String of Thought

A series of thoughts I had from last class: Is there such a thing as earth (a whole - composition of things), or just the components that make it appear whole? Is any true form a composite of things? As in sun-ness. As in, there would be no such thing (form) as sun-ness, but only round-ness, hot-ness, bright-ness, etc. But to know the sun, the form of sun-ness must develop, which we (humans) create. But was the possibility of the creation of sun-ness (innate) in nature? (remember Keane's example of the possible form of boat being within nature in the form of log, though the log, being a composite of things would also not be a true form in this example) Does sun-ness exist only for humans? Can the sun exist without sun-ness? We only create sun-ness to know it
(?) Or was there a blueprint in nature to create sun-ness (the composition of other forms is part of the blueprint)? If there wasn't a blueprint, it was a mere matter of chance it (the sun in our solar system) came about. If this is true, the same can be said about humanity (the sun is required for our existence). (I know, I am starting to talk about design, which most of you, if not all, dispell). Something coming to be by chance, I will refer to as coming to be by mistake. Do mistakes stop happening when we willfully create forms of things (bringing together a composition of other forms, as in refrigerator)? Or are all of these possibilities already in nature (the possibility of refrigerator)? If so, why are these possibilities in nature? (by mistake?) Why do humans have the ability to stop everything that manifests (new manifestations, refrigerators) from being a mistake? Is it a mistake that we have this ability? If the potential for us to stop the manifestation of mistakes exists (sun was mistake, frige was not), it existed in nature (even if it was a mistake). It existed before us. It could have happened before us. But it didn't. Why? The universe always held the possibility of creating new forms, but needed the proper medium to come up, by mistake, to do so? If this medium is a mistake, it may never have developed. Why then have the possibility of new forms, without a sure medium to make them manifest? These possibilities could also be mistakes, but at least the possibility of stopping mistakes (frige) existed before us within nature, and any possibility existing before the medium it needs to come to fruition must exist on some plane absent of the medium.

I think more can be fleshed out from this, but I'll leave it at that for now.

All is One and All is Many

All of these deductions/arguments argue in one way or another for the one being one and/or many (and one being not one and/or not many), showing that someone can logically argue that oneness and multiplicity co-exist in every facet of the universe. It doesn't seem to me that Parmenides only wishes to argue for one underlying principle in the universe (oneness), but also wishes to show, aside from showing that all is one, that all is also many (and one). There is also a change in the context in which one is used throughout the deductions; at times one is used to represent one object, and other times one is used to describe the universe as a whole. If each object can be one and many, and the universe is one and many, this could also be seen as an attempt to describe the microcosm-macrocosm connection, in which each component of the universe mirrors the universe as a whole through their nature (oneness and manyness). Perhaps it is an attempt to explain the possibility of a pantheistic monism. All is one through the essence of oneness, and this one expresses itself in many ways (all is many).

Trees and Tables

Back to the table... This is a possibility that came to mind: the wood (or tree) has an unhuman made Form (and can therefore be referred to as natural - I am also defining natural/artificial through this), and the table has a human made Form (and is therefore artificial). The (prehuman existing) mental (thought/conscious) element of the Form is in the wood/tree, within which there is a mental bluprint, and mental atom-like things to solidify/manifest the wood/tree. The table exists as a human manipulation (unnatural) of the Form of the wood/tree. I am working this around the notions described in Timaeus (and elsewhere). Thought must travel through a receptacle for something to manifest. One is dependent on the other, as can be seen in Parmenides explanation of the one and being. One is dependent on being, and being dependent on one (one is analogous to thought, and being to receptacle, or vice-versa; it doesn't really matter, no pun intended). The Form is thought which must travel through receptacle, of which the nature is partially the blueprint of the Form and the thinking atom-like things described above. The receptacle is molding-like-stuff to manifest thought/Forms, and also contains the potential for other thinking beings (humans) to mold what it contains (i.e. humans manipulating wood to mold a table). Whether through the nonhuman mind, within which is the realm of Forms (trees), or through the mind of humans (tables), the object exists as thought prior to being manifest.

Madness

As Socrates catches himself making a "foolish and close to impious speech" for the sake of rhetorical prowess, and begins the speech in argument for the one in love (philosophical love), he still permits the idea of love being a sort of madness, agreed upon early in the dialogue, and says "the best things we have come from madness, when it is given as a gift of the god. (Does Socrates think there is any kind of madness that is not a gift from the god?) He proceeds to speak of four kinds of madness, all with positive connotations. The first one being prophets, the second kind I am unsure of what he is referring to (244E), perhaps priests (?), the third poets and musicians, and the fourth being love, which must be proven to be provided "by the gods to ensure our greatest fortune." Why provided by the gods? Because only madness provided by the gods provides good fortune (if there is any other kind of madness)? Though unsure of how the word madness translates and it is an ambigious term to begin with, it is interesting to find these positions attributed to madness. When Socrates speaks of madness it appears he means the one influenced is not entirely in control of one's actions, as in the prophet and poet are mediums through which the gods create positive (as in extended) imprints on the human world, for the benefit of humans. When madness is involved, is there a motive, and is the motive always the same? If love is seen as a madness, and the lover is a medium for the gods, the motive seems to be to have the lover recognize the Form of Beauty, and aspire towards the realm of Forms, the soul, and unite with its origin/source; which could be argued (purpose of the idea of reincarnation/transcending to return) is the aim of all creation, and the god (s) itself. Could the other forms of madness be seen to have the same motive?

Phaedrus

During the second speech, when Socrates begins describing the nature of the soul, there are strikingly similar images to my mind as that of angels, especially when he mentions the development of wings. Of course I keep in mind that he mentions prior that he will describe this situation in metaphor (what it is like), at least according to the footnote (246A). Though I wonder if this is a partial inspiration for the angelic images found throughout Christian literature/thought. I am also curious if the angels referred to in the Old Testament (the Jewish angelic hierarchy could have also been inspired by Babylonian/Zoroastrian concepts which may have surfaced a few hundred years before Plato) appeared before Phaedrus. I'm willing to bet that concepts of the divine coupled with the notion of wings appeared before Plato conjured up this idea. This also brings to question as to whether Plato considers the soul (or whatever one wants to call it) divine. Within his metaphorical analysis of the soul, it appears one's soul can be either bodily or divine, and this at least draws a distinction between two states (which the soul can adhere to). He explains the struggle a soul goes through when encountering a situation (love) that can swing the soul in either direction (to the body or the divine) depending on the labor and will of the driver of the soul. This concept is central to the mysteries, and laboring to unite one's soul with the divine, rather than the body is the aim of the initiate. This tells me that, even if the overarching theme of this dialogue is rhetoric or education, this tale about the immortal soul and how to shift it toward the divine in such a confusing situation as love is no less important, at least for initiates (Plato and others). And to shift the dialogue to a theme of rhetoric, may have been strategic for the majority (non-initiates) to easily latch onto and undermine the philosophic love speech.

Observations from film watched in class

I found it interesting that one guy made a comment about language being closely tied to consciousness, as it gives us the ability to have thoughts of our thoughts? Would we not be able to examine our thoughts if we didn't have a language? I know that quite frequently I have a thought that I am able to comprehend without being able to put it into words. One might suggest I am not really able to comprehend it, or as well as I think, if I cannot put it into words, but I think this is bullshit. Our consciousness has the ability to take the objective world in and make sense of it without explaining to itself (in words) what it is that it is entertaining. We see this in animals. Surely those animals that are able to comprehend some of their surroundings (i.e. the ability to remember the need for a tool to crack a nut open) is done without the animal talking in the type of language that is implied (built on a foundation of words with attributed meanings). Its consciousness is communicating to itself, but in a way that is beyond words.

In one experiment it was suggested that the chimp being tested was able to know what was in a human's mind. The chimp knew that a key was needed to open a box, and it knew that the guy wanted to open the box, and therefore showed the guy where they key was put. I just needed to type (think) this out to understand what was meant by claiming the chimp knew what was in the human's mind. Though it is likely the chimp only knew this through repitition, because the whole experiment was around the box being opened. The chimp always knew that the second man that came into the room would open the box, because that is what the man always did. Therefore this knowledge was drilled in the chimp's mind through repitition. What useful information does this tell us about a chimp's mind? Such experiments seem to be a waste of energy and resources.

As was mentioned in the film, I think it is most fascinating to know that nonhuman animal minds are different and unique from each other and from humans, andit is unnecessary to think of them as or prove them to be deficient human minds. Experimenting with them may do nothing but allow us to marvel when they might show they are capable of something we were unsure they were capable of and at the difference from humans. We should already treat all living beings with respect and fulfill obligations to them when able, and not have to understand their consciousness more before we do so.

Significance of Nonhuman Animal Consciousness

It is undeniable that many animals have some cognitive abilities, and are conscious to some extent of their surroundings and actions, but what significance does this knowledge have in terms of human treatment towards animals? It may seem amazing that an animal can crack open a nut through the same means over and over, or draw termites out of a tree with a stick, and then eat them off of the stick, but does it only seem amazing because they already appear so inferior than humans that any cognitive ability we observe from them makes us amazed? Is it really more amazing than the fact that they actually exist? I'm not sure any of these cognitive abilities we observe in them warrents any change humans treatment towards them. Of course I am assuming that they receive the general concern and care that they deserve by being living beings, and there is certainly a lot of unwarrented cruelty towards animals. I am referring mostly to consumption of animals for food as warrented human treatment. Come to think of it, this may be the only issue that I'm not sure should change given any recognized cognitive abilities. Whether it is known they have consciousness or cognitive abilities or not, I do not think animals should be subject to experiments, hunting for sport, or stolen from their environment for the entertainment of humans, apparent in zoos and circuses. I consider these acts of cruelty that no living being should be subject to, given the possibility that they may be consciously harmed from such actions. However, if a pig is known to have fairly highly advanced cognitive abilities relative to other nonhuman animals, I see nothing wrong in killing it for food if it will provide sustenance to humans.