Are we refusing the possibility of Plato's cave?

[Undesired Walrus]

Hey there.
Now, not for a second, would I presume virtually anyone in the conspiracy movement has the tolerance or intellect to assume that the Plato's cave argument is their argument, but watching a few Kubrick films recently (I cant stand not seeing his movies for more than a month) has got me wondering: Are we being a bit harsh?

In Eyes Wide Shut, our main character (*Spoilers*) walks into a massive mansion, and sees who we presume to be something higher, something beyond the shadows, and essentially, on the other side of Plato's cave. We dont know whether these shadowy figures are the Illuminati, the NWO, or a Kubrick invention, but the fact remains is that they are something beyond what we originally thought to be true. This scene, is one of my favourite in movie history.

This ideal sits badly with me, as I see Loose Change and others as immensly damaging to the fabric of society, rationality, and logic. But I also cannot dismiss the sheer power, and intellectual and philosophical debate, of thinking that there is something behind us, that we cannot comprehend or even believe.

Which makes me wonder why the entire group of truthers are insane lunatics, who seem partially educated and close-minded.

What is your position on this?

 

[T.A.M.]

I am a realist.

Is there power in money...of course. Do the wealthy control much of what goes on in the world...yes, I think so.

Is there some all powerful, all evil cabal set on enslaving the rest of us humans into slavery or set on controlling us through information and monetary manipulation...No, I doubt it, and I have seen no legitimate proof to convince me.

I guess if life is not the way you want it, you try to find someone to blame, and in the case of the believers in the NWO, it is easier on them to blame their troubles on some all powerful evil cabal which they have no control over, than to say that they might be partly to blame, and perhaps they themselves could change it...

TAM

 

[gumboot]

The baby boomers consist of 1/3 of the world's population, but control 2/3 of the world's wealth.

All you oldies are in on it...

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

I am only 36....so he means you walrus...lol

TAM

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Is there some all powerful, all evil cabal set on enslaving the rest of us humans into slavery or set on controlling us through information and monetary manipulation...No, I doubt it, and I have seen no legitimate proof to convince me.

It's more a matter of not actually believing that these thing exist in a underground bunker somewhere, but that there is something on another layer of understanding, like behind us in Plato's cave.

I dont know, maybe it is because I like Kubrick so much, maybe it is because I find the seemingly cold reality of life rather uncomfortable, but ignoring the power, and philosophical implications of Kubricks work (About a higher being, but never God) seems a bit of a cop out.

 

[D'rok]

Hey there.
Now, not for a second, would I presume virtually anyone in the conspiracy movement has the tolerance or intellect to assume that the Plato's cave argument is their argument, but watching a few Kubrick films recently (I cant stand not seeing his movies for more than a month) has got me wondering: Are we being a bit harsh?

In Eyes Wide Shut, our main character (*Spoilers*) walks into a massive mansion, and sees who we presume to be something higher, something beyond the shadows, and essentially, on the other side of Plato's cave. We dont know whether these shadowy figures are the Illuminati, the NWO, or a Kubrick invention, but the fact remains is that they are something beyond what we originally thought to be true. This scene, is one of my favourite in movie history.

This ideal sits badly with me, as I see Loose Change and others as immensly damaging to the fabric of society, rationality, and logic. But I also cannot dismiss the sheer power, and intellectual and philosophical debate, of thinking that there is something behind us, that we cannot comprehend or even believe.

Which makes me wonder why the entire group of truthers are insane lunatics, who seem partially educated and close-minded.

What is your position on this?

As a philosophy junkie, I shudder at any association of Plato and twoofers. (Or Kubrick for that matter). The Eternal Form of the Good is what one finds in the illumination outside the Cave....not some shadowy cabal of Moloch-worshipping NWO'ers.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

As a philosophy junkie, I shudder at any association of Plato and twoofers. (Or Kubrick for that matter)

!!!

Despite the problem of this moving to Arts Forum, Why?

 

[D'rok]

!!!

Despite the problem of this moving to Arts Forum, Why?

Same reason. It's quite a stretch to associate the attempt to perceive the Eternal and the Just with some shadowy figures conducting a creepy scientology orgy.

 

[boloboffin]

Actually I think the metaphor of the Cave is quite aptly compared to the truth movement.

The truthers are the ones in the cave, though, watching YouTube...I mean, the flickering shadows on the wall.

 

[D'rok]

Actually I think the metaphor of the Cave is quite aptly compared to the truth movement.

The truthers are the ones in the cave, though, watching YouTube...I mean, the flickering shadows on the wall.

Good point. I wonder what it would take to get them to turn around?

 

[Liszt]

Hey there.
Now, not for a second, would I presume virtually anyone in the conspiracy movement has the tolerance or intellect to assume that the Plato's cave argument is their argument, but watching a few Kubrick films recently (I cant stand not seeing his movies for more than a month) has got me wondering: Are we being a bit harsh?

In Eyes Wide Shut, our main character (*Spoilers*) walks into a massive mansion, and sees who we presume to be something higher, something beyond the shadows, and essentially, on the other side of Plato's cave. We dont know whether these shadowy figures are the Illuminati, the NWO, or a Kubrick invention, but the fact remains is that they are something beyond what we originally thought to be true. This scene, is one of my favourite in movie history.

This ideal sits badly with me, as I see Loose Change and others as immensly damaging to the fabric of society, rationality, and logic. But I also cannot dismiss the sheer power, and intellectual and philosophical debate, of thinking that there is something behind us, that we cannot comprehend or even believe.

Which makes me wonder why the entire group of truthers are insane lunatics, who seem partially educated and close-minded.

What is your position on this?

And you are assuming that debunkers understand Plato? Look around. Most posters here do not read books (for example, check out the "evolution" debates. It is clear that most people have not read Darwin. This means Decent of Man too, not just the O of S. Try it and you´ll realise that Darwin was a white supremecist. I´ll dig quotes out if you want, I have his books in my library. At least the "creationists" have read their source material!)

Some people manage to be as ignorant as they are arrogant, which really shouldn´t be allowed.

 

[boloboffin]

And you are assuming that debunkers understand Plato? Look around. Most posters here do not read books (for example, check out the "evolution" debates. It is clear that most people have not read Darwin. This means Decent of Man too, not just the O of S. Try it and you´ll realise that Darwin was a white supremecist. I´ll dig quotes out if you want, I have his books in my library. At least the "creationists" have read their source material!)

Some people manage to be as ignorant as they are arrogant, which really shouldn´t be allowed.

I suggest you read the book Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality. It's a very good history of things like you're talking about. For example, William Jennings Bryan's opposition to evolution was just as much based in his populism as it was his religion (if you could even separate the two). He reacted against the excesses that people could take evolutionary thought to. However, blaming the simple, observable phenomenon of evolution for the excesses of people is like blaming gravity for killing people that jump off of cliffs. Humanity didn't need evolution to provide an impetus for eugenics and genocide.

I recently found a lecture series by Richard Feynman. He had a great way of putting things - he said that Newton helped people get past a certain point in arguing to look at more fundamental things. For example, if you've tied your religious beliefs to how the stars move, then the religious beliefs can hinder your understanding of the actual phenomenon going on. People arguing astrology all day long have less time to notice the astronomy. Darwin had his faults, but he too helped the cause of science immeasurably despite these flaws, because he managed to notice and articulate the phenomenon of evolution. He helped us isolate some basic principles about how nature works. And his own biases are transcended by his science.

 

[Liszt]

I suggest you read the book Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality. It's a very good history of things like you're talking about. For example, William Jennings Bryan's opposition to evolution was just as much based in his populism as it was his religion (if you could even separate the two). He reacted against the excesses that people could take evolutionary thought to. However, blaming the simple, observable phenomenon of evolution for the excesses of people is like blaming gravity for killing people that jump off of cliffs. Humanity didn't need evolution to provide an impetus for eugenics and genocide.

I recently found a lecture series by Richard Feynman. He had a great way of putting things - he said that Newton helped people get past a certain point in arguing to look at more fundamental things. For example, if you've tied your religious beliefs to how the stars move, then the religious beliefs can hinder your understanding of the actual phenomenon going on. People arguing astrology all day long have less time to notice the astronomy. Darwin had his faults, but he too helped the cause of science immeasurably despite these flaws, because he managed to notice and articulate the phenomenon of evolution. He helped us isolate some basic principles about how nature works. And his own biases are transcended by his science.

Thanks for this info. Feynman has some stuff on google video that is worth watching.

Darwin was indeed a genius, but his theories were based on philosophy, not observation (Nietzsche and Hegel). Besides, that was 150 years ago, and there are many modern theories which are largely ignored. (I am one of the few people with a qualification in evolutionary theories)

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Actually I think the metaphor of the Cave is quite aptly compared to the truth movement.

The truthers are the ones in the cave, though, watching YouTube...I mean, the flickering shadows on the wall.

The truthers see you in the cave, reading reports made and sanctioned by the government.

Just letting you know.

Try getting out of the cave once in a while! ;-)

 

[D'rok]

Darwin was indeed a genius, but his theories were based on philosophy, not observation (Nietzsche and Hegel).

I think you're going to need to back that one up with some evidence. I can see how it would be possible to do a Hegelian or Nietzschean (sp?) interpretation of Darwin (and no doubt some preposterous grad student somewhere or other has done just that)....but this is the first time I've ever heard that he was not himself a scientist.

Not only that, but Darwin published Origin of the Species when Nietzsche was 15 years old. I think you're way off base here.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This means Decent of Man too, not just the O of S. Try it and you´ll realise that Darwin was a white supremecist. I´ll dig quotes out if you want, I have his books in my library.

Darwin was no more (or just as much) a white supremacist that any other Englishman of his era. In fact, he was surprisingly open-minded. However, it simply doesn't make sense to apply modern standards to people who lived two centuries ago. Even the most open-minded Caucasion males of the early 19th century were racists, sexists, antisemites, and right-wing nuts, if they were to be judged by modern standards.

Hans

 

[Liszt]

I think you're going to need to back that one up with some evidence. I can see how it would be possible to do a Hegelian or Nietzschean (sp?) interpretation of Darwin (and no doubt some preposterous grad student somewhere or other has done just that)....but this is the first time I've ever heard that he was not himself a scientist.

Not only that, but Darwin published Origin of the Species when Nietzsche was 15 years old. I think you're way off base here.

Good points. But first, Hegal (the dialctic) and Neitzsche (the "superman" theory) are only really new versions of philosophies, and even religions, of the past.

Some people claim that Darwin got his ideas from his grandfather, Erasmus, who himself got ideas from his masonic lodge.

Here is one source...

"The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship", by Philip & Paul Collins. It is an excellent book, and quite rare, so if you see it, buy it. It is written by a pair of Christians, but do not hold that agaist them.

I prefer more recent theories, for example, the philosopher Howard Bloom came out with his Global Brain theory, with experimental evidence, about 5 years ago. Michael Cremo has interesting theories in his Human Devolution book. Amit Goswami wrote a good book about quantum theory in 1993, The Self Aware Universe, which also has implications to evolutionary theory.

It is such a great subject because there are, as yet, no answers.

 

[Liszt]

Darwin was no more (or just as much) a white supremacist that any other Englishman of his era. In fact, he was surprisingly open-minded. However, it simply doesn't make sense to apply modern standards to people who lived two centuries ago. Even the most open-minded Caucasion males of the early 19th century were racists, sexists, antisemites, and right-wing nuts, if they were to be judged by modern standards.

Hans

What about on p178 of D of M (1873) where he compares black people to apes? That´s the bit that got me. Toe curling.

The civil rights movement was only 50 years ago. I suppose we should put it into perspective

 

[gumboot]

What about on p178 of D of M (1873) where he compares black people to apes? That´s the bit that got me. Toe curling.

Well if you think about it, his entire theory of evolution involved comparing men to apes...

For another example of perspective, Darwin died before women anywhere in the world were given the vote, and slavery was only abolished in the USA between when he published Origin of Species and Descent of Man.

-Gumboot

 

[Liszt]

Well if you think about it, his entire theory of evolution involved comparing men to apes...

For another example of perspective, Darwin died before women anywhere in the world were given the vote, and slavery was only abolished in the USA between when he published Origin of Species and Descent of Man.

-Gumboot

Yes, but Darwin pointed out that black people would become the "new apes" after the extinction of lower bipeds. Really, read the passage, it is pretty clear what he means.

Makes you wonder what it would have been like to live in those times. Thank god for progress.