Did Plato prove the immortality of the soul?

[Anonymous No.16304294]

He undoubtedly proved the exact presence of its being.

>A soul is always in motion and as a self-mover has no beginning. A self-mover is itself the source of everything else that moves. So, by the same token, it cannot be destroyed. Bodily objects moved from the outside have no soul, while those that move from within have a soul. Moving from within, all souls are self-movers, and hence their immortality is necessary.

[Anonymous No.16304302]

>>16304294
Why is the soul always in motion?

[Anonymous No.16304315]

I like his proof in meno where he says that learning is recollection, and that must mean the knowledge was their before birth, but you could just as easily say that the knowledge is preconditioned in the mind.

[Anonymous No.16304341]

>>16304294
>Did Plato prove the immortality of the soul?
He didn't even prove the soul exists.

[Anonymous No.16304355]

>>16304315
I think all of Plato's dialoguing on the immortality of the soul, are almost always accompanied by some underlying metaphor, not to say he didn't believe the justification literally, but he does the justification's in a certain way as it stands within a greater poetic intent. Especially something like Phaedo, or just look at how the discussion posted in the Op from the Phaedrus moves onto to the freewill and choice of the individual in the revelation of Being, or the Forms of its wisdom. Just look at what those which move from within having a souls says about the state of say two thousand years later in Dasein being-in-the-world.

[Anonymous No.16304364]

>>16304341
that is implied in, for example, op's. but he generally never adresses it directly because soul's existence is obvious.

[Anonymous No.16304370]

>>16304364
I feel like the soul, is just a spiritual way of saying consciousness with a touch of personal identity.

[Anonymous No.16304550]

>>16304294
What is the relation of the soul with the body?

[Anonymous No.16304589]

>>16304341
There's literally an irrefutable proof in the Op.

[Anonymous No.16304593]

>>16304550
The Republic and Timaeus address this don't they?

[Anonymous No.16304696]

>>16304589
What if the body moves the soul

[Anonymous No.16304724]

>>16304696
Do you mean instincts, or do you mean a rock being thrown and hitting your face, falling to the floor?

[Anonymous No.16304726]

No one answered my question.
>>16304302

[Anonymous No.16304738]

>>16304593
Not really. Not in a coherent way at least.

[Anonymous No.16304745]

>>16304726
Ah fug, was going to but then returned and forgot about it. I'll answer in a sec as I'm playing tf2, but I do say that the soul is always in motion because that is its nature, to put it as crudely as possible. And in effect you always have the choice to stop that motion by suicide.

[Anonymous No.16304752]

>>16304738
What do you define as coherent? I'm pretty sure in the Phaedo he says that the soul is the Form of the body, and the body is a cage of the soul when one gives into its lowest desires giving it power over oneself as a whole, where Plato is not saying that the material or body is evil, but it has a correct and higher organisation as with the Republic and Timaeus: Philosophers, Warriors and Peasants.

[Anonymous No.16304753]

>>16304745
>And in effect you always have the choice to stop that motion by suicide.
Hmm interesting.

[Anonymous No.16304754]

He didn't prove its existence to begin with let alone its immortality.

[Anonymous No.16304756]

>>16304724
I mean the brain creates what appears as a soul

[Anonymous No.16304763]

>>16304341
I'm proving the existence of the forms he proves the existence of the soul. Study Republic and Parmenides closely.

[Anonymous No.16304769]

>>16304756
Either it is a soul or is not a soul, how it appears does not matter. I claim it is a soul, your argument must rest upon whether you claim it is or is not.

[Anonymous No.16304771]

>>16304341
>>16304754
I'm proving the existence of the forms he proves the existence of the soul. Study Republic and Parmenides closely.

[Anonymous No.16304787]

>>16304589
You could very well argue that the "self-moving" is just how it appears to us but in reality humans run like a machine. An engine moves a car, does that mean the engine is self-moving? "the engine needs fuel" and I answer so does the human. "the engine needs to be started" and we can say birth kickstarts the human machine, and it runs until it runs out of fuel or breaks down. Much of behavioural psychology is also against the idea that many of our actions are really by our own agency, and tests in neuroscience show that we make movements and other physical actions before we realise it. In what way then is the soul "self-moving"? In art and literature, we are always adapting other sources of inspiration. Thinking is a response to stimuli, as are all things.

[Anonymous No.16304792]

>>16304341
>>16304754
In proving the existence of the forms he proves the existence of the soul. Study Republic and Parmenides closely.

[Anonymous No.16304793]

>>16304745
>And in effect you always have the choice to stop that motion by suicide
But I thought the soul is immortal?

[Anonymous No.16304794]

>>16304302
Because the world is in motion/flux and therefore the soul must move with it since knowledge would be impossible otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16304800]

>>16304787
What an un-thought reductivity.

An engine does not have choice anon, and as drained out as the statement is, consciousness is not a computation. Irrelevant I say! Man is conscious, he can perceive, he is self-moving.

[Anonymous No.16304802]

>>16304793
Hey look pal that doesn't change the fact that you can stop it, whether we die eternal or go to hades, we die, and it is different from now.

[Anonymous No.16304810]

>>16304294
>Ants have souls
>Bacteria have souls
This is why I have philosophy. You have access to so much science but you still dwell on ramblings of people who ate their own shit as medical advice.

[Anonymous No.16304815]

>>16304800
Bold of you to assume man has choice.
>consciousness is not a computation.
>Man is conscious, he can perceive, he is self-moving.
Cite your sources. A camera can perceive, is it self-moving? I present you with reduction so that you may present me with more rigorous arguments, I am disappointed in you anonymous.

[Anonymous No.16304825]

>>16304800
The universe did not start with living forms. So the inanimate "non self movers" somehow created the self movers.
How is this dumb idea even standing on its own feet?

[Anonymous No.16304845]

>>16304815
A camera isn't perceiving, since when did this become r/philosophy? Seriously anon, clarifying truth is not the same as reducing it to other than it is.

You must understand A = A.

>>16304825
Anon, you don't understand the argument. I really don't see how anything you have said even refutes the argument, or is even related to it. Maybe it stands, because it is not so dumb. Please explain your belief.

[Anonymous No.16304891]

>>16304845
You don't will yourself into existence. You need your parents to put you together. They needed their parents, etc etc all the way back to the first life form. The first life form did not will itself into existence. It came together from inanimate "non self-movers". There is a long unbroken chain between you and those non-movers. As such, I don't see how you, or any life form, is a self mover.

[Anonymous No.16304917]

>>16304891
You're functionally retarded anon, when Plato says the soul is a self-mover he means in the instance. But I doubt you'll understand that either, so I recommend you just read Plato.

[Anonymous No.16304923]

>>16304745
> I'll answer in a sec as I'm playing tf2
Based gaming while talking about Plato's conception of the soul

[Anonymous No.16304936]

>>16304753

[Anonymous No.16304942]

>>16304917
I don't really have to read anything because you haven't refuted my point. I'm not functionally retarded and you're not fooling anyone.
You've yet to proves humans and life forms in general "move from within".

[Anonymous No.16304954]

>>16304942
>self-mover is created not by itself
And? All you're saying is just an extreme determinism, but I am rejecting your empirical conception of temporality.

[Anonymous No.16304958]

>>16304815
cameras don't perceive, machines can't perceive and don't, because they don't need to. When you see in movie the terminator's vision, with images and colours and letters telling him who is who and analysing its environment, that is just a movie. A machine doesn't need a "vision" it interacts directly with the material substrate as it is also pure material substrate. Machines don't have qualia

[Anonymous No.16304971]

>>16304954
Your only claim that humans are self movers is that: you're just saying they are. You haven't explained how inanimate non-self moving things can combine in a way that makes itself "self-moving". Since this is key for your conception of soul (because if humans are not self-moving, then according to Plato they have no souls), you ought to spend some time trying to prove that first.

I believe you'll have a hard time explaining how single cells have free will and/or souls, and you'll also have a hard time explaining how by just putting together enough soulless cells you eventually get free will/souls to arise.

[Anonymous No.16304981]

>>16304958
Prove the existence of qualia

[Anonymous No.16304993]

>>16304981
I am having them right now as my brain is communicating with Me as the Eternal Experiencer and translating information from the material substrate to my phenomenal field, which must be in the form of qualia as it is literally the only think I understand. All the information you have about bodies and evolution and physics come from the qualia you received as you were learning them. If you want to LARP as a hylic then fine, but you are either a liar or delluded

[Anonymous No.16305005]

>>16304993
So your proof of the existence of qualia is just saying they exist? And your definition of qualia is just "sense-data"? I can find you a myriad of machines that also receive the same sense-data.

[Anonymous No.16305022]

>>16305005
>sense-"data"
If that is the case you can describe purple and green to a blind man using only data.

[Anonymous No.16305026]

>>16304971
What sophistry is this, you ask me to prove something which has not been in the conversation at all, and by means which are completely unnecessary. And supposing that I ever said that Plato proved the immortality of the soul, but he did prove the existence of it.

Firstly, what do you consider free will? If you mean they are purely instinctual then I do not see how it is not by technicality a self-mover or possessing of essentially a soul. Furthermore, you have now asked me to explain how consciousness arises from the joining of cells, do you know how arrogant you are, both in your own opinions and questioning? Not to mention it's an unnecessary question, it's also completely narcissistic to suppose you can just assume that because say one cannot easily see how multiple cells create a larger consciousness, then that must mean the soul not existing is any more provable?

You are indeed functionally retarded with the level of arrogance you speak and believe with. I'm not saying permanently retarded, but you are indeed mentally castrated now.

[Anonymous No.16305034]

>>16305005
>Blah blah the only proof of anything is EMPIRICISM!!
This is midwit pique anon, you've got a long way to go anon. Even if you don't say it, you are constricting your belief to this, where there is no place for factual intuition.

[Anonymous No.16305047]

>>16305022
I cannot describe those colours to a blind person who cannot receive that sense-data anymore than I can take pictures with a broken camera. You can however imagine sights and sounds you've never seen or heard before, find a musician for example and give him a chord he's never heard before and he can either hum it for you, or at the very least recognise it distinct from other chords. In this way the "qualia" of sound is easily reduced to data.

[Anonymous No.16305058]

>>16305047
you cannot imagine "new" colouts, you cannot imagine "new" sounds, you cannot imagine "new" tactile sensations, you cannot imagine "new" proprioceptive sensation you cannot imagine a "new" smell

[Anonymous No.16305060]

>>16305026
The more you delve into those embarrassing attempts at name-calling the more you seem desperate, to me. You are the classic case of a philosophy pseud being called out with the modern understanding of how the body works: you retreat to hermetic definitions and run away. We are not even in a place of discussing the "immortality" of the soul, indeed, because you've yet to prove it exists. The initial proof in OP rests on the fact that humans are self movers, but this is just stated as some kind of obvious axiom, when it isn't. By all means, call me whatever you will, you're still a massive pseud. If you're by chance the same guy who wrote "Eternal Experiencer", it's kind of funny to see you think so highly of yourself when saying such schizotypal bullshit stuff.
>>16305034
Same goes for this post, which I imagine it's also by you. People in this board in general seem to have to do this. They have a disdain for science and whatnot because they live in a cloudy realm of "I can just say shit and it becomes true". You would have massive problems even running a basic experiment with that kind of mindset. There's a long way to go before claiming something like "souls" exist.

[Anonymous No.16305069]

>>16305034
I am not depending on empirical proofs anon, I'll accept any good arguments for the position, so far I have only received assertions, not arguments. I give empirical explanations because at least they have some form of argument to them beyond some guy on the Internet telling me X is true. Even yourself, instead of providing any good argument or reason for me to believe your position, merely say something akin to "if you don't already hold this belief, then you're wrong."
>>16305058
"new" as in not heard or seen before, you certainly can. Like I said, find a musician and test it for yourself. Chords and colours are just combinations of notes and lights, you can combine these to imagine something unheard/unseen before. This is demonstrably so.

[Anonymous No.16305070]

We need to summon Kant in order to settle this empiricism versus rationalism debate.

[Anonymous No.16305074]

>>16305058
You can most definitely do all of these things, not only imagine but also dream, hallucinate, etc etc. How do you think artists compose new music, you absolute moron?

[Anonymous No.16305086]

>>16305070
There is no debate. There is a reason this "debate" was had before the advent of very modern science. People who argue against empiricism are very off the loop regarding how science operates now.
You must understand that for science there are millions of theoretical models that are perfectly self contained, by all means, and yet that doesn't mean they are all right. Something being a mathematical proof does not equate it being a physical reality of the universe. There are plenty of predicted particles in physics that were as invisible and immesurable as the soul was 200 years ago, but predicted mathematically. Some of those were later measured, some weren't. Those measurements are the ONLY way to know how to separate the beautiful mathematical models that work from those that don't. People in this board need to catch up to that, quickly. You can by all means formulate beautiful sets of axioms that are self consistent, and they may very well not apply at all to physical reality. The ONLY thing that allows you test this is measurement.

[Anonymous No.16305091]

>>16305074
you don't comprehend what is the meaning of a "new colour". I am not talking about mixing yellow and blue and making green. I am saying it that a NEW colour is unconceivable. If you tomorrow were to have you eyes opened to see infrared frequencies, you would not see some "predator-vision" where the infrared is substituted by a colour of the visible spectrum. You would instead see the colour of infrared. It is conceivable to imagine an animal that can see infrared, but you cannot conceive of what would be the colour of that infrared - you have to imagine it with colours that you know. Colours are the more well polished example since we can all clearly imagine the visible light spectrum which means we know all possible hues, we have a clear concept of those, but as is with colour is with every other sensorial information - were you able to recollect all smells you still wouldn't know the smells that can't be smelled by humans. Dogs know them. Dogs however, don't know colour. To them colour is inconceivable

[Anonymous No.16305097]

>>16305091
Imagine a red circle. Which shade of red was it? Have you seen it before? Are you absolutely sure of it? If you saw all possible shades of red in front of you could you pic exactly the one you saw in your mind?
If you're an honest person you'll admit you have absolutely no idea. Whatever red your brain produced in that vision could be something you saw or not.

[Anonymous No.16305098]

>>16305060
>If you're by chance the same guy who wrote "Eternal Experiencer", it's kind of funny to see you think so highly of yourself when saying such schizotypal bullshit stuff.
That was not me, but I did read it, and it seems funny that you consider merely a simple easily understandable poetic description "schizotypal bullshit stuff", literally how fucking unthinking do you have to be to think that "Eternal Experiencer" isn't just another way of putting the fact of a fundamental perceiving subject?

Also I literally asked an array of questions in the post you're replying to such as "what do you define as free will" and you've quite literally answered none of them and just insulted me; "desperate", "pseud", "run away from modern le wisdom" etc. It's all just name calling, my occasional name call was something directly related to my argument and questioning, you're literally just insulting and calling it a day. You're the very definition of a retarded newfag, he thinks everything is easily explainable by crappy science and materialism(since that is the intellectual elite of the normie masses) and as of yet have found nothing on your level which would lead you away from its utter brainless stupidity.

>People in this board in general seem to have to do this.
Again not him, but I was right about you being a newfag. Science cannot think, and for most things in life it does not stand as a recorder of truth, it has a specific function. You don't even seem to know what "soul" implies other than "round physically independent thingy in the body which is how you think", all you're doing because of how uneducated and arrogant you are in this lethargy is suppose that you're arguing against Descartes' conception. I am sure this entire conversation could have been solved if you had just understood that you're trying to against the belief in the immortality of the soul(and very poorly at that) rather than the existence of it.

[Anonymous No.16305112]

>>16305097
I am not talking about "new colour" as in "colour of the visible light spectrum never seen in person by you" I am saying a "new colour" as in "adding entirely new hues to the visible light spectrum" - again, can you imagine the colours in the infrared spectrum? Can you imagine ultraviolet colours?

[Anonymous No.16305133]

>>16305069
You're openly asserting anything you want now, and call anything which does not measure up to this irrational belief as wrong, e.g. "philosophy pseud being called out with the modern understanding of how the body works"(never a reply, or by God no chance of a refutation)-- Exactly what you like to critique others as, of course without an explanation, just insults. You are a child that enjoys playing as mr. enlightened rational.

[Anonymous No.16305148]

>>16305098
>he thinks everything is easily explainable by crappy science and materialism
It's actually the opposite. Because of a scientific background I think I understand better than you just how hard it is to explain something. If you want to prove a theoretical particle exists in a laboratory, there is a long and arduous process. Do you understand what I'm saying when I mean that there might've been beautiful math models predicting that 100 years before, but only the measurement can confirm it? Do you understand how hard it is to come up with such a measurement, that sometimes it takes 100 years when the theoretical model was already there? That is the furthest possible from "thinking it's easy to just use science for everything". You are a physical being experiencing physical reality, making claims that have ramifications on it. If your claims were entirely metaphysical, with no ramifications in physical reality, I wouldn't give too much of a shit because by definition it would make no difference.

To give you a concrete example. There is a mathematical proof (Banach-Tarski) that says you can divide a sphere into pieces and use the pieces to build two spheres that are identical to the first. This is a correct and accepted mathematical proof. It obviously doesn't replicate to spheres in physical reality for a multitude of reasons. This doesn't mean it's wrong, but it also doesn't mean that these spheres must exist in some other superior realm. They just happen to be mathematical sentences that are true, and don't imply something about our human experience directly.

In your particular case, I'm not even convinced your proof is correct, but even if it was, it would be expected to have physical ramifications that are measurable. Also, regarding my views on free will, I think along the lines of hard incompatibility. I can't think of any meaningful definition of free will that exists, regardless of determinism. I can't imagine any possible way in which living beings can decide things simultaenously exerting their preference, while completely unforced by external factors.

[Anonymous No.16305156]

If one were to read Heidegger, this thread would be so much easier.

[Anonymous No.16305213]

>>16305133
What open assertions have I made that cannot be argued? If you'd like, I can point to many of your own.
Like I've said, if you can provide me with a good reason to believe in your position, then I'll take it, but all I receive are yours or others' seemingly irrationally held beliefs, and when questioned or given a different answer to the same solution, you simply insult and handwave. Your own deficiency is seen in that, when provided with an empirical answer to a given question, your only response is insults. I'm more than willing to disregard this empirical explanation, but all I received from you, even now, are insults. I have not insulted anyone thus far, only you have, so which are you anon: a liar or deluded?

[Anonymous No.16305223]

>>16305112
Still waiting for an answer

[Anonymous No.16305232]

>>16305112
>>16305223

Can you imagine positive numbers that are negative? What, your brain can't imagine impossible paradoxes?
("Color" is generally understood to be visible light interacting with the eye. Imagining the interaction of infra-red with your eye producing something akin to the visible color is like trying to imagine a negative number that is positive).

[Anonymous No.16305254]

>>16305232
>"Color" is generally understood to be visible light interacting with the eye.
It actually is not since your visual field is created by the brain.

But even if it were the case, you still haven't come up with a satisfying answer. New colours can exist, they are just not conceivable by a human being having qualia - they are not a function of visible light itself, as can be seen by people that can not pass this test (pic related). They have no qualitative experience that allows them to differentiate these two colours and yet these two colours are within the visible light spectrum. Their VISIBLE spectrum is reduced and confused. In the same way a dogs visible spectrum goes from black to white. We can imagine an animal that includes infrared or ultraviolet in its visible spectrum - we can not however conceive what "colour" will it be seeing because that would mean a new colour.

[Anonymous No.16305346]

>>16304370
No shit.

[Anonymous No.16305376]

>>16304810
What is absurd about a form of life having soul science man, you're a human, so what?

[Anonymous No.16305395]

>>16304294
So robots have a soul?

[Anonymous No.16305402]

>>16305395
Robots aren't self-moving big brain.

[Anonymous No.16305868]

>>16304792
The forms can't be proven to exist. We can only reach a delusional state which allows them. All consciousness and its objects are delusion.

[Anonymous No.16305878]

One should agree on what soul means. Is it the Greeks (Aristotle's On Soul) the principle of movement or the monotheistic definition of the "immortal consciousness" ? It can create biased debates

[Anonymous No.16305894]

>>16305868
To believe anything you have to accept the existence of the forms, sophistry denies them hence can't know anything.

[Anonymous No.16305897]

>>16305894
No one knows anything besides one's own delusions.

[Anonymous No.16305905]

>>16304792
The forms are just cognitive categorization

[Anonymous No.16305920]

>>16305897
(((Deep)))

[Anonymous No.16305926]

>>16305905
Wrong, it is closed minded to deny their outer metaphysical existence, but you are right in that Plato sees them as something imminent to the instance of the individual as well.

[Anonymous No.16305934]

>>16304341
he considered soul the concience

[Anonymous No.16305937]

>>16305926
the forms are in intellect, they are intellect

[Anonymous No.16305962]

>>16305920
Not really. The immortal soul is a bastardization of a universal and is much (((deeper))) than what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.16306033]

>>16305926
Plato understood linguistic cognitive categorization and built a metaphysics around it. He was brilliant and laid the groundwork for a lot, but refusing to see the concept of the forms for what it is, especially now that we have a dedicated field to it, is foolish

[Anonymous No.16306041]

>>16305254
Still waiting for a response

[Anonymous No.16306049]

>>16305897
do you know that or is that just you being a dellusional liar (in which case you are wrong)

[Anonymous No.16306093]

>>16306041
I'm sorry anon, but you're actually discussing how the brain works, which is a big no-no in these threads. These threads aren't about that. They're ritualized shitflinging. You're supposed to throw around concepts you barely understand, and wait to receive a concept thrown back that you (and the thrower) are only aware of but don't understand. You get angrier and angrier, and this is pleasurable. Eventually you just start flinging "cuck", "racist", "tranny", "seethe", "dilate".

Allow me to help you:

Color exists within consciousness, because it is only present via the nature of awareness. A color cannot be aware of itself, so it must be within the mind, animated by the soul. This animacy is luminous, and hence, is aware of itself, which only beings with a higher soul are capable of.

[Anonymous No.16306109]

>>16306049
How can the brain know anything not conditioned by it? Riddle me that. I don't claim to know anything other than this unavoidable dilemma.

[Anonymous No.16306130]

>>16304794
This doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous No.16306324]

>>16304971
A soul is not composite, it is incorporeal. You don’t even know the basics. Just read something before.

[Anonymous No.16306340]

>>16305060
>disdain for science
You know science has confirmed a lot of what Plato said, right?

[Anonymous No.16306356]

>>16306033
>refusing to see the concept of the forms for what it is
You have no idea about what the forms are, lol

[Anonymous No.16306698]

>>16304294
I want to read Plato, what's the definitive order?

[Anonymous No.16306764]

>>16304294
No, but he proved that there is now justification for being a twat

[Anonymous No.16307177]

>>16305868
Well, please explain to me then how the proofs put forth in Parmenides are invalid.
>>16305905
This poster read the Wikipedia page for the Forms.

[Anonymous No.16307189]

>>16306698
Here's a post I wrote a while ago detailing my personal recommended reading order.
>>/lit/thread/S16111163#p16119508

[Anonymous No.16307243]

>>16307177
yes, most people here haven't read plato

[Anonymous No.16307534]

>>16307177
>Well, please explain to me then how the proofs put forth in Parmenides are invalid.
See >>16306109

[Anonymous No.16307734]

>>16304891

Neither parents, nor anyone else, can deliberately make any one man. No one can guarantee a successful conception and, moreover, no one can guarantee that the one being born will be me or you. It has all but never happened, the coincidence of me and the one being born is a unique event. The efforts of all current men's parents are irrelevant to their being since no one could guarantee or even guess that any one of them would be in general, and be themselves in particular. It is only after the immanent finality of their being that their making is then retroactively imagined, ironically enough in a total inversion of your premise, i.e. a unique top-down and inside-out event sanctioning all bottom-up and outside-in failure allegedly pertaining to it. Obviously Christological.

[Anonymous No.16307793]

>>16304550

[Anonymous No.16307804]

>>16306698
-Plato Five Dialogues
-Ion
-Laches
-Lysis
-Hippias
-Republic
-Symposium
-Cratylus
-Protogoras
-Gorgias
-Phaedrus
-Philebus

Objective order for harder dialogues:
-Parmenides
-Theaetetus
-Sophist
-Statesman
-Timaeus
-Critias
-Laws

A lot of these continue other dialogues where they left off, or have some other specific order, but I'm sure you'll be able to remember them as you read along; and the various ideas.

[Anonymous No.16307830]

>>16307793
>literally putting the cart (soul) before the horses
This is why all talk of the soul will always lead to ludicrous nonsense and the word should be abandoned. A soul is just a fancy term FOR mind and body, not something separate, like the picture suggests.

[Anonymous No.16307841]

>>16307830
But that's literally what Plato said, it's just a metaphor bro.

[Anonymous No.16307852]

>>16304550

[Anonymous No.16307883]

>>16304550
>>16307852

If you want to be anal you could imagine 4 lines making a rectangle, per the circle-square idea.

[Anonymous No.16307997]

>>16307793
>>16307830
That image is wrong. The horses are not mind and body but parts of the soul.

[Anonymous No.16308172]

>>16307804
>>16307189
I see that you two are intellectuals and gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.16308343]

Consciousness exists solely in the brain.

Once the brain no longer functions, consciousness is no longer experienced, there is nothing but the dreamless sleep.

Anyone who disagrees with this assessment is a disgruntled theologian.

[Anonymous No.16308407]

>>16304294
Sadhguru disproved the soul.

Concioussness is simply memory. The coalescence of physical, evolutionary, and karmic memory. When you lose your arm you lose memory, or gain memory depends on how you look at it.

I dare you to define your concioussness in a way without in some way referring to memory.

[Anonymous No.16308575]

>>16304294
>a source of everything else that moves cannot be destroyed
Y tho?
>move from the outside, move from within
No such distinction. It's just a matter of formulation.
>the storm is raging
>the movement of air makes it so that the storm is raging
>a butterfly has set the storm in motion by flapping its wings
>it flaps to fly and flies to fuck, for it has been created by and as part of a mechanism that requires it to for its existence
>I watch the butterfly while eating a burger
>moved by my wonder, curiosity and hunger

I just realised how severely stunted our language is when it comes to expressing cause.

What is wouldn't have been if it didn't behave approximately like it does when in its present circumstances.

[Anonymous No.16308618]

>>16308407
>Concioussness is simply memory. The coalescence of physical, evolutionary, and karmic memory. When you lose your arm you lose memory, or gain memory depends on how you look at it.
Isn't this Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.16308633]

>>16307534
If you read Republic, Phaedo, and Parmenides (and others), you'll see that Plato makes this problem a lot more difficult by showing things that are known yet are not "conditioned". It is this very fact that forces us to try understand such knowledge on a deeper level, and it is an attempt to seek solutions that the Forms are necessary. This essay will perhaps be enlightening. http://libgen.rs/scimag/10.1111%2Fj.2041-6962.2005.tb01951.x

[Anonymous No.16308637]

>>16308618
Schopenhauer studdied Therevada buddhism no?

[Anonymous No.16308659]

>>16308633
>things that are known yet are not "conditioned"
I guess I have to re-read, as it's been over a decade since I've touched Plato. I'm curious for an example of such a thing, though.

[Anonymous No.16308680]

>>16308659
It's the basis of his theory of recollection, which is really a doctrine of innate knowledge/understanding (of the Forms, among other things). Meno, Phaedo, and Republic are the key texts in this regard, so give em a reread and see what you discover.

[Anonymous No.16308700]

>>16308343
as if dreamless sleep weren't consciousness and there wasn't a natural emergence from that state. you're dumb anon.

[Anonymous No.16308713]

>>16308637
Yes, I'm just pointing out that for modern literary reference, Schopenhauer would come before Sadhguru. I haven't read Sadhguru obviously, but I'm also willing to bet Schopenhauer is more relevant to the thread also, as in he would refer to and utilize established concepts and terms in the Western philosophical tradition more appropriately to explain what Sadhguru explains. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Anonymous No.16308751]

>>16308343
Even "dreamless sleep" requires a subject. You make it sound like there is a concrete immaterial soul, a subject currently occupied by dreamless sleep. But it's less than that. There is no sleep with no one to sleep.

And if so, why identify with your ostensible dreamless sleeper, rather than any product of your life, or causally independent yet similar being? Or perhaps yourself who has been?

Personally, I would compare my soul to my will. I want things to be arranged a certain way irrespectively of my ability to experience this being the case. Even if causally disconnected from our universe, I want there to be something rather than nothing. And after I cease to experience, I want the products of my life to persist and develop new emergent properties, for I consider them beautiful and good. I will always have thought so, and always have wanted it, no matter my spatiotemporal absence.

My will extends beyond what currently and locally is, or what I am currently conscious of. As such, death, or not thinking at all at a given moment, makes no more difference than happening to be distracted.

[Anonymous No.16308759]

>>16308713
You might be right, but i havent read Schopenhauer, he seems like a fag to me.

But i think its an old concept in indian philosophy, that both Schop and Sadh lifted it from.