Justice

Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis Bold was added by me for emphasis.

The element of the syllogism? The Syntax. Any thoughts here then as to semantics, as to what then resides in the human being?

What about merit as to what is to be defined as the gold person, is really about the values a person has? Even though Plato define them as philosophers, I think as if by a natural inclination, we have learnt to judge accordingly, as an understanding of a position with which we assume things to be. To me this may be insightful as to the nature of the individual, that by such introspection learns to understand these character positions.

So I am thinking this is indeed built into an individual, just lost to inspection as to the natures of our characters?

Socratic questioning (or Socratic maieutics)[1] is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought or to control the discussion. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems. Socratic questioning is referred to in teaching, and has gained currency as a concept in education particularly in the past two decades.[citation needed] Teachers, students or indeed anyone interested in probing thinking at a deep level can and should construct Socratic questions and engage in these questions.[2] Socratic questioning and its variants has also been extensively used in psychotherapy.

So in reference to what has survived for so many years what is the conceptual law of justice while the idea could have deeper implications to it? How did you come to know what you know, or don't know. So the method for determination? Nicomachean Ethics?


In the larger context of society, what is good governance, as to imply that Descision making, is a critical part of understanding such governance? In a just society, we come to understand the merits of the individual as we would expect good governance to rule, and as such good governance by the individual, becomes good governance of the country

ABSTRACT
Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure "good governance" are undertaken.

This article tries to explain, as simply as possible, what "governance" and "good governance" means. What is Good Governance?

 In historical context below the question of philosophical arguments. While talking about immortality with regard to Plato, how does this affect judgement in relation to how we may perceive justice.

Opposites Argument 70a–72e. Whatever has an opposite comes to be from its opposite; the cold from the warm, the weaker from the stronger, the sleeping from the waking. Between every pair of opposites there must always be two processes of transformation, e.g. cooling down and warming up, falling asleep and waking up. Living and dead are evidently opposites, and one of the processes between them, namely dying, is evident to us. We may infer that there is a second process by which living things and stuff come from dead things or stuff. This conclusion is taken (by a palpable equivocation on ‘the dead’) to mean that ‘the souls of the dead must be somewhere whence they can come back again’. An appendix argues that if the process from life to death were not matched by a process from death to life, then the original stock of living things would have been exhausted in the infinite past.

Recollection Argument 73a–77e. Our ability to give the right answers in abstract discussions shows that we possess a kind of knowledge (of the Forms, as it happens) that we must have acquired before birth. It follows that ‘our souls existed apart from the body before they took on human form’. That they continue to exist after we die is said to follow by combining this proof with the Opposites Argument outlined above. (On this and the related argument of Plato’s Meno 81 ff. see Innateness in ancient philosophy.)

Resemblance Argument 78b–84b Forms and particulars differ systematically: Forms are invisible, unchanging, uniform and eternal, where particulars are visible, changeable, composite and perishable. The human soul is invisible too, and it investigates Forms without the aid of bodily senses. By ruling a particular body it resembles the divine which rules and leads. Thus the soul is ‘most like the divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, and indissoluble’. Its uniformity and partlessness exempt it from the decomposition that destroys compounded bodies; for all these reasons we may conclude that it is immortal. (Significantly, it is never claimed that the soul actually is a Form, and the theory of soul-construction in the Timaeus 35 explicitly makes souls a third class of entities distinct from Forms and bodies.) BRENNAN, TAD (2002). Immortality in ancient philosophy. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from

Bold added for emphasis by me

As per Recollection argument above.....innate does not mean we become stifled and locked into position, but go through experience and instill further innate ideas in to our understanding. The objectified, becomes as part of this life experience. Objectified knowledge becomes part of the cycle regarding what comes with us through another round.

the theory of soul-construction in the Timaeus 35 explicitly makes souls a third class of entities distinct from Forms and bodies. see above link

If not the forms or the body what would they be referring too?

As Plato tells it, the beautiful orderliness of the universe is not only the manifestation of Intellect; it is also the model for rational souls to understand and to emulate. Such understanding and emulation restores those souls to their original state of excellence, a state that was lost in their embodiment. There is, then, an explicit ethical and religious dimension to the discourse. Plato's Timaeus -Zeyl, Donald, "Plato's Timaeus", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 

So justice in its examination may suggest that this is a faculty of the the rational mind according to historical context. Any attempts to illicit judgmental affairs as to the state would require a rational mind? What does this mean in the modernization of our cultures so as to express the most desired cultural definition of this return to the rationalistic fervor and recognition of this idea of the receptacle?

Doe this literally mean to create a third person, a judge?

The second main section begins with the introduction of the receptacle, a “third kind” alongside the familiar paradeigmatic forms and the generated images of the forms (49a1–4, 52a8, d2–4). The receptacle appears to have the dual role of serving both as material substratum, and as spatial field. Timaeus' account of the receptacle is elusive and presents several interpretive difficulties, some of which will be discussed below. In the “pre-cosmic” state (the state “prior to” the intervention of the Craftsman) the receptacle is subject to erratic and disorderly motions, and its contents are mere “traces” (ichnê, 53b2) of the subsequently articulated four “kinds” (the so-called elements): fire, air, water and earth. The Craftsman begins by constructing four of the regular solids as the primary corpuscles of each of these four kinds. These solids have faces that are made up (ultimately) of two types of right-angled triangles—the half-equilateral and the isosceles—and it is these triangles that are the ultimate “simples” of the physics of the dialogue. Because their triangles are similar (half-equilateral), only corpuscles of fire, air and water may be transformed into one another. Each of the four kinds has properties that are determined by the constitution of their respective corpuscles, and these properties in turn determine how the particles act upon and react to one another. (It is here that Necessity plays its important role in Timaeus' account.) Plato's Timaeus -Zeyl, Donald, "Plato's Timaeus", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),.

A judge would have to over come disorderliness and exemplify the quest for rationalism. If these attributes are innate, what would the third person represent as if we were to sit in judgement of the life we had lived. How would we weight our souls truth of the rational mind to something that is of greater truth and import, as if to find it weighed against something else? The golden heart against some philosophical weighed universal truth as a feather. How deep and significant this challenge in our own lives?

I am really trying to decipher "the meaning" of Justice.

As a mechanism, this may imply, an objective method toward a subjective ideal as we hope to evolve. A rationalistic mind would be then gifted with morality? You'd already be gifted as to make the right choice? If I am to take your meaning further then?

Yes, I am thinking beyond, toward a definition of Justice as to the individual, and, in context of morality, then, how is it the same as Justice. Would you have used small groups, large groups, small towns and large cities. If the essence of this justice is innate, so to as morality, then, it would not matter where the individual is?

If, I was to propose a question without let's say the data base with which to respond to this question, then, what answer is given, The answer is based on what? Discard everything you've learned. What is Justice?

So the evolving question regarding morality is an experience of this life yes? Or, is that something which is innate and linguistically overridden. Culturally and linguistically, you learned the language of your small town, big city which would have to be discarded or set as, semantics to the original meaning of Justice.

So as Universal Declaration in Preamble to the Charter, leads to article one.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.Universal Declaration of Human Rights -

Bold added for emphasis by me.

To be able "to reason" would mean having the capacity for understanding Justice? So was it right to say Justice has some first order logic to it so as to declare it as a universal law? Are we all gifted with rationalism?

 Brain scans link concern for justice with reason, not emotion - See more at: http://news.uchicago.edu/article/201...-emotion#.dpuf

I think it is more a recognition of something that already exists in you, our side of the small town, big town, that an insight as to the nature of this attribute, is how we as a soul may weight these things. This as to how a soul accomplishes from one life to the next. It has to be an inherent feature, for the idea of the rules(arguments) as listed earlier, to become an ideal.

So if you accept a NDE as part and parcel of the innate feature of our human condition then what attribute of the human mind would seek to accomplish that which we had taken to burden in this phase of our life being lived now? Are you living the truth with which you weigh against something to be defined as a "universal truth." How would you know this? How would you know what this truth is for you, is a process which all human would seek to verify, set as as a accomplishment as to having successful been living with that truth in order to say they indeed had lived life to this universal truth.

We would see an extroverted and objectified example of societies and not an internal perception, as to the nature of this judgement which may be held in abeyance until more information came through.

If you take in the picture of Raphael's school of Athens where do you see Plato pointing too. So to me, as a central figure, is a point exemplified as to what the soul is versus the body, as Aristotle with this ancient view expresses, as the body expressing mind. Seeing physically, all that is around you. Such an idea of balance in the world would have been a recognition of that which would become self evident through this interplay between Plato and Aristotle. This to exemplify this middle of the road. So it could not be Plato alone that Raphael wish to express, but something that required both, in order for the interaction of the world to allow something to become self evident. And, a leap of mind

I brought up the latest research of the manufacture of the thought body as something separate and manageable from the way in which we could create this third person. To free one self of the reins of the physicals as to explore with consciousness as one travels to what ever destination.....looses sight of this thought body.

But more importantly, there are these archetypes which we create, where as some form of this can be and is realized when we recognize higher consciousness as a functioning of this wisdom imparted within the dream world, to suggest, that this is wisdom of your own soul that sits in Judgement.

So such a model of this Justice would have to exist in my view, so as to impart something greater then a judgement in the natural world of the objectified, but truly opens the door to what we as humans also come into the world as retaining this pattern towards living of this life now. Your internal third person and guidance. Call it the higher self maybe?

This meta-cognitive view then would have relinquished the mind to a form, that mind leaps toward something of a more spiritual kind, not just deductive faculties in the state of Justice as explained in the natural world and objectified. Not just ethics and moral virtues.......but a history to draw from, and a spiritual one at that. But how fine and rarefied such a mind to leap where, and then we are back in the world.

Plato's Problem

Anamnesis

Meno

The claim is that one does not need to know what knowledge is before gaining knowledge, but rather one has a wealth of knowledge before ever gaining any experience

Perception and judging while decisive with regard to an attribute gifted of reason, shows what the person by character exemplifies according to this attributes judging or withholding judging until more information is attainable.

Brain scans link concern for justice with reason, not emotion - See more at: http://news.uchicago.edu/article/201...-emotion#.dpuf

Is Justice blind to the individual acting from innate abilities and carry overs who decides quickly? I can show from previous link this is not an emotive thing happening when given reasonable thought about Justice as brain is used with respect to the MRI and brain activity......so we use the body as a residual affect of what our consciousness does?

Yes I am aware now if taken from Plato alone......a revision in the Church then, and we may see Aristotle as to what exist around us as a focal point in the same person. This as a question about what is innate then and we listen to all the reasons why through inductive and deductive efforts......but indeed, we are talking about something else here. About the type of knowledge that a soul has gained from the incarnations versus what is gained from data in this life.

Socratic questioning (or Socratic maieutics)[1] is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought or to control the discussion. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems.

Socratic questioning is referred to in teaching, and has gained currency as a concept in education particularly in the past two decades.[citation needed] Teachers, students or indeed anyone interested in probing thinking at a deep level can and should construct Socratic questions and engage in these questions.[2] Socratic questioning and its variants has also been extensively used in psychotherapy.

So in reference to what has survived for so many years what is the conceptual law of justice while the idea could have deeper implications to it? How did you come to know what you know, or don't know. So the method for determination? Nicomachean Ethics?

Aristotle as a central figure in the picture of Raphael, was a response to Plato. It was a revision that philosophical may have been thought of by Raphael to exemplify the attributes of the Church at that point in time. This so as to question the significance of what evolved in the Church as well, as to what becomes self evident eventually requires a leap of mind.

Socrates
Socratic method
Socratic questioning

Meno (/ˈmiːnoʊ/; Greek: Μένων) is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato.

Bold and underline added by me for emphasis

The theme of the work is the Socratic question which had previously been explored in the works of Plato, Aristotle's friend and teacher, of how men should best live. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle described how Socrates, the friend and teacher of Plato, had turned philosophy to human questions, whereas Pre-Socratic philosophy had only been theoretical. Ethics, as now separated out for discussion by Aristotle, is practical rather than theoretical, in the original Aristotelian senses of these terms.[1] In other words, it is not only a contemplation about good living, because it also aims to create good living. It is therefore connected to Aristotle's other practical work, the Politics, which similarly aims at people becoming good. Ethics is about how individuals should best live, while the study of politics is from the perspective of a law-giver, looking at the good of a whole community.Nicomachean Ethics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics

For what purpose? To be able to arrive at some distinction about what we know and how we know it or some relevance to the way in which some knowledge is innate, or that learned in this life by living it now?

Book V: Justice and Fairness: a moral virtue needing special discussionParticular justice is however the subject of this book, and it has already been divided into the lawful and the fair, which are two different aspects of universal justice or complete virtue. Concerning areas where being law-abiding might not be the same as being fair, Aristotle says that this should be discussed under the heading of Politics.[73] He then divides particular justice further into two parts: distribution of divisible goods and rectification in private transactions. The first part relates to members of a community in which it is possible for one person to have more or less of a good than another person. The second part of particular justice deals with rectification in transactions and this part is itself divided into two parts: voluntary and involuntary, and the involuntary are divided further into furtive and violent divisions.[74] The following chart showing divisions with Aristotle's discussion of Justice in Book V, based on Burger (2008) Appendix 3.

Justice in the City, or Justice in the soul(Appendix 3)?

In several of Plato's dialogues, Socrates promulgates the idea that knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.[46] He maintains this view somewhat at his own expense, because in many dialogues, Socrates complains of his forgetfulness. Socrates is often found arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine insight. In many middle period dialogues, such as the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus Plato advocates a belief in the immortality of the soul, and several dialogues end with long speeches imagining the afterlife. More than one dialogue contrasts knowledge and opinion, perception and reality, nature and custom, and body and soul.Recurrent themes -

Is divine insight a leap of mind then, so as to arrive a some conclusion? We see such attributes of the historical overlay by today's world of events. We use systemic versions of historical significance to arrive at a understanding of where we are today, and in this sense we can talk about what survived and didn't survive. It is all in context of the virtual reality of this discussion? How relevant is it to today's world? Maybe, just write a virtual dialogue to help understand the spiritual essence of the principle of the divine as one takes that leap of mind?

I think we are arriving some consensus here even though we point to this dialogue, point to the writer of the dialogue, and raise the issues of the deeper questions about the relevance of Justice in today's world. About what people are talking about in regards to Reincarnation, or, about the raising of the dead, as a metaphor for what we can arise too?? Are these "good virtues" to have been given are the dialogues that verge on the ephemeral?

How strange that not only that such a perception might have saw a foundational method toward an attribute of the forms could have survived as a subject regarding quasi-crystals as to this underlying feature theorized so many years ago. But so too, much more then the survivability of a method by which we question and arrive at, a place in mind?

Just quickly, if no one told you how "to reason," how would you know to be able to do this? If you did not have this life experience, as of the now, then can we reason? Self evident or leap of mind is a position, which allows access to information that is intuited and comes from the soul?

Sure we can create false things so as to believe, describe a experience that doesn't match the events of say as a journalist, but we are talking about access to something else here. So you do have experience, but it comes from the soul?

If you are a good writer of the dialogues what survives by your example of the archetype as you become aware of it. What survived of Plato's writings? What survived of Socrates in Plato's writings.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge. SEE: Markie, Peter, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ra...sm-empiricism/ , The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Do you see a dichotomy within the way you are seeing? Point to the collective unconscious....where is that?

Michael Newton talks about his journey to his Past Life Therapy practice. Filmed in 2007 and finally uploaded for you all to see this amazing guy.

http://youtu.be/Fk3s40UnoDE

How would reason then manifest within context of any archetype given, that we would sit to reason according to the archetype our subconscious presents? Would there not be a difference between what you observe "as the archetype" that is present(the awareness of your lucid dreaming where recognition as EGO manifests[remember you are the story teller.]), versus, living the experience of the person?

If the late character of our sources may incite us to doubt the authenticity of this tradition, there remains that, in its spirit, it is in no way out of character, as can be seen by reading or rereading what Plato says about the sciences fit for the formation of philosophers in book VII of the Republic, and especially about geometry at Republic, VII, 526c8-527c11. We should only keep in mind that, for Plato, geometry, as well as all other mathematical sciences, is not an end in itself, but only a prerequisite meant to test and develop the power of abstraction in the student, that is, his ability to go beyond the level of sensible experience which keeps us within the "visible" realm, that of the material world, all the way to the pure intelligible. And geometry, as can be seen through the experiment with the slave boy in the Meno (Meno, 80d1-86d2), can also make us discover the existence of truths (that of a theorem of geometry such as, in the case of the Meno, the one about doubling a square) that may be said to be "transcendant" in that they don't depend upon what we may think about them, but have to be accepted by any reasonable being, which should lead us into wondering whether such transcendant truths might not exist as well in other areas, such as ethics and matters relating to men's ultimate happiness, whether we may be able to "demonstrate" them or not. See: Frequently Asked Questions about Plato by Bernard SUZANNE

Bold added for emphasis by me.

Secondly, I would ask that you pay attention to what you presented as frequency and energy, so as to see its use in the way in which Newton speaks. Is deeper in alpha or theta, really "out there in the world, or, inside the person"? Is the soul inside or outside the person?

Alva Noë - Why is Consciousness so baffling?

What is Consciousness? Why are we still baffled by this question? Our host Robert Lawrence Kuhn asks Alva Noë, in an interview from our series "Closer To Truth," currently airing on PBS stations nationwide. Check your local listings for air times.
For more videos and information, visit http://www.closertotruth.com

http://youtu.be/1aPeWc7Um1A

We've Been Looking for Consciousness in Wrong Place-Alva Noë
Getting Out of Our Heads - Alva Noë

The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean. Bernhard Riemann

In a projective sense(into the eye to the back of the brain) Alva Noe may referring to experience as if to include, the back of the apple as more then a direct examination......would include another form of experience, a wider view as if to see more then from this projective sense of being.

The way in which I see this expository view unfold is to recognize the geometry as higher versions being exemplified to include a explanation of Alva Noe's view as to the nature of consciousness as more then a restricted view. Alva I feel is speaking to that which rests in the sensorial world of the projected, as an inner expression of the outside world. But now more too, a "meta cognitive view." I see the question pushing the "boundaries of this limited projected view, " as less then what Alva Noe is speaking too.

It brings to mind what is suggested of Meno, as to the larger capacity of what Plato wrote of in the story of Meno with regard to the abstract. The quote above, as to suggest, Riemann is exemplary as well.

If the late character of our sources may incite us to doubt the authenticity of this tradition, there remains that, in its spirit, it is in no way out of character, as can be seen by reading or rereading what Plato says about the sciences fit for the formation of philosophers in book VII of the Republic, and especially about geometry at Republic, VII, 526c8-527c11. We should only keep in mind that, for Plato, geometry, as well as all other mathematical sciences, is not an end in itself, but only a prerequisite meant to test and develop the power of abstraction in the student, that is, his ability to go beyond the level of sensible experience which keeps us within the "visible" realm, that of the material world, all the way to the pure intelligible..... See: Frequently Asked Questions about Plato by Bernard SUZANNE

Bold added by me for emphasis.

These 4 stages also correspond to Plato's 4 levels of understanding, as described in his Analog of the Divided Line.

Tabular summary of the Divided Line

Segment	Type of knowledge or opinion	Affection of the psyche	Type of object	Method of the psyche or eye	Relative truth and reality
DE	Noesis (νόησις)	Knowledge: understanding of only the Intelligible (νοητόν)	Only Ideas, which are all given existence and truth by the Good itself (τὸ αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν)	The Psyche examines all hypotheses by the Dialectic making no use of likenesses, always moving towards a First Principle	Highest
CD	Dianoia (διάνοια)	Knowledge: thought that recognizes but is not only of the Intelligible	Some Ideas, specifically those of Geometry and Number	The Psyche assumes hypotheses while making use of likenesses, always moving towards final conclusions	High
BC	Pistis (πίστις)	Opinion: belief concerning visible things	visible things (ὁρατά)	The eye makes probable predictions upon observing visible things	low
AB	Eikasia (εἰκασία)	Opinion: conjectures concerning likenesses	likenesses of visible things (εἰκόνες)	The eye makes guesses upon observing likenesses of visible things	lowest

The Stage 1s argue and understand in terms of Eikasia.

The Stage 2s argue and understand in terms of Pistis.

The Stage 3s argue and understand in terms of Dianoia.

The Stage 4s argue and understand in terms of Noesis.

Socrates asks Glaucon to not only envision this unequally bisected line but to imagine further bisecting each of the two segments. Socrates explains that the four resulting segments represent four separate 'affections' (παθήματα) of the psyche. The lower two sections are said to represent the visible while the higher two are said to represent the intelligible. These affections are described in succession as corresponding to increasing levels of reality and truth from conjecture (εἰκασία) to belief (πίστις) to thought (διάνοια) and finally to understanding (νόησις). Furthermore this Analogy not only elaborates a theory of the psyche but also presents metaphysical and epistemological views. Analogy of the Divided Line -

Maybe in the context of what Justice is to mean in the larger context of the idea as a first principle. Applying any search to the "inherent truth" is as much a trail as that toward what the language spoken by you, is to ascertain as being your truth. So we all recognize that, and recognize your bias......and for some of us it is an understanding of the process itself as you speak toward your truth.

Plato describes "The Form of the Good", or more literally "the idea of the good" (ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα), in his dialogue the Republic (508e2–3), speaking through the character of Socrates. Plato introduces several forms in his works, but identifies the Form of the Good as the superlative. This form is the one that allows a philosopher-in-training to advance to a philosopher-king. It can not be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms. Form of the Good

Bold added for emphasis

Plato identifies how the Form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, “good is yet more prized”. He then proceeds to explain “although the good is not being” it is “superior to it in rank and power”, it is what “provides for knowledge and truth” (508e).[1] Usages in The Republic -

Mechanism Design Theory: Radio Spectrum

Nobel Prize winning economist Eric Maskin on privatization of the radio spectrum, history of the field, and decision making mistakes.

Aristotle-The Square of Opposition (Whiteboard Animation)

Aristotle laid out the principles of his logic in his writing Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, in Latin De Interpretatione, in English On Exposition. It is a graphical representation of the relations between propositions that guarantee their truth. If philosophers and scientists would internalise the logical rules in Aristotle's square of opposition, a lot of misunderstandings would be prevented. SEE: The Square of Opposition as a Whiteboard animation

 Basics of the Square of Opposition of Aristotle

0:06 A proposition (e.g. "All Greeks are men.") consists of a subject ("Greeks") and a predicate ("men").
The four types of propositions are:
Universal positive ("All Greeks are men.", abbreviated "aGM"),
Universal negative ("No Greeks are men.", abbreviated "nGM"),
Particular positive ("Some Greeks are men.", abbreviated "sGM") and
Particular negative ("Some Greeks are not men", abbreviated "sGnM").

1:38 Contradiction (Aristotle)

Universal positive and particular negative, as well as universal negative and particular positive are contradictory. They can't both be true and can't both be false at the same time.

1:59 Contraries (Aristotle)

Universal positive and Universal negative propositions are contraries. They can't both be true, but can both be false at the same time.

2:15 Subcontraries (Aristotle)

Particular positive and Particular negative propositions are subcontraries. They can't both be false, but can both be true at the same time.

2:35 Implication (Aristotle)

Implied propositions (particular positive and particular negative) are true, when their implying propositions (universal positive and universal negative) are true.

2:55 Counter Indication (Aristotle)

Universal propositions (positive and negative respectively) are false, when their particular propositions (positive and negative respectively) are false.

3:19 Converse propositions (Aristotle)

In converse propositions, subjects (e.g. Greeks) and predicates (e.g. men) can be switched without altering the proposition's truth.

Converse Propositions are:
"No Greeks are men" and
"Some Greeks are men".
so it is also true that
"No men are Greeks" as well as
"Some men are Greeks".

3:44 Complements (Aristotle)

A complement of a subject or predicate is everything that it is not.
E.g. "all that is not a man" and "all that is not a Greek".

3:58 Contrapositive propositions (Aristotle)

In contrapositive propositions ("all Greeks are men" and "some Greeks are not men"), if the subjects' and predicates' complements are switched, the proposition retains its truth.

***

See Also:

• Traditional Square of Opposition

The Question Regarding the Nature of Time

Discussions of the nature of time, and of various issues related to time, have always featured prominently in philosophy, but they have been especially important since the beginning of the 20th Century. This article contains a brief overview of some of the main topics in the philosophy of time — Fatalism; Reductionism and Platonism with respect to time; the topology of time; McTaggart's arguments; The A Theory and The B Theory; Presentism, Eternalism, and The Growing Universe Theory; time travel; and the 3D/4D controversy — together with some suggestions for further reading on each topic, and a bibliography. Time Markosian, Ned, "Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

If we believe time to be in relation to space-time, then the parameters of our thinking have a distinction about how we look at time?

Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension, along with the spatial dimensions. Time

So you see, one is being selective about the parameters they give them self with which to regard time.

Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy. Time

If we are part and parcel, then what said that any idea of continuity can express itself. One would have to believe there is a perfect symmetry in existence that is expressed as an asymmetric example of such perfection, and maybe defined as the matters?

Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience.[60] With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events. Time was designated by Kant as the purest possible schema of a pure concept or category. Time

All bold added for emphasis by me.

So, we may come to believe something about yourself that was not quite evident before until we acquiescent to the question regarding the nature of time as we have come to know them.

 If you come to believe there are limits in terms of the reductionist efforts regarding measure, so as to be limited in our perceptions, then what lies beyond, that what we may measure? Do you know how to measure a thought?

 But perhaps most significant is that all their observations are compatible with relativity. At no point does the time machine-simulator lead to grandfather-type paradoxes, regardless of the tricks it plays with causality. That’s just as Deutsch predicted. See: The Quantum Experiment That Simulates A Time Machine

How would you perceive Time Dilation. How would you then perceive Time Travel. How would you perceive time variable measure? Given the constraints of such a measure, we have come "to believe" something in science.

Plato's Theory of Forms

The Golden Mean (philosophy)

Ancient Greek Philosophers

In philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. -The Golden Mean (philosophy)

In the Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle writes on the virtues. Aristotle’s theory on virtue ethics is one that does not see a person’s actions as a reflection of their ethics but rather looks into the character of a person as the reason behind their ethics. His constant phrase is, "… is the Middle state between …". His psychology of the soul and its virtues is based on the golden mean between the extremes. In the Politics, Aristotle criticizes the Spartan Polity by critiquing the disproportionate elements of the constitution; e.g., they trained the men and not the women, and they trained for war but not peace. This disharmony produced difficulties which he elaborates on in his work. See also the discussion in the Nicomachean Ethics of the golden mean, and Aristotelian ethics in general.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)#Aristotle

Book VI: Intellectual virtue 

 Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics is identical to Book V of the Eudemian Ethics. Earlier in both works, both the Nicomachean Ethics Book IV, and the equivalent book in the Eudemian Ethics (Book III), though different, ended by stating that the next step was to discuss justice. Indeed in Book I Aristotle set out his justification for beginning with particulars and building up to the highest things. Character virtues (apart from justice perhaps) were already discussed in an approximate way, as like achieving at middle point between two extreme options, but this now raises the question of how we know and recognize the things we aim at or avoid. Recognizing the mean recognizing the correct boundary-marker (horos) which defines the frontier of the mean. And so practical ethics, having a good character, requires knowledge.-

Acquiring Knowledge

A priori and a posteriori knowledge

The nature of this distinction has been disputed by various philosophers; however, the terms may be roughly defined as follows:

A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience (that is, it is non-empirical, or arrived at beforehand, usually by reason). It will henceforth be acquired through anything that is independent from experience.
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical, or arrived at afterward).

A priori knowledge is a way of gaining knowledge without the need of experience. In Bruce Russell's article "A Priori Justification and Knowledge"[19] he says that it is "knowledge based on a priori justification," (1) which relies on intuition and the nature of these intuitions. A priori knowledge is often contrasted with posteriori knowledge, which is knowledge gained by experience. A way to look at the difference between the two is through an example. Bruce Russell give two proposition in which the reader decides which one he believes more. Option A: All crows are birds. Option B: All crows are black. If you believe option A, then you are a priori justified in believing it because you don't have to see a crow to know it's a bird. If you believe in option B, then you are posteriori justified to believe it because you have seen many crows therefore knowing they are black. He goes on to say that it doesn't matter if the statement is true or not, only that if you believe in one or the other that matters.

The idea of a priori knowledge is that it is based on intuition or rational insights. Laurence BonJour says in his article "The Structure of Empirical Knowledge",[20] that a "rational insight is an immediate, non-inferential grasp, apprehension or 'seeing' that some proposition is necessarily true." (3) Going back to the crow example, by Laurence BonJour's definition the reason you would believe in option A is because you have an immediate knowledge that a crow is a bird, without ever experiencing one.- Acquiring Knowledge

***

In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"[1] or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".[3] Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".[4] Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals. -Rationalism

***

 

Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.^[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;^[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.^[3]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification."^[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research.

Symbolic Logic

In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms  Mathematical proof

Direct proof
Proof by mathematical induction-
Proof by [S]contraposition[/S]/transposition (P → Q) \Leftrightarrow (¬ Q → ¬ P)
Proof by construction
Proof by exhaustion
Probabilistic proof
Combinatorial proof
Nonconstructive proof
Statistical proofs in pure mathematics

----------------------------------------------------


Modus Ponens-   
                                                      p → q
                                                      p
                                                      _____
                                                      q   

Modus Tollens-   
                                                       p → q
                                                       ~q
                                                       _____
                                                       ~p   

Hypothetical Syllogism-   
                                                       p → q
                                                       q → r
                                                       _____
                                                       p → r   

Disjunctive Syllogism-   
                                                       p ∨ q
                                                       ~ p
                                                       _____
                                                       q   

Constructive Dilemma-   
                                                      (p → q) • (r → s)
                                                      p ∨ r
                                                      ______
                                                      Q ∨ S
   
Destructive Dilemma-   
                                                      (p → q) • (r → s)
                                                      ~q ∨ ~S
                                                      ______
                                                      ~P v ~R
   
Conjunction    -
                                                       p
                                                       q
                                                       _____
                                                       p • q   

Simplification-   
                                                       p • q
                                                       ____
                                                       p   

Addition   
p
_____
p ∨ q


----------------------------------------------------------------------

¬     negation (NOT)                     The tilde ( ˜ ) is also often used.
∧     conjunction (AND)             The ampersand ( & ) or dot ( · ) are also often used.
∨     disjunction (OR)                     This is the inclusive disjunction, equivalent to and/or in                                              English.
⊕     exclusive disjunction (XOR)     ⊕ means that only one of the connected propositions 
                                                is true, equivalent to either…or. Sometimes ⊻ is used.
|     alternative denial (NAND)     Means “not both”. Sometimes written as ↑
↓     joint denial (NOR)             Means “neither/nor”.
→     conditional (if/then)             Many logicians use the symbol ⊃ instead. This is also 
                                                known as material implication.
↔     biconditional (iff)                     Means “if and only if” ≡ is sometimes used, but this site
                                                reserves that symbol for equivalence.

Quantifiers

∀     universal quantifier             Means “for all”, so ∀xPx means that Px is true for every x.
∃     existential quantifier             Means “there exists”, so ∃xPx means that Px is true for at
                                                least one x.
Relations

⊨     implication                             α ⊨ β means that β follows from α
≡     equivalence                     Also ⇔. Equivalence is two-way implication, so α ≡ β
                                                means α implies β and β implies α.
⊢     provability                             Shows provable inference. α is provable β means that
                                                from α we can prove that β.
∴     therefore                             Used to signify the conclusion of an argument. Usually
                                                taken to mean implication, but often used to present
                                                arguments in which the premises do not deductively imply
                                                the conclusion.
⊩     forces                            A relationship between possible worlds and sentences in
                                               modal logic.
Truth-Values

⊤     tautology                            May be used to replace any tautologous (always true)
                                               formula.
⊥     contradiction                    May be used to replace any contradictory (always false)
                                              formula. Sometimes “F” is used.

Parentheses

( )     parentheses                   Used to group expressions to show precedence of
                                             operations.
Square brackets

[ ]                                          are sometimes used to clarify groupings.
Set Theory

∈     membership                   Denotes membership in a set. If a ∈ Γ, then a is a member
                                             (or an element) of set Γ.
∪     union                          Used to join sets. If S and T are sets of formula, S ∪ T is a
                                             set containing all members of both.
∩     intersection                  The overlap between sets. If S and T are sets of formula, S
                                             ∩ T is a set containing those elemenets that are members
                                             of both.
⊆     subset                          A subset is a set containing some or all elements of another
                                             set.
⊂     proper subset                  A proper subset contains some, but not all, elements of
                                             another set.
=     set equality                  Two sets are equal if they contain exactly the same
                                             elements.
∁     absolute complement          ∁(S) is the set of all things that are not in the set S.
                                             Sometimes written as C(S), S or SC.
-     relative complement          T - S is the set of all elements in T that are not also in S.
                                             Sometimes written as T \ S.
∅     empty set                          The set containing no elements.

Modalities

□     necessarily                     Used only in modal logic systems. Sometimes expressed as []
                                            where the symbol is unavailable.
◊     possibly                         Used only in modal logic systems. Sometimes expressed as
                                           <> where the symbol is unavailable.

Propositions, Variables and Non-Logical Symbols

The use of variables in logic varies depending on the system and the author of the logic being presented. However, some common uses have emerged. For the sake of clarity, this site will use the system defined below.

Symbol             Meaning                     Notes

A, B, C … Z     propositions     Uppercase Roman letters signify individual propositions. For example, P may symbolize the proposition “Pat is ridiculous”. P and Q are traditionally used in most examples.

α, β, γ … ω     formulae     Lowercase Greek letters signify formulae, which may be themselves a proposition (P), a formula (P ∧ Q) or several connected formulae (φ ∧ ρ).

x, y, z             variables     Lowercase Roman letters towards the end of the alphabet are used to signify variables. In logical systems, these are usually coupled with a quantifier, ∀ or ∃, in order to signify some or all of some unspecified subject or object. By convention, these begin with x, but any other letter may be used if needed, so long as they are defined as a variable by a quantifier.

a, b, c, … z     constants           Lowercase Roman letters, when not assigned by a quantifier, signifiy a constant, usually a proper noun. For instance, the letter “j” may be used to signify “Jerry”. Constants are given a meaning before they are used in logical expressions.

Ax, Bx … Zx     predicate symbols     Uppercase Roman letters appear again to indicate predicate relationships between variables and/or constants, coupled with one or more variable places which may be filled by variables or constants. For instance, we may definite the relation “x is green” as Gx, and “x likes y” as Lxy. To differentiate them from propositions, they are often presented in italics, so while P may be a proposition, Px is a predicate relation for x. Predicate symbols are non-logical — they describe relations but have neither operational function nor truth value in themselves.

Γ, Δ, … Ω     sets of formulae     Uppercase Greek letters are used, by convention, to refer to sets of formulae. Γ is usually used to represent the first site, since it is the first that does not look like Roman letters. (For instance, the uppercase Alpha (Α) looks identical to the Roman letter “A”)

Γ, Δ, … Ω     possible worlds     In modal logic, uppercase greek letters are also used to represent possible worlds. Alternatively, an uppercase W with a subscript numeral is sometimes used, representing worlds as W0, W1, and so on.

{ }     sets     Curly brackets are generally used when detailing the contents of a set, such as a set of formulae, or a set of possible worlds in modal logic. For instance, Γ = { α, β, γ, δ }

Tradition Square of Opposition

Parsons, Terence, "The Traditional Square of Opposition", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Contrary- All S are P, No S is P All s is P is contrary to the claim NO S is P. 

----------------------- 

A contrary can be true as well as false. Contraries can both be false. Contraries can't both be true. 

The A and E forms entail each other's negations 

Subcontrary Some S are P, Some S are not P

 -------------------------------------------- 

Sub contraries can't both be false. Sub contraries can both be true. The negation of the I form entails the (unnegated) E form, and vice versa. 

Contradiction- All S are P, Some S are not P, Some S are P, No S are P

 ----------------------------------- 

For contradictions -Two propositions are contradictory if they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. Contradictory means there is exactly one truth value and if one proposition is true the other MUST be false. If one is false the other MUST be true. 

The propositions can't both be true and the propositions can't both be false. 

The A and O forms entail each other's negations, as do the E and I forms. 

The negation of the A form entails the (unnegated) O form, and vice versa; likewise for the E and I forms.
 Super alteration[- Every S is P, implies Some S are P No S is P, implies Some S are not P 

-------------------------------------------- 

The two propositions can be true.

 Sub alteration- All S are P, Some S are P No S are P, Some S are not P 

---------------------------------- 

A proposition is a subaltern of another if it must be true The A form entails the I form, and the E form entails the O form. 

"The 'I' proposition, the particular affirmative (particularis affirmativa), Latin 'quoddam S est P', usually translated as 'some S are P'" . 

As in the first(Proposition 1) or the "I" "To be clear the I proposition is SOME S is P. This is what is meant by a I proposition. Well you can certainly infer if an I proposition is true that an E proposition is false because they are contradictory. Unfortunately there is NOTHING else to infer with certainty. That is there will be times where the proposition will be true and different times it will be false. This is called contingent truths. That is the proposition is not true 100% of the time. It has false cases. Deductive logic tries to stay away from contingent truths." 

"The 'I' proposition, the particular affirmative (particularis affirmativa), Latin 'quoddam S est P', usually translated as 'some S are P'" 

Summary

Universal statements are contraries: 'every man is just' and 'no man is just' cannot be true together, although one may be true and the other false, and also both may be false (if at least one man is just, and at least one man is not just).

Particular statements are subcontraries. 'Some man is just' and 'some man is not just' cannot be false together

The particular statement of one quality is the subaltern of the universal statement of that same quality, which is the superaltern of the particular statement, because in Aristotelian semantics 'every A is B' implies 'some A is B' and 'no A is B' implies 'some A is not B'. Note that modern formal interpretations of English sentences interpret 'every A is B' as 'for any x, x is A implies x is B', which does not imply 'some x is A'. This is a matter of semantic interpretation, however, and does not mean, as is sometimes claimed, that Aristotelian logic is 'wrong'.

The universal affirmative and the particular negative are contradictories. If some A is not B, not every A is B. Conversely, though this is not the case in modern semantics, it was thought that if every A is not B, some A is not B. This interpretation has caused difficulties (see below). While Aristotle's Greek does not represent the particular negative as 'some A is not B', but as 'not every A is B', someone in his commentary on the Peri hermaneias, renders the particular negative as 'quoddam A non est B', literally 'a certain A is not a B', and in all medieval writing on logic it is customary to represent the particular proposition in this way.

These relationships became the basis of a diagram originating with Boethius and used by medieval logicians to classify the logical relationships. The propositions are placed in the four corners of a square, and the relations represented as lines drawn between them, whence the name 'The Square of Opposition'.

Dark Matter Research

An overview of how the LHC at CERN can look for dark matter. (Credit: STFC/Ben Gilliland)
(Click on Image for larger viewing)

***

See Also:

• The Dark Matter Hunt