Photo: foxypar4

Plato insists that a ruler or a politician must be a philosopher. Socrates also believed in the same way. Because, a philosopher, or say sage, is the person who works on knowledge, concept, reason and logic, and his ways are universal, not tend to any biasness.

Though, the sages are less in number, most of the time, they are framed and killed, in the hands of those politicians who never want to be wise. And, still, sages are less, and hardly (actually no one) dare to go into politics; even, they say, politics are not for sages (so irresponsible statement).

No matter, how spiritual we talk negativity shadows the positivity. The real example is: people don’t have sane leaders. The day, leaders turn into sages, the whole world will change. And, the huge military, weapons, wars and terrorism would disappear.

Photo: Rickydavid

A human soul has three parts: One part is in head, second around chest, and third below the chest. The soul of animals has two parts, around chest and below the chest. And, the soul of plants has one part, below the chest only.

The part which is in head belongs to reason and intellect, and it is immortal. The other two parts are mortal; the part around chest, belongs to noble qualities, e.g., intuition, truth, love, justice etc. The part below the chest belongs to sensual appetite, and it has ignoble qualities.

It was Plato’s doctrine of the soul.

In contrast:

Some people believe that soul is in unity, a bright shining dot, living between the eyebrows. Some believe this dot is just nothing but the projection of mind. And, some people believe soul lives in the heart … And, some believe there is no soul at all.

Well, what do you think about soul, do share in comments.

Photo: Pip_Wilson

This is the doctrine of the world, where Plato had to create the God. Interestingly, the man of logic and reason had to take the support of myth and its stories, which he created himself, maybe, he knew intuitively, whatever. But it doesn’t look like rational approach; rather, it looks like the mental projection of some mystic poet.

Initially, God finds “ideas” and “formless matter” beside him. For Plato, Idea is the technical name for objective reality that exists in unity, out of time and space, and it is universal, immutable and imperishable. Now, God creates the souls; these souls are incorporeal but occupy the space. God spreads the souls like a net across the empty space. In next step, God bisects the space into two inner and outer circles, and these circles become the spheres of planets and stars. He takes the formless matter and binds into four elements, and uses these elements to fill into the empty net of the souls. This way the universe is created.

Photo: ellz

A flower is beautiful; some man or woman is beautiful; the moon and stars are beautiful. “Then what is beauty?” though, flower, man, woman, moon and stars all are different. If you ask Plato, he’d say, beauty has a separate identity, its own existence, universal, eternal and out of time and space; it is the ground on which you relate everything to be beautiful.

According Plato, concepts are the objective realities. The difference between a mad and a normal person is: a mad person has concepts which aren’t the objective realties. The technical name, Plato put for objective concepts is “ideas.”

Like beauty, everything, for example, trust, justice, love, hate, ugly, permanent, temporary, good, bad, smart … and so on, each one exists independently, external to the mind, somewhere out of time and space. Again, which doesn’t exist in objective reality and you think that, then, either you are hallucinating or you are mad. Plato has logic in his theory. Isn’t it?

For the objective concepts, the ideas, Plato gave following characteristics: Read More »

Photo: chooyutshing

You are a seeker of truth, and can reason out things on a fair ground, then, you must go through the Plato’s theory of knowledge.

To know what the knowledge is, first is to understand what doesn’t come in knowledge; our perceptions and opinions, obviously, aren’t knowledge; as both change from person to person. Second, to understand the definition of knowledge, it is better to use all the intellectual abilities, and to look into what Plato and Socrates have said about it.

In “Theory of knowledge,” Plato proves both the point: First, perception isn’t the knowledge; second, opinion isn’t the knowledge. We will talk about both the points and later on will ponder upon the definition of knowledge.

Plato had to give “Theory of knowledge,” because the teachings of Sophists, Cynics, and Heracleitus had perverted the meaning of knowledge, as they couldn’t objectify the knowledge in its true universal sense, and believed what appears to senses is right and lost in their own assumptions. But, Plato strongly refuted by telling that perception and opinion aren’t the knowledge. Read More »

Photo: hanneorla

He was born in aristocratic Athenian family, with wealth, power and status. But, he left his career of a ruler, a tyrant. Nevertheless, he opted much greater: the meaning and purpose of existence.

The war among the states and, killings and bloodsheds among the tyrants confused Plato to the extent that he felt no purpose of being a tyrant. Though, later in his life, he tried to help some tyrants to have some philosophical wisdom, but every time his life was at stake and all his efforts ended in disasters, he hardly saved his life.

Actually, there is no match of wisdom and politics; however, there are fewer exceptions (but, very rare), as Guru knows in Indian history King Janak and King Krishna, both had wisdom and politics; the examples of their wisdom are well known master pieces: Astavakra Gita and Bhagavada Gita.

Politics belongs to manipulation of its worst kind and Plato felt damn uncomfortable in it. He was born philosopher, he kept on studying the teachings of other philosophers, but after getting in touch with Socrates he explored the meaning of existence to its widest extent. As the ways of Socratics were only conversational, Plato worked in organized and systematic way, mostly in seclusion, and kept the record of his work.

Photo: job_earth

Knowledge, an objective concept, a virtue in itself, well reasoned out, binding and true for all men. Which differs man to man, group to group, and region to region, isn’t a true knowledge; nevertheless, a sense perception which has vague assumptions and untested beliefs.

Knowledge is universal; it can’t be true for someone and false for other one. Which doesn’t come on reasons, isn’t the knowledge.

Reason is a tool to settle what knowledge is and what is not. Reasons objectify knowledge that turns in concepts. Knowledge can be understood and can be taught.

Isn’t the definition of knowledge looks interesting? Unfortunately, most of us never reason out the things, and remain far away from the truth. Probably, we do fear!

Photo: Ben Heine

Everyone has some attitudes in his life; these attitudes set the purpose and quality of life. What attitudes Socrates had, made him divine and full of wisdom. Most of us neglect those attitudes which Socrates lived with full intensity.

The first attitude

He lived on, and followed his inner voice, which he called supernatural power, even he put the name, it was – Daemon. Whenever inner-voice used to come to him, he used to understand that the Daemon was guiding him. And, in no way, he disobeyed the inner-voice. He passed his whole life, listening to it and obeying to it.

The second attitude

He used to understand, he had divine mission in his life, of supreme purpose. Apart from fulfilling his divine mission he never cared for anything. He never charged money for his wisdom, nor ran after material objects; yet, wasn’t a hardcore ascetic nor indulged in senses. He used to go to highways and byways to find out gatherings, and without a hitch, free of cost, he used to engage with people to fulfill his divine mission, which was of truth and its knowledge. His methods were conversational, he wrote nothing; only, helped people through direct conversation.

So, what attitudes do you have?

Photo: CubaGallery

This man, Thales, also predicted the eclipse around 585 B.C., and that was supposed to turn true. He was famous for his mathematical and astronomical wisdom. And, he told that the origin of everything is – water.

Thales, born around 624 B.C., (and died around 550 B.C.,) somehow, was sure that the origin of everything is water: everything comes from the water and everything goes back to the water; and earth is a disk, floats over the water. It was his teaching that was popular during his time.

If we look at both life and water together; we find that where there is life, water also exists; let it be plants, insects, birds, animals, humans, etc., even if we look at the stones, bricks or anything solid, they don’t scatter in dust, mainly because some part of water help them to remain solid.

And, it is obvious without water life is impossible; for living beings water is indispensable.

But, do you agree as Thales said, “Everything comes from the water and everything goes back to the water?” Let the Guru tell you, he was one of the earliest Greek philosophers, before the time of Socrates, and was well known for his wisdom.

Photo: robstephaustralia

Tighten your seat belts, and untie your beliefs, or try to prove if you can, not mere on assumptions but on logical facts.

Do you know, since when the life on the earth came into existence? Or, if, is there any cycle of creation and destruction exist?

The short cycle: this period is of 5,000 years, divided into four ages of equal number of years, i.e., 1250, says Brahmakumaris.

The medium cycle: for Pythagoreans this period is of 10,000 years, called the great year, where the world comes into existence and passes away, going through evolution, revolution and destruction.

The long cycle: it is of 4.32 million years; where, Golden Age of 1.728 million years; Silver Age of 1.296 million years; Copper Age of 0.864 years; Iron Age of 0.432 years, says Hindu Scriptures.

Well, there is no ground to disprove anyone of them. Is it? What do you think? If the universal facts are one; then, why do inconsistencies occur?