My Ghost Story

[Nonpareil]

Based on that perspective, my belief isn't irrational.

Unfortunately, rationality is not based on perspective. It is based on fact.

 

[Jodie]

"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." -Plato

 

[Nonpareil]

"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." -Plato

Yes, yes. That's wonderful.

It doesn't make your belief in dead mothers visiting people in their dreams any more rational.

 

[Jodie]

Thank you for demonstrating my point so precisely.

 

[Nonpareil]

Thank you for demonstrating my point so precisely.

You haven't made a point. You have claimed that Plato's allegory of the cave somehow justifies your belief that your dead mother visited you in a dream, and then utterly failed to back that up.

It does not. Even if that were what the allegory were meant to illustrate - and it isn't - philosophy has moved on since Plato. His work was important and laid the foundation of modern philosophy.

It was not, however, a particularly good representation of reality.

Plato believed quite a lot of silly things. He made quite a lot of silly arguments. He is studied today not necessarily because he figured things out, but because it's important to know where modern philosophy came from.

Your belief is not rational from any viewpoint, because the rationality of a statement does not change from person to person. It changes based on the amount of information available. A statement is rational if it is supported by the evidence.

Plato's allegory of the cave is not evidence, and it does nothing to alter the rest of the evidence that we do have.

 

[Pixel42]

Sure there is, because it happened.

Nobody is disputing that it happened. But there is no good reason to interpret it in the way you are choosing to interpret it, and many good reasons not to. So your interpretation is irrational.

 

[Jodie]

You haven't made a point. You have claimed that Plato's allegory of the cave somehow justifies your belief that your dead mother visited you in a dream, and then utterly failed to back that up.

It does not. Even if that were what the allegory were meant to illustrate - and it isn't - philosophy has moved on since Plato. His work was important and laid the foundation of modern philosophy.

It was not, however, a particularly good representation of reality.

Plato believed quite a lot of silly things. He made quite a lot of silly arguments. He is studied today not necessarily because he figured things out, but because it's important to know where modern philosophy came from.

Your belief is not rational from any viewpoint, because the rationality of a statement does not change from person to person. It changes based on the amount of information available. A statement is rational if it is supported by the evidence.

Plato's allegory of the cave is not evidence, and it does nothing to alter the rest of the evidence that we do have.

It illustrates that you may not be aware of the evidence because you are unable to perceive it due to your physical limitations. It isn't rational to state that something definitely doesn't exist or didn't happen simply because you lack physical evidence. I believe my experience was real, the most that you can say about it is that you don't know.

 

[Jodie]

Nobody is disputing that it happened. But there is no good reason to interpret it in the way you are choosing to interpret it, and many good reasons not to. So your interpretation is irrational.

Not really, it was definitely a dream, but I can't prove that it was really my mother. However, I don't feel the need to prove it to anyone. If someone states emphatically that it wasn't my dead mother then what exactly are they basing that opinion on? Is that not also irrational?

 

[John Jones]

I'm not certain how you would go about researching visitation dreams. I know without a doubt that my mother visited me after she died. We were still young at the time, both my younger siblings were still in school. My mother told me what was going to happen to them and asked me to look after them. Amazingly, what she said came true.

What could convince you it was something other than an after-death visitation by your mother?

 

[John Jones]

Sure there is, because it happened.

No, you claim it happened. There's a significant difference.

 

[John Jones]

You are right. You can explain what you think my experience was, or meant, but life is more than chemical reactions in the brain or statistics on a page. It was real to me and that's all that matters.

That's all that matters to you. It's a distinction that makes a difference.

 

[Nonpareil]

It illustrates that you may not be aware of the evidence because you are unable to perceive it due to your physical limitations.

That isn't what Plato's cave is intended to illustrate, and even if it were, it's hogwash.

It isn't rational to state that something definitely doesn't exist or didn't happen simply because you lack physical evidence.

We don't simply lack physical evidence. We fail to find any evidence whatsoever where we would expect to find it.

Ghosts do not exist and spirits of deceased loved ones do not visit you in dreams.

I believe my experience was real, the most that you can say about it is that you don't know.

No. The most that I can say - and be quite right about - is that you are wrong.

Not really, it was definitely a dream, but I can't prove that it was really my mother.

Because it wasn't.

If someone states emphatically that it wasn't my dead mother then what exactly are they basing that opinion on?

The fact that ghosts don't exist, there is no such thing as the soul, and dead relatives do not visit their family in dreams.

Is that not also irrational?

No.

 

[John Jones]

Thank you for demonstrating my point so precisely.

What point was that?

 

[Jodie]

What could convince you it was something other than an after-death visitation by your mother?

Absolutely nothing. I have a strong faith that we continue after we die. I'm not particularly religious, I consider myself to be spiritual. I also don't believe in ghosts as the dead manifesting but do think we can be reached through dreams on a subconscious level if the departed wants to contact us in some way.

 

[Jodie]

What point was that?

See my above subsequent response to NP.

 

[Jodie]

That isn't what Plato's cave is intended to illustrate, and even if it were, it's hogwash.

It most certainly does, all the people that are chained in the cave see are the shadows of the people and objects behind them. They name the shadows and think that's the extent of it not realizing that the true forms are behind them. It's pretty straightforward, I don't think his analogy is hogwash.

We don't simply lack physical evidence. We fail to find any evidence whatsoever where we would expect to find it.

Not so, you are chasing proverbial shadows. Does your shadow define you?

Ghosts do not exist and spirits of deceased loved ones do not visit you in dreams.

I agree with you that ghosts don't exist. There might actually be some kind of 5th dimensional being occupying the same space that we do that is capable of borrowing our memories, thoughts, and fears and using those images to project something it thinks we can understand. That's just my theory. It might be able to do the same with dreams, however, it might have been my mother.

No. The most that I can say - and be quite right about - is that you are wrong.

That's your ego talking, not your reason.

Because it wasn't.

I believe it was so I guess we are at an impasse.

The fact that ghosts don't exist, there is no such thing as the soul, and dead relatives do not visit their family in dreams.

You have no way to prove that so it is irrational for you state it definitively.

No.

yes

 

[Pup]

It most certainly does, all the people that are chained in the cave see are the shadows of the people and objects behind them. They name the shadows and think that's the extent of it not realizing that the true forms are behind them. It's pretty straightforward, I don't think his analogy is hogwash.

Similarly, it might be a metaphor for someone convinced of something supernatural because they've experienced it as plainly as the shadows on the cave wall, but in fact the supernatural is only an artifact of the flickering shadows and not part of the true forms.

 

[Nonpareil]

It's pretty straightforward

And deals with the idea of philosophy being superior to empirical evidence. You only seem to be aware of the opening part of the allegory. Regardless...

I don't think his analogy is hogwash.

...you're still quite wrong on that front.

We have all of the evidence that we need. Claiming that there may be more that we just haven't seen yet is worthless. It is only valid in the same way that the claim "there may be wizards that you just haven't seen yet" is valid - which is to say, only in the most technical, useless sense.

There might actually be some kind of 5th dimensional being occupying the same space that we do

Nonsensical.

that is capable of borrowing our memories, thoughts, and fears and using those images to project something it thinks we can understand. That's just my theory.

It may also be an evil wizard.

That's your ego talking, not your reason.

My ego has nothing to do with this. You are, quite flatly, wrong.

I believe it was so I guess we are at an impasse.

No. You are at an impasse.

The rational people here have moved on without you.

You have no way to prove that so it is irrational for you state it definitively.

You really don't understand how this works.

 

[Jodie]

Similarly, it might be a metaphor for someone convinced of something supernatural because they've experienced it as plainly as the shadows on the cave wall, but in fact the supernatural is only an artifact of the flickering shadows and not part of the true forms.

It would have to be the shadow of my mother's former self since she was deceased and she appeared in a dream. I do understand what you are saying, though, it might not have been my mother at all, shadow or otherwise. What was said actually happened several years after the fact so I do believe there was more to it than just a dream.

 

[Jodie]

And deals with the idea of philosophy being superior to empirical evidence. You only seem to be aware of the opening part of the allegory. Regardless...

No, I'm pretty sure I understood the allegory perfectly well in that what is seen may only be part of a greater whole. The word fact used in the scientific sense refers to observations, not truth, therefore if the cave dwellers are unable to observe the forms behind them they will never know the truth regarding their existence.

...you're still quite wrong on that front.

You haven't observed anything that would validate that hypothesis.

We have all of the evidence that we need. Claiming that there may be more that we just haven't seen yet is worthless. It is only valid in the same way that the claim "there may be wizards that you just haven't seen yet" is valid - which is to say, only in the most technical, useless sense.

We could speculate a 100 ways until Tuesday and never come up with a suitable explanation for how people can survive the afterlife, it doesn't mean that it isn't a possibility. You simply believe that it isn't possible

Nonsensical.

Perhaps

It may also be an evil wizard.

I doubt it

My ego has nothing to do with this. You are, quite flatly, wrong.

I am quite roundly right.

No. You are at an impasse.

I don't feel that way, my opinion contradicts yours, that's an impasse.

The rational people here have moved on without you.

That's fine, I doubt I'll notice the absence.

You really don't understand how this works.

I understand just fine but as in the story of "The Emperor that Had No Clothes" people tend to dislike it when I point out the flaws in what they define as rational.