As far as heroes are concerned,
I’m my only hero on earth, and that’s not saying much !!!
I suggest you all become your own heroes as well…
It’s not easy, actually, it sucks!
Better than the alternative though!
Plate called diogenes a ‘Socrates gone mad’, but it’s the other way around, see. Socrates was a diogenes gone mad, because while history portrays him as the shining symbol of honest inquiry and critical thinking, he was already axing dumb questions, really non-questions, because that’s all he had to work with. So for instance when he’s talking about ‘objective knowledge’ of the ‘good’, he’s proceeding from the supposition that Plato’s theory of Forms is true. But it isnt… so the question is dumb… but it looks all profound and shit.
Diogenes, on the other hand, recognized… really as a kind of prototype positivist… the ambiguous nature of the philosophical language of the day and dismissed it all as sophistry.
We know now (well some of us) that diogenes was on to something long before analytical philosophy would wage a full scale attack on anything even remotely resembling platonism.
Now I dont think diogenes got here out of laziness; I dont think his conclusions were arbitrary or lucky guesses. I think he sensed and intuited and thought long about exactly what these brand name philosophers were peddling. And there is a healthy arrogance in diogenes as well. It comes out of the feeling that you’ve duped the greatest thinkers… the irony that you, who lives in a bath tub in an alley somewhere, knows what they’re talking about is bullshit.
The fantastic nobility of diogenes’ soul is caught in action when he waves aside alexander the great. That gesture was so symbolically profound y’all don’t even know. I ain’t even tryna expound on it, neither.
And it is hard to place those. I mean, he gets to make mistakes. it is a developmental tool. What happens if I challenge you like this? The advantage of just asking questions is you can use it as a ‘I have no burden of proof’ method of presenting your own case without having to back it up - Iambiguous bears some similarity to this.
And/or shaming them into thinking they knew something or had reached a rational approach to life or knowledge.
Yeah, I wouldn’t have wanted. Warhol having any responsibility for something or someone I care about.
Haha, you understand my concerns entirely. Awesome. That relieves some of the annoyance. How was it possible that no one was awake enough to notice such basic flaws?
I just logged on after realizing what Soc did was to show us the depths of vanity.
All the rest flows from there. All he did - and the comparison to Warhol.
This in particular speaks to his malice. We know how this works very well in our own times.
Woke up drugged took something very strong and it really put me out.
For me, not to Fix (not a verbal slip) ha ha, it is contraindicative not to place focus, away from personality, as a matter of fact, in that I really place myself in a triple hierarchy of positions.
Ill try to explain my predicament in commenting on how this goes down.
Thinking about Biggie’s version, and similarly I reach out to be unable to view the balance, the ideal that a zero sum kind of architecture implies.
This is a profundity for me, that forthwith has important implications.
The conflicting two part conflict between the a-priori and the a-posteriori forms of acquisition of knowledge, -with that in mind - and the type of solution to the negative aspect of the depleting image of the negative form of an ideologically brought on idealism.
Plato, Socrates and Meno were mere characters in a tapestry of unfolding dramatic cognitive and perceptual awareness, that now, in an era of Warhol, of post modern signatures , reflect, all around in a sort of cignitive miasma -
The centering ‘urge’ which condenses and/or expands, has developed religious undertones, that have moral, and psychological postmodern implications, such that give rise to the parallel indications o.between Leonardo and Warhol.
The aesthetic is at once, implicative of both: the inner’core, and and the outer periphery.
Fixed, the big picture represents an objective evolving connexion of the minor with the major premises. The minor premise come the foreground personality of Socrates within a dual aspect of understanding within the very earliest firm of logical consistency. The major being premise consists with the judgement of Socrates with that of the posterior.
The posterior, or the coming of an understanding, tries to differentiate both, to achieve a systematic retroactive synthesis.
Why did this happen? Why did such a foresight, of an a priori synthetic correspondence become objectively necessary, beginning in with the advent of popular understanding of the age of reason, that impressed upon greater numbers who felt it necessary.
The holdouts diminished significantly , and even now. Those who still are far from overcoming the methods by which su h prejudice should have by now popularly been overcome, present an ironic debate:
Should factual understanding between the focus and the outline been understood by now, and what reason , if any can be given for such sustained epoche that had been existentially presented generations ago?
Plato’s Meno presents the argument thousands of years ago, and the final answer may never be given satisfactorily, because the two forms of the argument , were really sourced out of single ideas.
What wisdom is nowedays, is understood as a multi derived series of questions, bound up with various shades of meaning, that try to set balances which are workable within various organisational structures.
Some understanding of relevant meaning and value derive from more or less substantial families of interpretation, and an understanding configured to try to account for such , may show comparative validity to the cosmical proportions of actual physically demonstrable relativity, that may show the inception of familial meaning of expressions.
That the early expressions appear overtly idealistic, can not at that time, show the possibility of realizing the weakness of ideal structures. That the negative aspects during those early days, can only appear after the span between the Birth of Tragedy and the Twilight of The Gods, give some indication of the stunning shortening of the spatial temporal curvature.
That such curvature that can be understood as that limited scope that The Ring could manifest as a subsisting ideal: suggests the proposition, that questions not only the meaning and validity of a functional necessity , but also, an inducement into the periphery argument, as to why such correspondence should occur and why.
Like I say, “ be your own gods; be the god everyone deserves.”.
Socrates was/is not on this level.
Yup! I’m not a fan of any one’s thought but of thought in general, and admire various aspects of that aspect, that I perceive the phenomena from.
I found most historical figures far more interesting than Jesus and other such types, but that says more about me than it does about them. 
Buddha may be more interesting than Jesus, true, because Jesus introduced Buddhism to western man in the dialectical language the could understand.
But the trace of understanding remains on the primordial unified with Buddha, without any requisite primordial intervening variables that the West could understand.
However, can the East rely a propositional reliance on no interve ing variables? As a consequence, can they really understand Buddha, in the sense that requires a transitional object?
Like a baby Buddha they generate, can they claim an objectless transcendence?
Not really either, no…
What’s not to understand? The reason the Buddhas do what they do is evident for All to know… it’s not a secret, and they’re not gods, but men.
I love this thread title, stil… 
MagsJ said:
“Buddhas do what they do is evident for All to know… it’s not a secret, and they’re not gods, but men.”
They are both, neither, or either, depending.
And everything happening is a varied mix, an interplay of situational optics.
The glean optical sheen, and as simply as that description appears to represent a simple yet indescribably complex relational manufacture of possibilities, -that is the key that absolves from guilt or regret.
The limitation to downgrade into a paradoxically motivated aspiration to further inquiry, toward the more liberated search , presents an unwarranted sense of systemic chaos.
But it is not so! Not in a minority opinion, that is.
[b]
I value Buddha because he told his pupils to question everything he said - and that suffering comes from craving - which it does
I value Socrates because with the rigour of the Socratic method he had the actual means to do what Buddha instructed of his pupils
I value Leonardo because unusually he was a genius of both art and science and as an inventor was literally centuries ahead of his time
[/b]
He said that yes, and while hyperbole and a useless rule if taken literally, the actual problem with this is that he
also said and did other things.
Sometimes people will assert X. Then they do and say other things that contradict that. When it is pointed out that, for example, they believe not X. They or their supporters say ‘Oh, but he said X is true.’ Right, but if one’s actions and words in other contexts contradict this, you cannot assert this is actually what they believe. It is good to encourage critical thinking even of one’s own ideas. But while saying this with his right hand, he implied people were dumb, had wrong beliefs, and asserted all sorts of things in his own, slightly complicated indirect ways.
A woman is walking down the street and an angry ex boyfriend throws acid in her face. She is now suffering and not because of craving.
But who knows, within another context she craved for love but instead got sex. Everybody craves something .
Women settling for even sex, overeat, develop food craving and get fat.
Fat women crave attention, the kind not begotten by depreciating the eye may develop abnormal resistance to ingesting food, so develop an eating disorder.
Eating disorders develop into styles of abnormally modeled fashion.
Fashonistas deibjectify looks for brains.
Brains starve for oxygen. And overdose on it, turning to alcohol bars.
Breathing becomes the mode for enlightening yoga practices making Buddha a way to ascend by sacrificing the sequencing of Platonic loves’ladder.
The
at avoidance leads to sacrificing for the missing elements, creating a subtle co-juncture, an opportunity that the Western World could not comprehend, ironically missing the point of the idol fat Buddha.
Sophia tried somehow to avoid the issue, the demigod and only a demigod could satisfy.
The content, the substantial does not matter, the way to atonement consists not entirely of shedding those unwanted pounds.
fixed wrote:
“Ill amend this to make clear that I understand that I frame this with a slant- the correspondence of the narratives of art and philosophy warrant this; philosophy is ahead of art, or lets say its most extended avant guard.”
Way ahead, and that is why a controlled material world is left best to be quantified, rather then qualified by such: as that choice between the inclusive three apples. No wonder, Paris judges relations of all kinds by apples, and can not compare them to oranges, which deals with the inauthentic , by exclusion.
Well, perhaps in some other context she caused her own suffering via craving,
but not the context I mentioned.
And even the man who did it could have had his craving (for her) and not caused her suffering. But he threw acid rather than deal with his pain.
The general rule that craving causes suffering is wrong.
I am still not clear on Buddha entirely, in the sense of what he brought forth exactly; for example, do we group Zen entirely under Buddha? And how much Vedic thought passes for Buddhism?
What is Buddha except a centre of spiritual influences reaching a personification through a well written document? I am not clear. Maybe Gautama Siddhartha was indeed a sort of world-axis. It matters because it defines more or less how much and what precisely there is to be understood and what is to be vaguely attributed or, not.
Jesus is another case - it is perfectly clear that if he existed or not he was a vessel for different cultures having an apotheosis in each other - the Hebrews, the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans all produced their mystery religions to melt into each other and put forth this prophet of uncanny drama and overwhelming success as a personal lord and saviour. The Christ… what a character right? Jesus. So much beyond normal daily meanings is he that it doesn’t make sense to try to understand in a rational fashion; one can only come to understand what is meant in the parables through ones own personal apotheosis.
Buddha, one can more or less understand a part of through the divine blisses which he named, but these blisses are far more ancient than the Buddha himself. How old is the sound of one hand clapping?
Even if, this mixture could not identify either the source or some kind of hidden agenda, the thing is, that personally, I hazard , but only recently a shift from the personification, but the background and the foreground: in the apoethesis mentioned.
The. contrast elevates any persona to be sure, I the eye, (Eye) consequentially making that person mysterious.
The cultural eclipse of existential struggle determined this.
The socio-psycholo-econo-political determinate were overwhelming in the time of Jesus, and He was , sort of speAk the exemplary man for the job
He was the ultimate Job, the man weighed down not merely by the totAl loss of his family , but felt he owed the whole world"s existential suffering.
Later, much later, when Goethe and Schiller thought .
I wouldn’t really dare to guess what went through Jesus’ mind - why he did what he did - I am religious and I believe in the Gods literal existence, therefore if Jesus existed and did what he did, I believe he was a great magician, i.e. someone who knows the gods, and his motivations would have to be understood as originating between him and the gods.
This I entirely agree with. Even though I am still completely unsure if he ever did exist in truth.