What famous, Veeky Forums approved philosophers believed in a human soul/spirit...

If you've got a second, what are other terms Plato uses for the 'always moving mover'? Is it the same as the unchanging change? Or the One? Or is it a combination of the two superior (movement and sameness) of the 4 major ideas (stasis, movement, sameness, difference)? I've heard a lot of people hear talking about the mover, mostly while addressing Aristotle's work, but I can't picture this idea being characterized that way in Plato's work. Thanks

*here...

you'd have to give me a moment to find it; i opened to a lesser-known dialogue of plato's (can't remember the name) and found the basis of aristotilean metaphysics. i was so shocked, i thought, "fuck, this is some egregious plagiarism, beyond belief."

the thing to which i'm referring is in phaedrus 245c-246a.

>Pretty much every philosopher who isn't a retarded scientism babby takes the existence of subjective consciousness seriously at a metaphysical level.
/thread

Wonderful, ya I was thinking of that passage but for some reason I didn't remember the 'self-mover' part of it. Thanks for providing it

OP here, wish I was smart enough to understand this jargon

>Pretty much every philosopher who isn't a retarded scientism babby takes the existence of subjective consciousness seriously at a metaphysical level.
But why is this consciousness separated from embodied being?

This also gives us a good example of why I think Aristotle took the idea of the mover out of context. When I think of aristotle's use of the unmoved mover, I primarily think of the formation of the cosmos, or in more physical terms, whereas for Plato, even if cosmological terms are used somewhere in the discussion, the primary concern (if I remember the context of this passage correctly) seems to be understanding the properties of the soul (in b4 muh microcosm and macrocosm). I'm rambling, just thinking.

is your question: "did Plato have an Aristotilean (physical, monotheistic) concept of God?" if so, then the answer is yes and no.

>Is it the same as the unchanging change?
it would, i think, be disingenuous to suggest this. as you know, the highest metaphysical truths were the Forms; of the Forms, Plato granted primacy to the Form of the Good. Forms are by nature changeless, not subject to entropy or decay — you could tenuously assert that "unchanging change" would fulfill this definition. neoplatonists do equate the Form of the Good to the Christian God; Boethius especially comes to mind when he says that God is eternal. his definition of God's being eternal definitely fits with "unchanging change." i'm not sure there's much support within Plato himself, though.

>Or the One?
again, it's strange. Plato might be talking about a universal soul/spirit or he might talking about the Form of the Good, which "sheds the light of truth" on other Forms. it seems clear that he thought the creator of the material world was not all-powerful in that the creator "looked to the Forms for inspiration." unlike his gnostic successors, Plato did not see matter as inherently evil, but rather the Forms as supremely good/enjoyable.

>Or is it a combination of ... movement and sameness?
once again, i think movement is antithetical to Plato's supreme Good; it "moves" in the same way the fixed sun "moves" its sunrays to Earth — that is to say, it doesn't move, but emanates. to be sure, the constant motion passage i posted does imply that immortal souls move, but they aren't the end-all, be-all of Plato's metaphysics.

by the way, i'm pretty sure that the dialogue i was remembering was the Sophist, one of his late dialogues that didn't feature Socrates. if you're interested in how much Aristotle took from Plato, you might want to check that out.

lol, to be fair, this is about as dense as plato ever gets. this level of dryness is more to be found in aristotle.

>a soul is always (eternally) in motion
>that which exists always is immortal
a hamster will spin his treadmill for all time. since this hamster will be spinning for all time, we can infer that he will be living for all time (is immortal).

>things that are in a chain reaction are dependent on something else for motion
if you are dependent on your mother's titty milk to survive, and she stops giving you the succ, you're a dead baby. you are powerless to control this.

>no motion = no life (no energy, even)
do you know what a newton's cradle is? the force of the energy goes through the balls in the middle, but they appear to be still. really, the only thing that's independent in a newton's cradle is your hand moving the first ball. your hand = god.

>the beginning of everything must be the beginning of everything
i guess some modern physicists speculate that creation goes back infinitely, but that (to me) seems suspect.

>the first principle cannot be destroyed because there is a chance that it could be destroyed before things come from it
let's say god has not yet created anything. he takes a walk in the heavenly garden, trips and dies. oh shit! is god actually god if he didn't create anything? (assuming we define god as a creator) no, says plato. there must be no chance that god can die before he creates the universe, therefore god is imperishable.

the last section is a summary of what was already stated; now, hopefully, you can read that last paragraph and understand what he meant.

I guess the question, if there was a question, was: did Aristotle miss the point when he made such a big deal of the unmoved mover in the realm of cosmology as opposed to seeing the concept as a means to understand the soul? I think it was Parmenides I was thinking of with regard to unchanging change. Maybe not. An sophist sounds right. I'll revisit it.

But it isn't really a productive question. I should have kept it to myself. And I know Aristotle saw it in terms of soul too, but the way later philosophers used his work seems to be in terms of cosmology (Aquinas etc.)

hegel, bergson

marx lowkey

You probably have greater knowledge regarding Aristotle's views on the soul than I do, but it was my assumption that Aristotle was a materialist (in that substance was the vehicle for potentiality) and so would have no room for a Platonic soul in his metaphysics.

If an infinite regress is not possible, then I don't think Aristotle missed the point in using the unmoved mover cosmologically as opposed to seeing it as a means to understand the soul — doubly so if he didn't believe in an immortal soul! If you know why Aquinas felt the need to offer five ways (I don't), then you may know why he took the cosmological argument from Aristotle while also taking the Fourth Way from Plato.

t. (((Spielberg)))

>Scientology is well known for its opposition to mainstream psychiatry and the psychoactive drugs which are routinely prescribed for treatment.[89] It was reported that Cruise's anti-psychiatry actions led to a rift with director Steven Spielberg.[97] Spielberg had reportedly mentioned in Cruise's presence the name of a doctor friend who prescribed psychiatric medication. Shortly thereafter, the doctor's office was picketed by Scientologists, reportedly angering Spielberg.[98]

There was more to it than that. Cruise tried to get Spielberg's wife into Scientology even after he told him not to bring it up and this ended up ending their relationship. They were supposed to do another movie together after War of the Worlds but it got cancelled.

thanks user, that was actually helpful. Didn't expect it

>Sam harris / Dan Dennett

Da fug. Dennett flat out denies concussion experience of qualia exists. That completely different from considering it as something existing and fundamentally tied to matter.

It's not as far as we know and he provides no argument for this. There's no reason to think that disembodied spirits or P-zombies can exist.

If you wanna read about consciouness reas Kim Jaegwon instead of Dennett. He wrote several books that are way more objective than what Dennett wrote. Once you've read his introduction book "philosophy of mind" and made a personnal opinion about dualism/monism, then you can read his paper and Dennett's paper as well. The best one I've read is "The myth of nonreductive materialim"