Socratic and Platonic philosophies - Page 3

well witten, if ive collected your ideas correctly. it would appear that you believe there is no reason for there to be a higher 'dimension' of existence because that dimension has no proof in ours. therefore without any consistent proof of said dimension, it cant be proven that it does or does not exist. so to talk of something that cant be proven is fantasy and shouldnt be considered when talking about philosphy.

but how can we ever say a higher dimension doesnt exist. the very nature of a higher dimension is that we cant prove it. it would be as if a skin cell postulated that the body it composes doesnt exist, simply because proving that body exists is beyond the means of the cell.

i think i see how you are thinking, very logical and very intelligient. but all logic and intelligience and problem solving in this realm is useless when it comes to a higher state of existence. i go back to the cell analogy, everything that cell knows as real and as proof of its universe is within a small part of the greater picture. if you are familiar with tetra-space and its bearing on a 3d world you know that our entire plane is but a page in the book of the "4th dimension" i put that in quotes because what we consider the 4th dimension is yet again within our system of thought. what wizards logic said about freeing your mind and removing the center of gravity in your perception was very correct. we are in a 3d world trying to picture a 4d concept. it cant be done with logic and reasoning because the very tools you use to try to prove or disprove its existence are within its scope.

so a higher dimension cant be thought of in terms of this universe. to a piece of paper the idea of back and forward are completely irrational and absoloutly illogical and cannot be proven by any means that piece of paper can use. but it doesnt mean that the space above the paper isnt there. just that the paper itself is "stuck" within its frame.

my point? simply because an idea is beyond our grasp doesnt mean it is impossible. we must theorize and use ideas and concepts that seems like mysticism to a frame of reference in our world. im positive if we could communicate with a man on a piece of paper and we told him about the dimension we live in he would call it mysticism and ludicrous daydreaming. but when you delve into the world of the world beyond our understanding you must at some point use an idea that doesnt have its root in something we can record.

to dismiss everything that cant be proven seems to me to be the most closed minded idea of all. how would you explain to the paper man what 3d is. you would,at some point, be required to use an idea that he is not familiar with. and as ive said before, to him it is ridiculous. to us it is life. its all about the frame of reference you are in. remember which one you are in before declaring things about a frame you havent entered yet.

one last point, to declare anything about a realm of space deeper then ours is to declare what is on the outside of a house that you have always lived within.

if i said something completely ludicrous let me know. but remember that you are in a house that youve never left. then try to talk about whats outside of it without using a concept that seems illogical to a lifelong occupant.

It is senseless to talk about what we cannot know about. I don't wish to preclude the mere possibility of a Platonic realm - in absolute terms, that is hardly to be denied . What I dissent from are baseless metaphysical assertions which aspire to philosophical credibility. It is sobriety, and not myopia, which I want to bring to the table.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent".

why then talk of anything that we can recognize as outside our understanding. no sensible person claims to 'know' anything in a theoretical philosophy discussion. but that doesnt mean we shouldnt postulate about things. if we stopped at every barrier we cant see behind then we wouldnt have very many new ideas.

im just saying when it is ideas and imaginings that are the topic of discussion to relate them to proven reality is missing the point.

but if you guys were speaking of fact rather than ideas than im wrong and let me know. but as far as i see it the original discussion was about wonderings.

Yes! "Wonderings!" I like that. I know this thread has been "dead" for quite awhile, but I must comment on this last post. The human mind must always continue to wonder, even if that wondering takes us beyond the physical realm of empirical proofs into a metaphysical realm of mystical ponderings. Nothing wrong with that, I think. Thanks, blupigan.