepts Gods existence but not within the system, not at the top, not at the very start but outside of it.

Both of them are EXACTLY identical in their consequential symptoms.

Both of them see the chain of being as a big bubble, an egg, which will eventually stop being, and therefore understand the Universe as finite, Einstein favored such a view due to his religion as he exclamed a couple of times, and thus fomulated the "special theory of Relativity" which ofc was to become the scienitfic establishment of a finite universe. Also, the incorporealists view the universe as unholy on its own, and therefore liable to any human interference, whatever that could be.

So, in brief, on one corner we got people with an inherent respect towards their surroundings, that is humans(all substantially(DNA) the same), plants, rivers and seas, and on the other hand the diametrically opposite.

Now, let us observe the works of knowledge that have been produced by these 2 groups of cosmotheorists:

The corporealists have given to society, the immense literary works of Classical Ellas, of the Vedas, of Astronomy, Maths, Drama, Poetry, Morality and Governmental Systems.

This group includes:

The Greeks (Ancient-Byzantine and Modern)
The Hindus and their denominations(Buddhism, ZEN et al)
The Orthodox Christians after the Ecumenical Councils, not the Proto-Christians.
The Shia and Sufi Muslims.
Most parts of Modern Europe especially those in Scandinavia.

On the other hand we got:

Scripture.

The Jews
The Sunnis
The Protestants
Evangelicals
Fundamentalists.

And we also got a joker:

The Catholic Church plays both fields.

These above are the ones that i can be certain for, there are certainly a couple more groups of people that i have neglected or i am not aware of their affiliations, however the groups above certainly make up a rough estimate of more than 80% of global population.

Also,

In essense, a real atheist today is closer to pure scripture philosophically, than actually closer to the works of Plato, however that might sound as a paradox.

Ofc, has any of you ever wondered, what are the primal hypothesis that lead to the syllogisms and postulates? Or do you suck the postulates that you have prepared your selves psychologically to suck without even wondering, HOW was that postulate produced, under what? Hypothesis and restrictions?

--------------------

ps: please do not reply until i finish posting, cause this is a discussion, quite an interesting one as well, cheers.

[Euklid]

Einstein favored such a view due to his religion as he exclamed a couple of times, and thus fomulated the "special theory of Relativity"

Wrong. Einstein built his theory to match empirical data indicating that the speed of light was always constant. He certainly didn't invent a new theory to match any faith. Furthermore, Einstein was "religious" only in the pantheistic sense, i.e. he didn't really believe in a supernatural God but admired the universe.

This is a minor point which i will not spend much time into, however the special theory of relativity which formulated a FINITE universe was in fact Einsteins creation, and during his dialogue with Tagore, he exclamed crystal-clearly that he draws inspiration from his religon of being a Jew. He also said that he found that the Greeks (as he had a Greek aiding him in the equations, Constantinos Karatheodoris is his name if am not mistaken) are more interesting that science herself. That is not a measure though to count, its the praxis that speaks, and the doctrines, not the words up in the air, exclamed.

Many atheists, Scriptural Christians and Jews today admire nature as well, one thing is admiration, and another to view it as holy perfect and divine and thus infinite, which Einstein struggled for years to prove otherwise thought the Special theory of relativity which was a failure.

--------------------------


he exclamed crystal-clearly that he draws inspiration from his religon of being a Jew.

Incorrect, Einstein was not a practicing Jew.

EINSTEIN: Do you believe in the divine isolated from the world?

TAGORE: Not isolated. The infinite personality of man comprehends the universe. There cannot be anything that cannot be subsumed by the human personality, and this proves that the truth of the universe is human truth.
......
......
....
.....

TAGORE Why not? Truth is realized through men,


EINSTEIN I cannot prove my conception is right, but that is my religion.

---------------------------------------

SOURCE

Practising non, practising, his work speaks volumes in itself, especially his Special Theory.

====================================

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein


I have read them all, so you can save your breath.

There is not one single one of these quotes that expresses his views on whether the divine is isolated or not from the universe. That he saved for the end, in his dicussion with Tagore he makes it clear and also through his effort to prove it mathematically that the universe is finite through the Special Theory of relativity with the divine necessarily isolated from the universe. A cosmotheory straight up lifted from the Old Testament and Maimonides. FACT.

[Euklid]

I have to say that this is a pretty bizarre dichotomy you developed. Although you try to classify various religions in distinct categories, it seems as though your "coroprealist" theory fits all theists/deists whereas the "incorporealist" fits the pantheists, atheists, and others who don't believe in a personal God. So the evangelicals don't believe God is within the system or at its top? Yea right, they think he's at the top, the bottom, and everywhere in between. Honestly, it just looks like you tried to put the groups you like (i.e. the ones you said have "an inherent respect towards their surroundings") in one category and the ones you didn't admire so much you jammed in another.

Besides, you seem to have the notion that the ideas of all these groups somehow could be similarly valid. You list Einstein's theory as just a manifestation of his "religion." You say that this is a minor point, but I think it's the very heart of the matter. Calling all the ancient snake-oil salesmen "cosmoetheorists" is quite a stretch as well. Also, you only list the works of one group, as though the other did not produce anything worthwhile. You seem to take it for granted that all people of a certain religion or civilization have a homogeneous belief system and that their creations should be inextricably linked with their worldview. I completely disagree with this. For instance, that the Greeks were able to make such great advances into math and science was due to their ability to use critical skills in spite of widespread delusions and certainly not because of them.

The response to this is quite large on a new post:

[Euklid]

Ill give you another essay about the Greeks, also be certain that the main debate among the grand religions and the main wars that have taken place between their Spiritual leaders have always been about the finity or infinity of the Universe. You understand the Gods of the Greeks as delusions, maybe you see the Hinduist ones as such as well, you classify the pantheists with the atheists which is false, the Pantheists see their divinities within their system as manifestations of natural forces. The atheists do not see any divinity anywhere, either in nature or outside of it.

The Ecumenical councils held after Christianity forced itself inside Rome, half of them were to clarify the divinity of nature within the system, that was complete when the Greeks took over the Empire at ACE 553 in the Second Council of Constantinople, where the Jewish doctrine of a finite universe succumbed to the Pantheist Cosmotheory of the Greeks. This debate has been open for milleniums now, and the atheists will be the next to pick up from scripture and defend the scriptures doctrines in the new urban context, the same way that Protestants and Catholics did when Christianity fell. Times change, things change, but usually everything stays the same.

Science and maths emerged as infinite due to the infinte nature of God in Ellinic and Hindu religion, whereas this concept is abundant in every single text we read. The Greeks and Hindus are indeed the ones who invented mathematics(axioms and numbers), with also the contributions of the Classically inspired Arabs during their Golden Age, whence the Platonic doctrines of an infininte and (w)holly universe were incorporated into Sufism and Shiaism.

Now i quote an essay by Proffesor Ian Johnston, pay attention:


Since the ancient Greeks saw nature as divine, as having a mysteriously vital soul of its own, an essence with which human beings constantly interacted, there could be no question of "changing" nature or seeking in some ways to alter the given facts of life. Such an endeavour would have violated the way these philosophers understood the world. Nature (including the world around them and the cosmos) was a divinely alive mystery which might be intellectually apprehended and contemplated (at least in part). The aim of scientific speculation was to assist in that essentially spiritual exercise.

For that reason, Greek scientists showed no great interest in experimentation and no desire to develop their scientific thinking into practical applications. By the Hellenistic period (the fourth and third centuries BC), for example, Greek scientists knew about all the principles necessary to construct a steam engine. But the notion that they might actually build one and use it to overcome certain natural limitations never occurred to them. Nature was there to be wondered at, contemplated, even worshipped, not to be tampered with or altered.

Moreover, since the mysterious divine powers which were the creative source of everything, including political structures just as much as natural phenomena, were good, a mathematical understanding of the world linked the inquiring spirit of the thinker with the search for the ultimate purposes of things. To such a mind, it was far less important to figure out how things worked than to focus upon what these things might mean in the overall moral arrangement of the universe. Hence, the pursuit of what we might call science was primarily an inquiry into questions of value. A properly disciplined inquiry into nature could lead to a fuller understanding of the moral issues on which questions of justice in the community depended. The practical value of such inquiry was thus primarily moral.

Unlike the Greeks, the Christians firmly rejected any notion that nature was divine and that, therefore, speculations about nature were, in themselves, a way of apprehending the nature of God. According to scripture, God stood over and apart from nature. Nature was His creation, and it was entirely appropriate that one should acknowledge His divinity in the beauty and variety of the natural world. But God did not exist in nature, and any attempt to worship nature was the most serious heresy (this firm rejection of nature worship, which the Christians appropriated from the Jewish tradition, sets Christianity in opposition to all sorts of non-Christian beliefs). This is a key distinction between Christian thought and Pantheist Ellinic thought

Read the whole essay here


I also had a similar discussion with a Jewish member who has studdied the works of the Talmud, and also by checking Maimonides doctrines it becomes crystal clear the difference between the Greek thinker and the Judeo-Christian thinker. It has to do with the finity or inifity of the Universe, with Gods position inside the system or outside the system. Our discussion in this sub-forum.

Now let me offer evidence about the Shias and the Sufis adhering to such principles as posted by Cid:


Shi'ism by Heinz Halm One of the founders of the neoplatonising schools in the Islamic community was the Persian Muhammad al-Nasafi, who began his activities in Nishapur and later in Bukhara; reputedly converted the Samanid Amir Nasr ibn Ahmad and several of his courtiers to the Ismailiyya (a branch within Shi'a), but was executed in 943 by the latter's son and successor Nuh. Citations from his main work al-Mahsul (the produce, the result) are perserved in later Ismaili documents.

"Nasafi's theology and cosmology can be reconstructed in terms of their
characteristic features: God is neither Thing nor Not-Thing; His being goes
beyond all linguistic concepts and is beyond all knowledge. By means of His
creates (abda'a)) from nothing the original creature (al-mubda' al-awwal),
the Intellect (al-'aql), which - eternal and perfect - rests itself and
through tought graps all Being in itself. In it the (universal) Soul (nafs),
whose essence, unlike that of the Intellect, is movement in time, comes into
being (tawallada); it is imperfect because its constant movement is
symptomatic of its striving for perfect knowledge which it will one day
obtain with the help of the Intellect. Its movement produces matter
(hayula, from Greek. hyle), while the repose of the Intellect gives rise to
form (shura); thus the material world is formed. The individual
human soul is a part (juz') of the Universal Soul and likewise strives
restlessly for perfection and peace, which it ultimately finds in knowledge
in the universal intellect. "

see conclusion from relative discussion here


Now, let us go the Orthodoxes and their Ecumenical councils which correspond to the same time period when Byzantium declared the change of the official language to Greek from roman in the 5th-6th century ACE.:

In a finite universe, the beginning and the end are the same, very simple really, evrything constant, so lets see what the Orthodoxes imposed to Christianity in ACE 553:

Quote:
"If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema."

in:"The Anathemas Against Origen"; THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE A.D. 553


Now go to wiki and check what is the position of the Catholic church in regards to an "incorporeal Holy Spirit" essentially a Holy spirit non-existent in this Universe, non-existant exactly as God is non-existant for atheists. However, the Catholic church speaks of a corporeal God with an incorporeal Holy Spirit and hence why she plays both fields as is her name as well cath' Olic= For ALL.

Now, go to Protestantism, what was Protestantism's breakthrough and eventually picked up in the New World that is Evangelicals and all the various denominations you got in there, which debate for other matters while all agree to a purged Christian doctrine purged from paganistic doctrines of corporealism and a more pure approach into Scripture without Ecumenical councils and Creeds disturbing the true Jewish message of a non-existent God in the Universe aka incorporeal according to Maimonides works.

Now, about Hindus, Tagore answered already for me and for them when asked by Einstein, "do you believe in the divine isolated from the world?"

Tagore: NOT ISOLATED.

A buddhist will say the same and a Zen Master the same.

Mathematics will say the same as they extend to infinity, and consequently mathematicvians will say the same if they didnt believe during the pastr century that numbers correspond to incorporeal entities, that happened because Einstein's special theory provided the ground for incorporeal mathematrics as it provided the ground for infinity outside of our universe. However, prof. Nanopulos, A Greek physicist at CERN proved all these incorrect when through experimentation discovered that the Euklid Elements(axioms, mathematics essentially) are corporeal and not incorporeal(as held only during this past century) in the year 2000:

See relative Google search and browse:

Euklid Is Correct (http://www.google.gr/search?q=universe+is+flat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Quote:
EXTRACT From Berkeley university YEAR 2000.:

"Wow, Euclid, was Correct!"

source


And see also breakthrough evidence The Universe is infinite and not finite as in the Special theory.

quote:
"That would mean rewriting the current textbooks of the Universe"

Ofc some new travel fast and others slowly.

The Pantheists aka pagans=peasants, used to view the kosmos as divine with a soul of its own, an infinte thread that had resulted from years of astronomical observations.

Today the pagan mathematicians which were persecuted valiantly by the judeo-Christians for their heathen views, come back stronger than ever.


Regardless of his views, your interpretation of his theory makes no sense. Special relativity states that the speed of light is always constant, regardless of an observer's reference frame.


Exactly when is something constant? irrespective of a reference frame?

Inside a closed system, a finite system, read the Special theory better, crystal clearly he speaks of a finite universe, The General Theory of relativity on the other hand is not like that. The general theory functions both in a closed, convex, concave and linear(flat-infinite universe), while the Special theory aims to prove the universe as concave or convex, as closed, the paradigm of his bullet is a fine example, the special theory took the general relativity one step further by drawing the finite lines of the universe, and ofc it failed.

Light is not consistent, Einstein was wrong, the photons are not consistent, and this among many other things as natural morality, mathematics, and astronomy leads us to the conclusion of a flat, infinite universe exactly as held by the Ancient Greek religion of Hesiod's Chaos, and the philosophers who took the religious songs of Hesiod and Orpheus one step further. Exactly as held by the Vedas, the Brahmans, Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes and in total contradiction with the Torah, the purged scripture, and most atheists today, who fail to recognize a (w)holly infinite divine natural universe.


But all of those quotes would seem to indicate that his religion was pretty far from the Jewish religion as it is normally practiced


Yes indeed, that is because Einstein disagreed with most of the practises of the Jewish religion, the practices though, not its philosophical teachings.

Generally, we all of us tend to argue about postualtes and about syllogism.

Imagine a thought, a thought produces various thoughts, thoughts that we call syllogisms, i can think of an X the X will lead me to a Y, and i will discuss the Y wih you instead of the X, cause usually when finishing the syllogism we have forgotten the intial syllogism. Many argue about Y's and Y's, and do not even go tot he initial hypothesis, The jewish X, which is essentially the nature of God, has produced immense amount of Y's as a result. Einstein disagreed with most of these Y's, especially the ones that are obviously false, and he struggled many years to prove the X correct, that is another Y as it seems from an external observer but not from me.

Another example:
In essence i can disagree with you in various parts of your syllogisms, but when the critical time comes we might have programmed our brains through DNA, sensitivities to our immediate environemnt to take on the same decisions by sending the blood on the corresponding places identically due to our parallel upbringing, while at the same time disagreeing in almost every aspect of our theories. That is because the human can grasp the effect but usually never the cause of the effect in this case the primordial hypothesis, whence a hypothesis functions as a base line as a benchmark in the human brain, and this will lead us to similar actions but usually due to our human reactionary nature, to disagreement.

[Euklid]

This is a brief analysis of this paradox on philosophical development, of the new race of atheists agreeing with the Scriptural conglomerates on the non-divinity and finity of the universe. This is what sanctions on the human psyche the power to influence and even destroy this wonderful sorting of matter that we call a nature. And it is indeed one of the most dangerous cosmotheories that the planet might ascribe to.

Nature is not to be tampered upon.

The Syn Pan is Holon theOn.

[Euklid]

Also a clarification, you will find the terms incorporeal and corporeal referring to a body most usually.

eg. The soul is incorporeal according to some, meaning the soul exists even without the body, the corpus.

In my case scenario, corporeal and incorporeal refer to whole body of the universe. So basically the soul is incorporeal in regards to the human body, while corporeal in regards to the universe.

[Euklid]

The thing is, that while in modern scientific circles the finity and infinity of the universe are discussed. In spiritual circles, this discussion changes on whether God is present or absent from the cosmos because the spiritual ones play with different terms and see God as OMNI, infinite and such. I belong to both groups and will discuss openly with both, i will not make fun of anyone of the 2, and be prepared for discussion in both domains.

I also understand and acknowledge the fact that the scientific principles resulted from this spiritual/theistic exercise and acknowledge the majesty of the divine universe cause i simply owe my existence to it.

The urban atheist movement adheres to principles similar to the masses that follow scripture blindly. i see them both as identical in their expression, and also identical in their acknowledgement of a non-divine non-infinte universe disguised under different names, while essentially spewing out the same bullshit as instructed by their respective doctrines. My kind does not fall inside doctrines. I understand what is Good, that is the protection of our ecosystem which is in danger, and i will preach for it in both circles with the respective arguments for both circles, and for some strange reason, none of the 2 circles are happy to acknowledge that nature must be viewed as divine and thus holy and thus worthy of the ultimate protection and respect.

Both of these 2 circles atheists and scriptural Judeo-Christians will defend the non-divinity of nature like best friends as if they do got a problem with it and as if it takes away from their own self-loving human nature and the inherent belief that the human is sanctioned to do anything he wishes in the world he resides.

Its funny though that the world acknowledges the Majesty of the Greeks, in their philosophical adventures, and fail to understand that these Greeks see everything as divine, and that is the source of their philosophy, their Hypothesis.

Some people call them the first atheists, when these people reached to such a level to view the gaia as divine and built temples that functioned as energetical links so they could concentrate the magnetic forcefields and enhance their meditation, and thus why all the temples followed a geodetic pattern.

Their philosophy emerged as a collection of their religious myths and the concepts the divinities represented in their minds as expressed through their language.

In short, people are very confused, and keep confusing themselves even more by translating everything they hear in their terms.

God is a delusion for those that are deluding themselves, and for those that take for granted that God equals Inquisition, and money laundering.

People are fed up with religious institutions, and they are equating them with the concept of God, which is a pitfall of the deluded, ofc they are not to blame but those disturbing institutions are, but still it does not sanction them either.

Now to the question of the thread: which is the way of God?

The way of God is to breath and be grateful of your breath, the way of God is to sense and be grateful of your sensory abilities, the way of God is looking at acid rain, the ozone layer, the dirt inside the sea, and feeling sorry that your children, will see the image of our earth even dirtier.

The way of God is feeling sorry for all those drugs taken, sorry for those cigarettes smoked, sorry for all the cement laid down on the surface of the earth as if the earth is not a living organism and requires to breath. I am sure you can put yourself in her shoes, imagine some tones of cement pressing upon your lungs, you will eventually vomit, and your vomit like a river will brush away all those petty and sad individuals that put all those crap inside your face without any regard even though you offer them fruits to eat, shelter to rest and a place to place their dreams.

Enough with the disturbance, enough with the confusion, enough with self-loving motherfuckers who think they can fuck everything up just because a Priest told them some thousand of years ago, that the human is sanctioned to do anything on this living organism we call a universe, just because God is outside of it. And has currently transformed into the same individual, with the only exception that there is no priest anymore, Hollywood has replaced the Priest, and McDonalds the eucharist. Same shit different toilet.

[Lakonian]

Cousin, i enjoyed this post, i like your arguements and support many of your views i.

I must argue with you when you said "Exactly when is something constant? irrespective of a reference frame?"

Time is constant. It ticks away no matter what. Pause motion...it still goes forward.
As you say, irrespective of a reference frame.

As for an infinite universe , it is not news that Hellenes thought of an infinite universe, and that they also thought of finite one aswell.

I believe Democritus argued against Platos finite universe .

I have read both, and both apply.

I still think the God we think of is a conscious one. What exists after death Euklid..........?

This is where atoms come in right? I thought about atoms today and i came up with a theory. Look at your tv and think of it as designated area of the universe. Now move closer, can you see the pixels? move as close as you can and you wont be able to make out what your looking at, move slowly backwarsd and you will see those sepperate little pixels make up the image.

In between those pixels? void?

I would think thsi where Democritus also argued of reality, he thought there was none because objects are broken down to nothing and little bits of atoms.....

ATOMS the data of reality? What of reality when we switch off? Does this affect the existance of the conscious GOD.....i thought and thought...it scared me.

[Euklid]

Thanks cuz, here is another quote you posted once:

TAGORE: "Not isolated. The infinite personality of man comprehends the universe. There cannot be anything that cannot be subsumed by the human personality, and this proves that the truth of the universe is human truth. "

PLATO: "What is required for the discovery of such causality is a higher cardinality; and that cardinality is no less than addressing the subjective power of the human mind to become the causal agency, which commands the ordering of the Universal Blazonry of the Heavens"

Oh yes, what is objective again?

The subject in its pure form as a causual agency, and how is that succeeded in modern terms?

MEDITATI ΩΝ

[Lakonian]

I dont know about meditation man. All i know is the answer i seek does not exist in our perception. Il ask you this again cousin, how does God exist in a world of matter? Matter dies. It can be destroyed. And if it is made up of atoms, it has been concluded that betwen atoms there is void!

So its plausible to say that GOD may not exist in our "reality". Am i wrong to point this out? Can i conclude by saying we are trapped inside Plato's cave?

I cannot stress how important it is that you read through this part of the Reoublic cuz, and you will see what i mean.

What Platos says here is of great significance to the subject you raise. We are talking about a wordl we percive, yet another one exists behind it.

Does God exist in both? If so how do we come to that conclusion? His limited in one and the other one unlimited? It doesnt fit the puzzle.....

hold on il come across Platos cave and ilpost it here. Make sure you read it.

[Lakonian]

Ok here is a very short overall understanding of Platos cave, do not take it so lightly.......

Imagine a dark, subterranean prison in which humans are bound by their necks to a single place from infancy. Elaborate steps are taken by unseen forces to supply and manipulate the content of the prisoner’s visual experience. This is so effective that the prisoners do not recognize their imprisonment and are satisfied to live their lives in this way. Moreover, the cumulative effects of this imprisonment are so thorough that if freed, the prisoners would be virtually helpless. They could not stand up on their own, their eyes would be overloaded initially with sensory information, and even their minds would refuse to accept what the senses eventually presented them. It is not unreasonable to expect that some prisoners would wish to remain imprisoned even after their minds grasped the horror of their condition. But if a prisoner was dragged out and compelled to understand the relationship between the prison and outside, matters would be different. In time the prisoner would come to have genuine knowledge superior to the succession of representations that made up the whole of experience before. This freed prisoner would understand those representations as imperfect—like pale copies of the full reality now grasped in the mind. Yet if returned to the prison, the freed prisoner would be the object of ridicule, disbelief, and hostility.

[Lakonian]

Here is the full version for those who want to make up there own minds....

Book VII of The Republic

The Allegory of the Cave


Here's a little story from Plato's most famous book, The Republic. Socrates is talking to a young follower of his named Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what it's like to be a philosopher -- a lover of wisdom: Most people, including ourselves, live in a world of relative ignorance. We are even comfortable with that ignorance, because it is all we know. When we first start facing truth, the process may be frightening, and many people run back to their old lives. But if you continue to seek truth, you will eventually be able to handle it better. In fact, you want more! It's true that many people around you now may think you are weird or even a danger to society, but you don't care. Once you've tasted the truth, you won't ever want to go back to being ignorant!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Socrates is speaking with Glaucon]

[Socrates:] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

[Glaucon:] I see.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/PlatosCave.gif




And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed