有些事情在完成之前是不会开始的，如果你坚持要完成，那你就永远不会开始。这就是原因。柏拉图知道这一点，他对这个问题提出了一个彻底的解决方案，其完整程度甚至超过了我们现在对这个问题的完整程度的认识。在《理想国》中，他放弃了所有的音乐，但尖锐的声音反映了他年轻的对话者的狂热推理。这是个笑话。在《法律》一书中，他让那些老人们顽固的保守主义自相矛盾，却从来没有意识到他们观点的变化。这也是个笑话。在《会论文集》中，这是一个系列的最后一集，意在展示一个系统的哲学(这与柏拉图主义完全不同)，他表达了思想是多么的不孤独。我们坚持片面的理性或确定的或客观的逻辑，使我们无法欣赏他的概念的完整性。但这种“客观性”将不被正确理解的东西视为公理，并且武断地审查任何审查。 'Philosophy', today, is the unexamined life. Notions like predication and the 'law' of contradiction, and logical terms like conjunction and disjunction, equivalence and antecedence, are not even begun, because their completing term is interpretive rather than analytic. Imagine a library in which every sentence read alters the language of all the remaining text in the current book and all the other books. We are that altering term, and are always in process of catching up to ourselves and each other in it, but though this is a constant labor on out part, it is also the very substance of our lives, and nothing we cannot cope with. No mechanics of reason can sustain itself in the face of such a dialectic. Any computer would instantly crash, however powerful or exhaustively programmed. Because every part of a computer and every line of code, whether in its running program or its operating system, is fixed and only alters only according to preset and unalterable settings. It is designed not to change its physical characteristics, however cleverly it is designed to alter its criteria. But the human mind and the human society are not predetermined or limited in this sense. Each part is alive and participant to the constitution, let alone the current condition, of the whole. Which one is the making of the whole? The enigma is, it's the one that isn't. This is not negation, it is the affirmation of the value to the system of the missing term. The individualism and presumed unilateral completeness of our current notion of reason censors this truth. When we do our logic diagrams we assume all terms complete and all facts in hand. And so we fail to understand, or even to begin to reason. As for Bernstein, never thought much of his composition, and since most of what I read about the Symposium makes me wonder if I am reading the same text as the author is, it is no great wonder if Leo gets it wrong too. One important point is that Plato really did think music unphilosophical, because it is founded on the thesis that time is replication rather than differentiation, as poetry is founded upon symbolic forms that censure the kind of 'misunderstanding' that enrichens the language and completes the power of reason, though the logic of it crashes into ruin at every turn. Reason, alone, is conceit of a completeness that censors its truth. Love is the recognized poverty of that unilateral reason, and the richness of the differing that comes to it through its response that proves its entire language in play, even in the meaning of its analytic forms. It is not a Jacob's ladder, but a dialectic in which its poverty is its wealth, its incompletion its only beginning. I suspect Leo portrays something more along the ladder image of conventional 'philosophy'. But were we to arrive at the top of that ladder we would find we have not begun to climb it. Music is the pulse of this climb to nowhere. It is distraction from and not an accompaniment to reason. But if you don't get the joke you're back to square...., nowhere.

爱是促进生育的能量，无论是伟大的作品，和谐的音乐作品，还是美丽的孩子。世界上所有的奇迹都诞生于爱，甚至包括大自然自己。美就像爱一样，存在于观者的眼睛、心灵、头脑、身体和灵魂之中。爱的来源无关紧要，因为爱的能量是不可分割的、无限的和永恒的。真理也是这样。
A wise man once said, follow your heart, the heart rings true.
A love poem:

GREEN LIGHT AND YOU
THE COLOR GREEN IS LIGHT THAT
TRAVELS THREE HUNDRED MILLION
METERS A SECOND
MADE OF WAVES
FIVE HUNDRED BILLIONTHS
OF A METER APART
ROLLING BY US
SIX TRILLION WAVES
AT A TIME
I HAVE THOUGHT OF YOU
THAT MANY TIMES
SINCE WE PARTED
IF YOU DOUBT IT
COUNT THE WAVES
IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE
IF YOU THINK
LIGHT AND THOUGHT OF YOU
ARE DIFFERENT
TURN ON THE LIGHTS
=

Love is green? Thought that was envy. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, why does it make us feel so impoverished? This is rather the point. It is the missing term, not the capstone of subjectivity. Most interpreters claim Plato means this to found, and seal the deal, on objectivity, but this too is a conceit. What recognition of the missing term means is that rigor does not lead to certainty, but to changing the mind in all its other terms. The rigor of this assures that the dialectic leads through all possible meanings of all possible terms. Love is the demiurge of reason, and the mission of philosophy, not establishing objective fact or reveling in subjective sensitivities.

...and thank you Philosophy Talk, I had no idea Bernstein had written music from the Symposium, a book that was dear to me. And last but not least Gary, I'll leave a light on for you! =

我真的很喜欢。谢谢你！我是"哲学讲座"的新手中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播，今晚在车里讲完了。
I'm curious:
Bernstein's deviation from the Symposium's narrative structure came up. It was mentioned that the musician misinterpreted Plato's idea of Eros.
Giving Bernstein the benefit of the doubt, is it possible the musical variance was his own kind of philosophical argument? Perhaps it was a disagreement over the relationship between love and philosophy; maybe it was a defense of his own representational mode and expression of Eros: music.
不管怎样，我很高兴这个程序的存在。安妮·迈耶斯听起来像个大忙人，但她应该是这个节目的常客——她的见解非常准确。

The Greeks made a wine that was sought-after throughout the Mediterranean region. It was drunk young, in the same year it was made, but it did require a short aging period. To assure it was not tapped too soon, ruining its reputation, a law prohibited drinking the new wine before a stated date. The lapsing of this prohibition was celebrated by drinking parties. Around the same time there was another festival in which the dead were honored. Festivities included inviting strangers to the city to a feast, during which they would wear a mask, whether of an absent relative of the family, or of a departed one, so as to appease the ghosts of the dead. The feast, presumably, included drinking the new wine. The Celts also had a similar festival, a variation of which is celebrated today.

Michael,
There is one character in the dialogue who best embodies what love most truly is. Can you guess who he is? He is the one who remains, throughout, both sober, and unshod.

It has been a few years but wasn't it Socrates?
至于真理:最清醒的头脑才是最高的头脑，不吸毒!=

Socrates, very out of character, and explicitly stated, wore sandals. One character, though, is explicitly stated as not. Such details mean something.

AUTHENTIC LOVE
A while back, I was addressing the question of ?existence? (as in ?Does God Exist??), and posited that there are actually two Gods, one that wears a long robe, lives in the sky, throws lightening bolts to the earth, and could send you a sofa if you prayed for one. The other God is simply a reference to a consciousness outside one?s own. Because 99.8% of humans believe in the first kind, or some variation on that theme, I call it a human instinct. Atheists and agnostics?followers of science (?believers? in science?)?are such because they know the first kind of God doesn?t exist, and they are thereby prejudiced against ANY existence of any God. So I ask these non-believers, hung up on the ?existence? question, if they think love (a matter of consciousness) ?exists.? They usually say yes, and so I say that then other matters of ?consciousness? can ?exist.?
Gary wrote in that yes love exists, but probably not in the way I was thinking, and he gave a very good description of love existing as a biological force.
当然，我已经说过很多次了(太多了，我?我确定)，在哲学中没有科学的位置:加里?科学的爱与哲学的-意识的-爱无关。我所认同的二元论是:科学:物质?和哲学:意识、?和没有重叠。但撇开二元性不谈，如果真实性是爱的真实性的证明，那么，更像MJA(他不是二元论者)对心灵、美、孩子、音乐、永恒和无限的看法?我想加上诗歌和喜剧?去体验真爱，真爱。
我大概一年去看一场电影。今年是《少女日记》吗?我认为它通过一个青少年的经历，巧妙地描绘了各种形式的爱。这部电影把爱情刻画得如此真实，不是吗?如果这只是青少年色情片的一个借口，那又如何?还是，剥削电影?正如许多批评家所宣称的那样，他们跳上了让美国人欢欣鼓舞的道德义愤的潮流。
A brilliant American authentic, Steve Earle, (and another is Iris DeMent) sings:
?I promised that I?d never be untrue
I?d never make you cry.
The only promise that I didn?t break
Was to love you until the day I die.?

Mirugai,
If you look again you might notice that I had been offering an explanation of how an organism creates itself that biology does not yet have the intellectual equipment to notice, let alone to investigate. I am not a partisan in either of the dualist/monist camps. I am proposing that there is a rigor so extreme that such enumeration loses its sense, its very capacity to count anything. Time, divided down to its least term, is moment lost the determinacy number would be of it, even in the sense of the probabilistic calculus of quantum or high-energy physics. That loss of the numerical cannot be placed in any system of extension, and yet it is not outside, but is the most completing immanence of time. And since it is the most rigorous term of time its impossibility to be placed in time in some numerically defined sense means it is the most completing term of time. We call it meaning. Life is the act of loss the moment of it is. But through that moment of loss there is a responsibility enabled free through it of its worth being recognized. That responsibility is what love is. And that is what Plato is saying it is, throughout his corpus, though few bother to read it all. And I offer the drama of the act of loss and response of love as the resolution of the enigma of time that Kant Hegel and Husserl tried to find in their concept of the 'epoch', as the meaning of what is phenomenally real. It also obviates the presumption of a system of 'wired-in' language capacity, or of a governing system of numerical geometric or logical necessity, as the means of our ability to think and speak.
Michael,
I must admit, I was testing (to see if you'd read the dialogue), and cannot say you passed. His name is Aristodemus, and he proceeds Socrates to the drinking party and follows him away from it, like a 'shade'.

"Of course, as I have said many times (too many, I?m sure), there is no place in philosophy for science"
And...God wears a robe outside Oneself?
Dear M,
如果可以的话，哲学与科学在一个不可测量的真理点上有联系。遗憾的是，对于很多人，包括哲学、科学和你自己来说，证据还没有找到。但如果事实上，真理确实连接了一切，正如我可以向你保证的那样，而且大多数人都会同意，爱也是伟大的统一者，那么真理和爱是同一的。感谢亚里士多德的《逻辑》。现在我们找到了真爱，对真理的爱。苏格拉底在《会饮篇》里不也是这么说的吗还是你还在纠结鞋子，加里?
True love then, What my friends is a greater love than the love of One or all, nothing? If this true love is the greatest or simply the love of all, could it be or can it be, "to be or not to be" just another name for God? What's in a name Shakespeare? Is not God, Romeo, Juliet, love, truth, unity, equality, I, you, it, all One or the same? Is love, Nature, the Universe measurably finite and divisible or immeasurably infinite and indivisible? Is atom smashing the way to unity, the way to truth? Lets ask some experts, shall we?
杰弗逊先生，什么是不可分割的真理?
What Professor Einstein is the equation for everything???
What Seneca is Justice?
What physics is certain?
What philosophy is true?
Where is the promised land Mr. King?
And go ahead Buddha, Mohammed, or Jesus, ring in if you want. "Let Freedom Ring"!!!
If you are still searching for this love that connects everything, truth, the light at the end of the tunnel, question measure, the answer is here.
=

你不是一个奇点。我理解简单的归纳法的吸引力，但它是一个贫瘠的“途径”。这是一个在文献中随处可见的主题，这让我怀疑你的观点引用了一些你从未引用过的来源。如果是这样，我们有权知道消息来源是什么。如果你认为这个概念是原创的，这是一个只有业余爱好者才会犯的错误。但显而易见的事实是，归纳、统一、统一，这个伟大的南瓜，只是我们在最精细的简化细节中遇到的障碍的结果。最细微的细节是，时间的最短就是它的全部差别。只有苏格拉底式的反驳才能把我们带到这一刻。爱是一种责任，让人们认识到失去自负的那一刻的价值。丢失的枚举器就是那一刻。 It is the most extensive term of time, because it is the most extensive loss. That is, it is the most completing term of time, it is what 'person' is.
我知道这是一个欢迎各种层次的兴趣的网站，我试着体谅这一点，但当涉及到柏拉图时，我不太能忍受涉猎者。别人所说或所写的不是听者或读者的财产。爱不是一只鹅照料它的窝，把它不认识的都清理干净，然后把剩下的放进它的一窝“蛋”里。

You asked,
The source of the answer was the question
And the question was me.
=

All is one....., vanity!

Michael,
You may find out just how 'original' your 'method' is by reading Plato's Euthydemus.

You can learn a lot from the old Greeks but not everything. Everything can be found everywhere, including Oneself. =

The subject of the Euthydemus is what "=" means. And it's rather more comprehensive and contemporary than your view. It's not impertinent.

爱是理性的造物主，是哲学的使命，不是建立客观事实，也不是陶醉于主观的敏感。- Gary M Washburn
In life the many decisions you make in simple terms is based on your depth of knowledge of a certain topic. This comes about from the current wisdom you have and how deep you have studied that knowledge.