"Behold, a new cycle of Life..."
February 20, 2015
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Mortal souls, behold a new cycle of life and mortality. …
you choose your genius... the responsibility is with the chooser -- God is justified.
Plato, The Republic, Book 10
you choose your genius... the responsibility is with the chooser -- God is justified.
Plato, The Republic, Book 10
1
Plato effortlessly lies and lies frequently. Why does he not state the truth: the tale of Er is a factual as the fable of Atlantis. Plato’s genius can be seen in the details of his stories which lends credence to their veracity: No one questions that Socrates was a real person and everything we know about Atlantis is only found in Plato’s writings. The tales are never original to Plato; he only relates what he has heard and it is always a tertiary source. Nietzsche writes that the truth is ugly and it is not for everyone while Plato can only be understood correctly through removing the sham statements piecemeal.
In the Republic, Plato writes that in his state stories of God will not depict him changing forms or as the author of evil. While this is typically used as arguments against the unreasonable Pagan Gods, these statements also apply to Christianity: God is the author of evil [Isaiah] and the disciples do not recognize Jesus [Luke] after the resurrection.
Civilization has transitioned from the theism of antiquity, to deism of the Enlightenment, to agnosticism and now, in the modern age, to atheism. Even if at times atheism is shouted from the rooftops, it is greeted with a shrug by most people. Are people now sympathetic to the idea of there is no God and this life is all there is to our existence? It would be seem so.
Although some commentators write that our founding Fathers were Christians and not the more accurate description of Deist, they are reticent to bring to the reader’s attention that they failed miserably in creating a Christian state. In fact, the prohibition of a religious test to be given by the government is enshrined in the Constitution. This omission is striking in light of history to that time all European countries where headed by Christian kings and queens. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were more familiar the horrors of the English Revolution than our contemporaries. Since they founded a Republic, and not a Democracy, they must have had suspicions about the motivations of the majority of their unenlightened countrymen.
Nietzsche writes that western Christianity has allowed everyone to possess an immortal soul; thereby creating an equality where none existed before. Why is Fred against this seemingly innocuous innovation? Could it be that he believes that only the virtuous should posses or have the benefit of an immortal soul? Does one acquire a more permanent soul by overcoming suffering [What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger]? If people do not not struggle in this life, does the soul become weaker until it withers away after death? A discussion of the weakened soul is found in the Republic.
It seems that the correct understanding of the Plato’s immortal soul is for the attentive and thoughtful reader to dismiss the possibility of its existence. The principle reason to dismiss the immortal soul is the concept that the living come from the dead. If the soul is immortal, there is no reason to suppose it reincarnates in subsequent human beings or, more incredibly, in other animals. If the soul reincarnates into future individuals and we do not remember our previous lives, what purpose does reincarnation have? If we can not remember our former lives, we will render the same mistakes into the indefinite future. People learn throughout their lives, but to “reset” people to the beginning does not seem reasonable. The only difference would be the fortunate or unfortunate circumstances of their births, while their motivation and subsequent behavior would remained unchanged and the outcomes of their lives are subject to chance. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Why should reincarnation exist, unless the Gods delight in tragedy.
“Most curious, he [Er] said, was the spectacle--sad and laughable and strange; for the choice of the souls was in most cases based on their experience of a previous life.”
It seems that the author is surprised that the souls will choose their future life based on their previous life (NB-not previous lives), when there is no indication that they would have no other memories to base their decision, should be a indication to the reader the Plato is not being totally forthcoming.
As in typical of Platonic writing, the truth is to be found in the thought out details. Philosophy teaches that mankind is naturally divided into three classes: the intelligent, the strong, and everyone else. Throughout recorded history we do not see any change, or improvement for that matter, in humanity’s behavior. The one percent, the nine percent and the 90 percent do not change, while their circumstances do change, most notably after the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age. Gossip has not changed- over the fence, on the telephone, and now in social media- only the circumstances have changed.
Therefore, while individual’s choices for their souls reflect their life’s experience, their behavior, if history is a guide, is a constant during all their regenerations. Those who seek knowledge will force the masses out of caves in one age, create the art of writing in another age, and will research and document their findings in our age. Plato must be aware that these conclusions will be reached by a select minority of readers.
We speculate that when the souls choose their fate it is according to reason, not by emotion, based on their “experience of a previous life”. We are justified with this conclusion, since people tend to make poor judgements and decisions repeatedly and we see no reason why this would not be evident at the moment of choosing one’s fate. While we concede that the regenerated have no memories of their previous life, we are willing to admit they do, in fact, have strong and powerful feelings from their previous life or lives. We mention “lives” since it is reasonable that the pleasure of learning, for example, will be experienced in every regeneration. Since vague personal feelings are subjective, we will not discuss possible practical implications of these emotions.
We conclude that while Plato’s arguments for an immortal soul are designed to instill this belief in the majority of readers, a minority will conclude there is no tangible soul, immortal or otherwise, and there is no evidence for God in Nature . The select minority who read and understand the text esoterically, coupled with their subjective experiences, will come to a different, yet not unreasonable, conclusion.
In the Republic, Plato writes that in his state stories of God will not depict him changing forms or as the author of evil. While this is typically used as arguments against the unreasonable Pagan Gods, these statements also apply to Christianity: God is the author of evil [Isaiah] and the disciples do not recognize Jesus [Luke] after the resurrection.
Civilization has transitioned from the theism of antiquity, to deism of the Enlightenment, to agnosticism and now, in the modern age, to atheism. Even if at times atheism is shouted from the rooftops, it is greeted with a shrug by most people. Are people now sympathetic to the idea of there is no God and this life is all there is to our existence? It would be seem so.
Although some commentators write that our founding Fathers were Christians and not the more accurate description of Deist, they are reticent to bring to the reader’s attention that they failed miserably in creating a Christian state. In fact, the prohibition of a religious test to be given by the government is enshrined in the Constitution. This omission is striking in light of history to that time all European countries where headed by Christian kings and queens. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were more familiar the horrors of the English Revolution than our contemporaries. Since they founded a Republic, and not a Democracy, they must have had suspicions about the motivations of the majority of their unenlightened countrymen.
Nietzsche writes that western Christianity has allowed everyone to possess an immortal soul; thereby creating an equality where none existed before. Why is Fred against this seemingly innocuous innovation? Could it be that he believes that only the virtuous should posses or have the benefit of an immortal soul? Does one acquire a more permanent soul by overcoming suffering [What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger]? If people do not not struggle in this life, does the soul become weaker until it withers away after death? A discussion of the weakened soul is found in the Republic.
It seems that the correct understanding of the Plato’s immortal soul is for the attentive and thoughtful reader to dismiss the possibility of its existence. The principle reason to dismiss the immortal soul is the concept that the living come from the dead. If the soul is immortal, there is no reason to suppose it reincarnates in subsequent human beings or, more incredibly, in other animals. If the soul reincarnates into future individuals and we do not remember our previous lives, what purpose does reincarnation have? If we can not remember our former lives, we will render the same mistakes into the indefinite future. People learn throughout their lives, but to “reset” people to the beginning does not seem reasonable. The only difference would be the fortunate or unfortunate circumstances of their births, while their motivation and subsequent behavior would remained unchanged and the outcomes of their lives are subject to chance. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Why should reincarnation exist, unless the Gods delight in tragedy.
“Most curious, he [Er] said, was the spectacle--sad and laughable and strange; for the choice of the souls was in most cases based on their experience of a previous life.”
It seems that the author is surprised that the souls will choose their future life based on their previous life (NB-not previous lives), when there is no indication that they would have no other memories to base their decision, should be a indication to the reader the Plato is not being totally forthcoming.
As in typical of Platonic writing, the truth is to be found in the thought out details. Philosophy teaches that mankind is naturally divided into three classes: the intelligent, the strong, and everyone else. Throughout recorded history we do not see any change, or improvement for that matter, in humanity’s behavior. The one percent, the nine percent and the 90 percent do not change, while their circumstances do change, most notably after the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age. Gossip has not changed- over the fence, on the telephone, and now in social media- only the circumstances have changed.
Therefore, while individual’s choices for their souls reflect their life’s experience, their behavior, if history is a guide, is a constant during all their regenerations. Those who seek knowledge will force the masses out of caves in one age, create the art of writing in another age, and will research and document their findings in our age. Plato must be aware that these conclusions will be reached by a select minority of readers.
We speculate that when the souls choose their fate it is according to reason, not by emotion, based on their “experience of a previous life”. We are justified with this conclusion, since people tend to make poor judgements and decisions repeatedly and we see no reason why this would not be evident at the moment of choosing one’s fate. While we concede that the regenerated have no memories of their previous life, we are willing to admit they do, in fact, have strong and powerful feelings from their previous life or lives. We mention “lives” since it is reasonable that the pleasure of learning, for example, will be experienced in every regeneration. Since vague personal feelings are subjective, we will not discuss possible practical implications of these emotions.
We conclude that while Plato’s arguments for an immortal soul are designed to instill this belief in the majority of readers, a minority will conclude there is no tangible soul, immortal or otherwise, and there is no evidence for God in Nature . The select minority who read and understand the text esoterically, coupled with their subjective experiences, will come to a different, yet not unreasonable, conclusion.