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.

Gautama Buddha was also a Cynic, kicking off all the sensual pleasures, and turned in "skeleton," until he adopted the middle way. Thanks to that river which irresistible flow of water, was taking away Buddha to the death and he hardly escaped from it, and recognized there is nothing in Cynicism … and better to live a moderate life.

The idea of Cynicism revolves around that "Virtue is the detachment from earthly pleasures and possessions." That’s why; a fool, named Diogenes lived in a tub. And others of same belief did nonsense things in their lives. And, apart from this "virtue," they discarded all other knowledge and lived the life in nonsensical way.

This is unfortunate to say that the school Cynic, founded by Antisthenes couldn’t learn from the teachings of Socrates rather distorted his teachings by their prejudices and vague reasoning.

In India, you can also find some saint looking people living a hardcore ascetic life with all sorts of pain and sufferings. They are nothing more than the Cynics, whose knowledge and intellect is limited … very limited.

Photo: Sobibor

A fool shows himself, an intelligent. And, an intelligent thinks himself, an ignorant. Ego plays the great role; in fact, it is hard to decide for other one, and it is easy to decide for oneself. An egoless person can’t see ego in anyone, nor would say, “You have the ego problem,” rather, would assist you to take a jump beyond it.

It is called Socrates irony, as people are expert to coin new phrases; in fact, this was his wisdom. He used to remain ignorant, while asking questions to people, and side by side, kept on controlling, refuting and developing the discussion to reach to the ultimate truth; this way, he ever led the discussion, putting himself with fewer wise sentences.

Photo: -yury-

Since you took birth, up to now, this moment, how many things changed in your life? Perhaps, life changed itself. Life is dynamic, goes through mutation — moment to moment. Whatever comes in time goes through changes. Whatever is perceivable is changeable. Whatever has beginning is changeable.

But there is something, which never changes … guess what?

It is “being,” says Parmenides. Being never changes, it has no beginning; it is out of time and space; it is uncreated. It comes from itself. On the contrary, apart from “being,” everything is “non-being,” changeable. All the becomings are “non-beings.”

The teachings “The way of truth,” lie to the antithesis of “being,” and “non-being.” And you will be surprised to know that same antithesis is shown in Bhagavada Gita, Astavakra Gita, Upanisahds, and teachings of some outstanding Gurus such as Raman Maharshi and Nisargadatta. And, you know, when Gautama Buddha found that everything (non-being) is transitory, he left his palace and all the becomings and settled in “being,” for the whole life.

“The way of truth,” says, truth never changes, and it is “being” only.

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!