|
The most fundamental distinction in Plato's philosophy is between the many observable objects that appear good and the object that is what goodness really is.
It is asserted by Plato that true philosophers - those who recognise how important it is to distinguish the one (the one thing that goodness is) from the many (the many things that are called good) are in a position to become ethically superior to unenlightened human beings, because of their greater degree of insight they can acquire.
To understand which things are good and why they are good (and if we are not interested in such questions, how can we become good?), we must investigate the form of good.
   
|
|
So, you're pretty much saying, that in order to become good, we must try and investigate what good is?
|
On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. Is that good?
|
On May 20 2011 08:09 platorepublic wrote:Is that good? You should know. You're a philosopher.
|
I never understood why we give so much credibility to the guy that came up with the concept of platonic relationships, and thought it was a pretty sweet idea.
|
On May 20 2011 08:12 NicksonReyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:09 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. Is that good? You should know. You're a philosopher. I don't need a sword. The ultimate of war is peace.
|
On May 20 2011 08:17 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:12 NicksonReyes wrote:On May 20 2011 08:09 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. Is that good? You should know. You're a philosopher. I don't need a sword. The ultimate of war is peace.
The ultimate of war is showing that you are stroger than the others~~
|
Plato's philosophy this? Plato's philosophy that? I thought he wrote stories about an old guy that only asked questions.
|
On May 20 2011 08:12 hifriend wrote: I never understood why we give so much credibility to the guy that came up with the concept of platonic relationships, and thought it was a pretty sweet idea. I'm not sure that the concept of "Platonic relationships" has anything to do with Plato's philosophy at all.
|
On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword.
And you have my bow.
|
On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:And you have my bow.
and Myyyy Axe!
|
OP you should pose a question so there's something to discuss. I am interested.
|
On May 20 2011 08:46 zulu_nation8 wrote: OP you should pose a question so there's something to discuss. I am interested. What is the form of good? What is goodness?
|
On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe!
You carry the fate of us all, little one. If this is indeed the will of the Council, then Gondor will see it done.
|
On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe!
So... where are we going?
|
Isn't good = eudaimonia, which roughly means the good life. The virtues are means to obtaining eudaimonia. Virtues are both desirable for themselves and as means to an end. I haven't read any of this in a while though.
|
Plato was a fucking dumbass. He held ridicilous beliefs that have no evidence.
|
On May 20 2011 08:47 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:46 zulu_nation8 wrote: OP you should pose a question so there's something to discuss. I am interested. What is the form of good? What is goodness?
The answer in this case isn't as important as asking the question. If you're asking the question you realise that no book, prophet or other self appointed expert has the answers.
|
On May 20 2011 08:51 vOdToasT wrote: Plato was a fucking dumbass. He held ridicilous beliefs that have no evidence. that's a pretty mean thing to say about someone in his own blog...
|
these threads are so bizarre
|
On May 20 2011 08:55 elmizzt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:51 vOdToasT wrote: Plato was a fucking dumbass. He held ridicilous beliefs that have no evidence. that's a pretty mean thing to say about someone in his own blog...
Yeah really, what's with the past tense?
oh, and this is bad
|
On May 20 2011 08:55 elmizzt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:51 vOdToasT wrote: Plato was a fucking dumbass. He held ridicilous beliefs that have no evidence. that's a pretty mean thing to say about someone in his own blog...
I'm not insulting OP, I'm insulting Plato.
|
On May 20 2011 09:12 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:55 elmizzt wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 vOdToasT wrote: Plato was a fucking dumbass. He held ridicilous beliefs that have no evidence. that's a pretty mean thing to say about someone in his own blog... I'm not insulting OP, I'm insulting Plato. That is worse.
|
On May 20 2011 09:19 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 09:12 vOdToasT wrote:On May 20 2011 08:55 elmizzt wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 vOdToasT wrote: Plato was a fucking dumbass. He held ridicilous beliefs that have no evidence. that's a pretty mean thing to say about someone in his own blog... I'm not insulting OP, I'm insulting Plato. That is worse.
No, that is good. I mean bad.
|
On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness.
|
United States817 Posts
|
It would be more constructive if you explained why you are confused.
|
On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
|
On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then?
It's better than doing nothing.
|
On May 20 2011 08:29 quandle wrote: Plato's philosophy this? Plato's philosophy that? I thought he wrote stories about an old guy that only asked questions. yes, and what's your point
|
On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent.
|
On May 20 2011 09:41 Hyren wrote: I'm so confused. Good.
|
On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then.
|
On May 20 2011 10:02 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then. Yes.
|
On May 20 2011 10:02 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 10:02 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote:On May 20 2011 08:07 elmizzt wrote: You have my sword. And you have my bow. and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then. Yes. You just did.
|
On May 20 2011 10:14 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 10:02 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 10:02 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote: [quote]
And you have my bow.
and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then. Yes. You just did.
If a post is made in a blog, and no one reads it, was it truly written?
|
On May 20 2011 10:14 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 10:02 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 10:02 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote:On May 20 2011 08:32 Talin wrote: [quote]
And you have my bow.
and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then. Yes. You just did. We are not finished.
|
On May 20 2011 10:18 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 10:14 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 10:02 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 10:02 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote: [quote]
and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then. Yes. You just did. If a post is made in a blog, and no one reads it, was it truly written? Good going. You just broke philosophy. >:o
|
|
On May 20 2011 10:18 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 10:14 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 10:02 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 10:02 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:57 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:55 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 09:53 duckett wrote:On May 20 2011 09:22 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 08:51 mizU wrote:On May 20 2011 08:37 Zurles wrote: [quote]
and Myyyy Axe! javascript:addUBB('img') So... where are we going? We are going towards goodness. Not necessarily. Good can be defined such that the exploration does not lead to good. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If we don't explore, how can we even know anything then? It's better than doing nothing. Why is it better than doing nothing? To answer this, you would have to define better, which would presuppose a definition of good to at least some extent. So let's say you do nothing, then. Yes. You just did. If a post is made in a blog, and no one reads it, was it truly written? Plato says yes.
|
I just checked the other peoples blogs to see which is best by ranking, and just realised my blog is ranked 2nd last. (Lol.)
|
On May 20 2011 08:51 zulu_nation8 wrote: Isn't good = eudaimonia, which roughly means the good life. The virtues are means to obtaining eudaimonia. Virtues are both desirable for themselves and as means to an end. I haven't read any of this in a while though. I think that was more Aristotle's idea of what the good is than Plato's.
|
|
On May 20 2011 11:26 sYz-Adrenaline wrote: Bad? What?
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50120 Posts
|
On May 20 2011 11:28 BLinD-RawR wrote: Ugly. What is with all these one word replies?
|
The OP is more about the nature of good rather than the question of what is good, ie essence precedes existence. I'm not inclined to believe either side of a questionable dichotomy of either existence or essence preceding the other, I guess I just copout on any form of philosophy that attempts to be fully systematic by resorting to my own ideas of epistemology as the basis for other stuff.
|
On May 20 2011 11:34 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: The OP is more about the nature of good rather than the question of what is good, ie essence precedes existence. I'm not inclined to believe either side of a questionable dichotomy of either existence or essence preceding the other, I guess I just copout on any form of philosophy that attempts to be fully systematic by resorting to my own ideas of epistemology as the basis for other stuff. Yes, you are right about OP.
And what are your own ideas of epistemology exactly?
|
Riders of Rohan, what news from the mark?
|
On May 20 2011 12:15 mizU wrote: Riders of Rohan, what news from the mark? The King is safe for now.
|
On May 20 2011 11:45 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 11:34 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: The OP is more about the nature of good rather than the question of what is good, ie essence precedes existence. I'm not inclined to believe either side of a questionable dichotomy of either existence or essence preceding the other, I guess I just copout on any form of philosophy that attempts to be fully systematic by resorting to my own ideas of epistemology as the basis for other stuff. Yes, you are right about OP. And what are your own ideas of epistemology exactly?
Well I guess it's probably too presumptuous for me to claim them as my own ideas, I'm sure someone's already thought of them/argued it or whatever. I generally agree with Cartesian rationalism, but when he reaches the solipsism dilemma, instead of using the ontology argument for proving God, I believe that our ability to communicate and share ideas with other beings (ie other people) proves that there can be things that exist outside of us, and it is this consensus-making through the interchange of ideas that then go through Descartes' same process of building up the rest of the truths we can know from there. Connecting to the original question of this blog, I'd then say that this ability to exchange ideas with each other (I also think that this human understanding isn't solely "rationalism" [not in the same sense of the term used with Descartes in rationalism vs empiricism, but the idea of cold logic in rationalism vs emotivism, so I think that emotions themselves can be a form of understanding]) brings meaning into our existence, and the celebration of the meaning of human understanding would be the normative good.
|
Is good bad? or vice versa?
|
On May 20 2011 12:52 palanq wrote: Is good bad? or vice versa? I think good and bad overlaps.
|
On May 20 2011 12:52 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 11:45 platorepublic wrote:On May 20 2011 11:34 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: The OP is more about the nature of good rather than the question of what is good, ie essence precedes existence. I'm not inclined to believe either side of a questionable dichotomy of either existence or essence preceding the other, I guess I just copout on any form of philosophy that attempts to be fully systematic by resorting to my own ideas of epistemology as the basis for other stuff. Yes, you are right about OP. And what are your own ideas of epistemology exactly? Well I guess it's probably too presumptuous for me to claim them as my own ideas, I'm sure someone's already thought of them/argued it or whatever. I generally agree with Cartesian rationalism, but when he reaches the solipsism dilemma, instead of using the ontology argument for proving God, I believe that our ability to communicate and share ideas with other beings (ie other people) proves that there can be things that exist outside of us, and it is this consensus-making through the interchange of ideas that then go through Descartes' same process of building up the rest of the truths we can know from there. Connecting to the original question of this blog, I'd then say that this ability to exchange ideas with each other (I also think that this human understanding isn't solely "rationalism" [not in the same sense of the term used with Descartes in rationalism vs empiricism, but the idea of cold logic in rationalism vs emotivism, so I think that emotions themselves can be a form of understanding]) brings meaning into our existence, and the celebration of the meaning of human understanding would be the normative good. Descartes and Plato are my favourite philosophy writers.
|
You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it.
|
On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote: You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it. How do you do good if you don't know what good is?
|
On May 21 2011 02:46 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote: You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it. How do you do good if you don't know what good is? If darkness is bad, why does it hide you? If light is good, why does it blind you?
|
On May 20 2011 11:22 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 08:51 zulu_nation8 wrote: Isn't good = eudaimonia, which roughly means the good life. The virtues are means to obtaining eudaimonia. Virtues are both desirable for themselves and as means to an end. I haven't read any of this in a while though. I think that was more Aristotle's idea of what the good is than Plato's.
no it isnt
|
On May 21 2011 03:49 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 02:46 platorepublic wrote:On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote: You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it. How do you do good if you don't know what good is? If darkness is bad, why does it hide you? If light is good, why does it blind you? I never said darkness is bad/light is good.
|
On May 21 2011 05:35 platorepublic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 03:49 Pandain wrote:On May 21 2011 02:46 platorepublic wrote:On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote: You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it. How do you do good if you don't know what good is? If darkness is bad, why does it hide you? If light is good, why does it blind you? I never said darkness is bad/light is good.
I know you are, but what am I?
|
|
On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote: You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it.
I agree that knowing good may not be sufficient to achieve good, but knowledge of good is still necessary to achieve good. Plus your statement of "you do not have to know good to do good" begs the question of what is good before we can imagine that it can be done in ignorance of it.
|
On May 21 2011 15:58 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote: You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.
That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.
Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it. I agree that knowing good may not be sufficient to achieve good, but knowledge of good is still necessary to achieve good. Plus your statement of "you do not have to know good to do good" begs the question of what is good before we can imagine that it can be done in ignorance of it. Good.
|
You're going to confuse people by just calling things "good". Plato's definition of the good was a completely different thing then the moral "good" that comes to mind in our present day culture. Your trying to explain good with 2 different language games.
Good for Plato was the source of all knowledge. The sun was to sight, as the good was to reason and knowledge. Its not a moral question, its a question of metaphysics, of what is and what isn't. If you want to study Plato, you should see everything in this world as shadows of forms that the good is shining on.
|
If you want to study Plato, you should see everything in this world as shadows of forms that the good is shining on.
What he said. Good one, Fulgrim.
|
|
|
|