Plato

[Akar]

Odyssey, Book I (lines 1–25)
[lines 1–10: The Proem]
line 1: Tell/sing to me, O Muse, of the man of many turns (polýtropon), who very much
line 2: wandered, after he destroyed the sacred citadel of Troy;
line 3: of many men he saw the cities and knew their mind / way of thinking,
line 4: and many sufferings he endured in his heart upon the sea,
line 5: striving for his own life and for the return of his companions.
line 6: But not even so did he save his companions, though desiring to do so;
line 7: for through their own reckless acts / folly they perished,
line 8: fools, who the cattle of Hyperion the Sun
line 9: ate; but he took away from them the day of their return.
line 10: Of these things, starting from any point, O goddess, daughter of Zeus, speak to us as well.
[lines 11–25: The Situation of the Gods and Odysseus]
line 11: Then all the others, as many as had escaped sheer destruction,
line 12: were at home, having escaped both the war and the sea;
line 13: but him alone, who longed for his return and his wife,
line 14: the queenly nymph held back, Calypso, divine among goddesses,
line 15: in her hollow caves, desiring him to be her husband.
line 16: But when at last the year came, in the revolving of time,
line 17: in which the gods spun for him to return home,
line 18: to Ithaca, not even there was he free from struggles / toil,
line 19: even though he was among his loved ones. And all the gods had pity [on him],
line 20: except Poseidon; and he relentlessly raged
line 21: against divine Odysseus, before he reached his land.
line 22: But he [Poseidon] had gone to the Ethiopians who dwell far off,
line 23: the Ethiopians who are divided into two parts, the most distant of men,
line 24: some where Hyperion [the Sun] sets, others where he rises,
line 25: to receive a hecatomb of bulls and lambs.


-G

 

[Akar]

I wanted to publish some of the most beautiful quotes I have found, which I believe reflect very well the multifaceted nature of the human soul.

The human mind tends to mistake myth for truth, often purely out of habit; in my view, one must separate narrative fiction from the rigor of reality.

Homer – Translation: "He spoke, telling many falsehoods similar to the truth"

Contextualization: Describing Odysseus telling lies to Penelope so as not to be recognized.

Hesiod – Translation: "We know how to speak many falsehoods similar to the truth, but we also know, when we want, how to proclaim the truth"

Contextualization: The Muses are warning Hesiod that poetic inspiration and myths can both deceive human beings with beautiful fables and reveal to them the deepest truth about things.

Plato – Translation: "First, we tell stories [myths] to children; and this is, as a whole, a fiction, but true things are also contained within it"

Contextualization: The fable is an invented fiction, but it also serves as a shell to teach a true moral principle to someone who is still too young to understand pure philosophy.

Aristotle – Translation: "How great the power of habit is is shown by the laws, in which mythical and childish things have more power than real knowledge, because of custom"

Contextualization: Most people prefer to believe in childish narratives or comforting myths rather than making the effort to reach true knowledge.

Plutarch – Translation: "Myth is a false discourse that reflects the truth"

Contextualization: Myth is not a simple lie meant to deceive, but an allegory: an invented story (logos pseudes) constructed specifically to act as a mirror to a truth.

Next, I wanted to propose this passage from the Symposium (I believe among the most beautiful written regarding the birth of love)


Well, O Eryximachus," said Aristophanes, "I intend to speak in a different way compared to what you and Pausanias have done.
For it seems to me that hunans have not grasped at all the power of Eros; because, if they had grasped it, they would have built for him the greatest temples and altars and would offer him the greatest sacrifices, whereas now nothing of all this is done towards him, while being the thing that above all should happen. He is indeed the most philanthropic among the gods, being a defender of men and a physician of those evils whose healing would bring maximum happiness to the human race.
I therefore will try to illustrate to you his power, and you will be teachers of it to the others. But first you must know human nature and the vicissitudes it has undergone. Our ancient nature in fact was not that of now, but another.
In the first place there were three genders of men, and not two as now, the male and the female, but there was also a third one, which was common to both of these two, of which now the name has remained, but it has disappeared; the androgen in fact was then a single thing, both in appearance and in name, common to both, to the male and to the female, whereas now it no longer exists, except as a name used as a term of contempt.

-G

 

[Akar]

Acoustics in ancient Greek theatres, imagine watching a Greek tragedy 2600 years ago, and there is no replay. Imagine the power of such an experience, that you will probably experience only once in life


-G

 

[Akar]

The thought of Plato and the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler correlate profoundly through the unitary conception of the individual, the role of reason, and the tension toward an ideal goal.
Plato founds his philosophy on the idea that every human action is oriented toward the Good and toward a transcendent ideal order. Adler modifies a similar structure by introducing finalism: the individual is not driven solely by the past or by deterministic causes (as Freud maintained), but is attracted and guided by a future goal, an aspiration to superiority understood as perfection, self-realization, and overcoming the sense of inferiority.
For Plato, man realizes his inner and outer justice only in harmony with the community (the polis). Similarly, the central pillar of Adlerian psychology is social feeling, that is, the innate need to cooperate and feel like an organic part of the collective, without which the drive for individual affirmation degenerates into sterile egoism.

In my opinion, as a young carpenter, this is my thought, therefore it is worth zero.

Mechanistic logic (e.g., Freud) postulates that behavior derives from a past trauma. Plato and Adler invalidate and dismantle this construct in favor of finalism.

Postulate: Human action is not driven by a prior cause, but attracted by a future goal.

Plato: The soul moves attracted by the Idea (the Supreme Good), which acts as an absolute center of gravity.

Adler: Behavior is oriented toward a "Fictional Goal" (the drive to superiority/perfection).

Logical Deduction: In both systems, the behavior vector is calculated based on the destination, not the starting point.

In my opinion, Adler did nothing but take the Platonic metaphysical architecture and translate it into the clinical and immanent language of modern psychology. My intuition is not based on a semantic similarity, but on the identity of the lowest common denominator of: man as a unitary system, driven by the future, and bound to the social network.

From here derives my intuition as to why Adler, together with Jung, was one of the greatest detractors of Freud:
the latter (Freud) erased the concept of the will to power, therefore whatever was experienced as a child would be a sword of Damocles.
It is like saying that the concept of resilience is wrong and an alibi is given to anything to justify an inner weakness that one does not want to look at and face.

One never stops growing, and the humility to admit that one does not know is the basis of all self-improvement.

Denying self-improvement as a toxic egoic behavior is logically fallacious at its base.

It is like saying that I see the semi-truck coming toward me and I do not move, because I believe my obstinate fear is stronger than the truck.

an intuition of mine, not a law, not a truth, but a simple concept that I wanted to express after the last few weeks

-G

 

[Wyote]

If there's anything I don't know, it's trucks

 

[Akar]

If there's anything I don't know, it's trucks

Mazinga Zeta or Optimus prime ?


-G

 

[Wyote]

Mazinga Zeta or Optimus prime ?

Jetfire
(Optimus)

 

[Erik Alberto]

The thought of Plato and the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler correlate profoundly through the unitary conception of the individual, the role of reason, and the tension toward an ideal goal.
Plato founds his philosophy on the idea that every human action is oriented toward the Good and toward a transcendent ideal order. Adler modifies a similar structure by introducing finalism: the individual is not driven solely by the past or by deterministic causes (as Freud maintained), but is attracted and guided by a future goal, an aspiration to superiority understood as perfection, self-realization, and overcoming the sense of inferiority.
For Plato, man realizes his inner and outer justice only in harmony with the community (the polis). Similarly, the central pillar of Adlerian psychology is social feeling, that is, the innate need to cooperate and feel like an organic part of the collective, without which the drive for individual affirmation degenerates into sterile egoism.

In my opinion, as a young carpenter, this is my thought, therefore it is worth zero.

Mechanistic logic (e.g., Freud) postulates that behavior derives from a past trauma. Plato and Adler invalidate and dismantle this construct in favor of finalism.

Postulate: Human action is not driven by a prior cause, but attracted by a future goal.

Plato: The soul moves attracted by the Idea (the Supreme Good), which acts as an absolute center of gravity.

Adler: Behavior is oriented toward a "Fictional Goal" (the drive to superiority/perfection).

Logical Deduction: In both systems, the behavior vector is calculated based on the destination, not the starting point.

In my opinion, Adler did nothing but take the Platonic metaphysical architecture and translate it into the clinical and immanent language of modern psychology. My intuition is not based on a semantic similarity, but on the identity of the lowest common denominator of: man as a unitary system, driven by the future, and bound to the social network.

From here derives my intuition as to why Adler, together with Jung, was one of the greatest detractors of Freud:
the latter (Freud) erased the concept of the will to power, therefore whatever was experienced as a child would be a sword of Damocles.
It is like saying that the concept of resilience is wrong and an alibi is given to anything to justify an inner weakness that one does not want to look at and face.

One never stops growing, and the humility to admit that one does not know is the basis of all self-improvement.

Denying self-improvement as a toxic egoic behavior is logically fallacious at its base.

It is like saying that I see the semi-truck coming toward me and I do not move, because I believe my obstinate fear is stronger than the truck.

an intuition of mine, not a law, not a truth, but a simple concept that I wanted to express after the last few weeks

-G

This is a cool post, Giammarco. This is thick and fibrous material . I love it.

I’ll share a thought I had while reading it.

I’m not well versed in the mechanistic, but I know and embrace the teleology of Jung, as you know.

When I hold them side by side, through your lens above, though, I think, “can’t we hold them both together, despite their tension?”

They seem to have complimentary perspectives. I might lean towards teleology, but the idea that the unreflected-upon past can play a role in future behavior hardly seems off base, to me.

 

[Akar]

This is a cool post, Giammarco. This is thick and fibrous material . I love it.

I’ll share a thought I had while reading it.

I’m not well versed in the mechanistic, but I know and embrace the teleology of Jung, as you know.

When I hold them side by side, through your lens above, though, I think, “can’t we hold them both together, despite their tension?”

They seem to have complimentary perspectives. I might lean towards teleology, but the idea that the unreflected-upon past can play a role in future behavior hardly seems off base, to me.

Appreciate the pushback, Erick.

The core issue with holding both perspectives simultaneously comes down to epistemological validity. Karl Popper rightly highlighted that classic psychoanalytic models suffer from a fundamental lack of falsifiability: regardless of the outcome, the theory retroactively justifies everything. If a subject suffers early trauma, the framework can explain both why he became a criminal or why he became a saint, using the exact same underlying premise.

When we attempt to merge teleology with deterministic 'unreflected past' dynamics, we create a logical exit ramp. The moment the past is granted causal power over present action, teleology stops being a sovereign orientation and degrades into a secondary coping mechanism. They aren't truly complementary—one inevitably dilutes the accountability of the other.

So no, for me they can't live among together. But it's my personal point of view, that I'm glad to talk about.

Asking as a friend - where is the grey area where they collide when a semi-truck is pointing directly to you ?

-G

 

[Erik Alberto]

Appreciate the pushback, Erick.

The core issue with holding both perspectives simultaneously comes down to epistemological validity. Karl Popper rightly highlighted that classic psychoanalytic models suffer from a fundamental lack of falsifiability: regardless of the outcome, the theory retroactively justifies everything. If a subject suffers early trauma, the framework can explain both why he became a criminal or why he became a saint, using the exact same underlying premise.

When we attempt to merge teleology with deterministic 'unreflected past' dynamics, we create a logical exit ramp. The moment the past is granted causal power over present action, teleology stops being a sovereign orientation and degrades into a secondary coping mechanism. They aren't truly complementary—one inevitably dilutes the accountability of the other.

So no, for me they can't live among together. But it's my personal point of view, that I'm glad to talk about.

Asking as a friend - where is the grey area where they collide when a semi-truck is pointing directly to you ?

-G

G—

I didn’t really realize what I was casually stepping into when I first commented. It didn’t register that I was entering a classic argument. I just picked up some stones and held them up to look at for a moment, said something, and when I looked down and took my next step, I said to myself, “Oh shit—a den of snakes!” I say that because I know I am out of my waters.

I’m someone who does t have a problem casually looking for usefulness or beauty in ideas, free of the systems in which they originate. I try to see what disparate connections can be found between them.

I don’t know much about Plato. That’s not really my thing. But then I read you engaging on his material here, and I enjoy myself.

Yes, I see that the two are opposed to one another. They cannot be reconciled. You cannot hold them together.

There is a way though…you hold them, not as contradiction, but as paradox.

Jung moved away from the mechanistic—to use this term that is new to me—so that he could focus his work on the unconscious psyche, but he also never rejected it, from my understanding.

But I get why that might just feel ridiculous.

Thinking about the material you presented provided a stimulating touch point for me throughout the day. So thank you.

After reading your post more closely, I also really can appreciate the significance of the intuitions you shared much more clearly.

To answer your question, If a truck is headed straight for me—I’d move…It’s what the situation calls for.