Is this the source of Gnostic lore?

>>24506226 (OP)
i gotta confess i really don't understand this picture. can any platochad explain it to me?

>>24506232
the matrix

>>24506232
the people on the left have developed an extremely fun videogame but unfortunately some losers got memed into touching grass instead. as you can see they already regret it. the big cauldron in the middle is donald trump.

wtf op no

>>24506232
you cant make another man see the cave without bringing him outside of the cave

the orphic creation myth sounds suspiciously manichaean.

what's your favorite cave? i like nick cave

>>24506232
It's a contrived and fake allegory meant to put philosophy on stilts. Plato says philosophy allows people to see the world as it really is (the people on the right) rather than just seeing shadows and impressions that look like reality, but they're just impressions generated by other people (the shadow-watchers on the left). The allegory fails because the baseline for people are already the people on the right, and the puppeteers and shadows on the left don't actually exist.
Hope this helps.

>>24506299

>>24506783
it is about ideas vs phenomena

I think people living in the Cave would know it isn't reality. They'd start making logical conclusions about light and shadow, and their own nature viz. their physical condition arising from their limited living environment, and pretty soon plan to explore beyond it.

>>24507127
>this guy thinks at all
>he thinks he thinks at all?
>he's a thinker of thinking
>he thinky think rink dinks
That was nice anon. Did you like my willy wobbling in front of your mouth, did it make you salivate?

>>24506226 (OP)
No.

>>24506232
A gang of women entrap men in a cave using their animal instincts. Meanwhile, Socrates stands to the right having escaped the cave. Gazing off at a young greek man's scantily-clad body on the beach in awe. Socrates has at last come out of Plato's cave and found that bussy > pussy 100%

>>24506226 (OP)
why are they doing that
just to troll?

>>24506783
>The allegory fails because the baseline for people are already the people on the right, and the puppeteers and shadows on the left don't actually exist.
False, and the modern equivalent of the puppeteers are tantamount to every significant figure who has shaped the beliefs of most people (political founders, religious figures, artists, scientists, other philosophers).

>>24506857
No, justice is explicitly one of the examples of something there are shadows of on the wall.

>>24506232
its how people used to goon

>>24506742
deathsmiles

>>24506226 (OP)
Gnosticism is interesting to philosophy wammen primarily. And this is because it sounds like a fancy thing to be. You need to understand that we have a soul, a human nature, that is comprised of both body and spirit. Why be retarded and do without one or the other. Look to "Plato's Cave" to understand illusions, conspiracies, how it is to lack insight. Sure. Because to gain knowledge sometimes certainly feels like leaving the deluded cave. It's psychologically relevant. *I try to understand the world, and lie to myself about what it is,*--exercise cognitive dissonance in doing so. Plato is of course on to something here. It's a great allegory. But Gnosticism is bad Neoplatonism. Good Neoplatonism is found in the first chapter of "The Gospel According to St. John," and in the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon.

>>24506783
ignoring for a second that plato was talking about actual metaphysics of the transcendental vs material and not "impressions generated by other people," do you actually believe the average person experiences reality in an unmediated fashion? lol

>>24508177
To me none of this matters, where I don't fuss ever about it. Whatever we experience, be it diluted, where we don't experience the whole of reality but a sliver... This would just be phenomena that has a chain of causation that hearkens right back to base reality. So living in simulations for instance, I haven't fretted about that, it doesn't change the necessary attributes of a truly sovereign omnipotent God as Christians posit. And to me that's base reality. That's reality all in all, with a comprehensive nature. Again John Chapter 1, "And the light shone in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." The creation has it's nature that is to perceive a strain of what is. So it could be more or less in comprehension. You know, depending on amount of intelligence or whatever. But Christians also know God's nature is simple and concise in the same dramatic measure that He's boundless. And for this reason we do with affinity and fidelity know God's person with perfect clarity nonetheless. It's paradoxical but it's wonderful. The whole Matrix, *am I seeing reality for what it truly is*?
... Is a "both, and" situation. I say we do see reality, and know it, but incrementally. It's rather nihilistic to doubt that.
--And I'm being charitable with transcendant/vs material in that I think when it comes to being a body vs spirit(or perhaps realm of forms) juxtaposition it's a bit dumb. Because I don't see the world of forms vs tangible bits of things as being wholesome nor transcendent more or less. Particular forms are just things all the same. And a *boundless* realm of forms is getting there, but it's an insufficient definition of the divine/transcendent. I believe God isn't just a boundless comprehensive inventory of things. He's also infinitely one. There are grounds for everything in the creation to transcend, because of God's gratuity, His expansiveness. But the utterly transcendent isn't our nature where we can fancifully consider attaining it by our own deed. Jesus reconciles this. Material haters are dumb and stupify this. Thinking being not of the creation does not make you more transcended. God himself is not pure-spirit in all His glory. The idea that we glorify ourselves in leaving material behind is an insult to Plato. We are doomed to be perceivers not comprehenders. But we are afforded the power to vie for greatness anyhow.

>>24506232
There are multiple levels to the allegory.

1. It is about philosophical enlightenment generally. Through philosophy you see that you were trapped in ignorance, and you can only see the folly once you've escaped. This is what the gnostics took away from it.

2. It is about the philosopher-king. He will run contrary to the wants and desires of the people he rules, helping them to ascend out of ignorance and into wisdom, not as individuals, but as a people.

3. It is about perception. When we see a thing in the world, we aren't seeing the thing itself, but its projection.

These all must be taken together, remember that the dialogue is about justice. Plato doesn't present an answer, he is asking you to contemplate how these fit together.

>>24507569
Not OP, but wasn't it Plato who introduced a separate god for the philosophers (the one, the idea of the good, noos etc.) in opposition to the gods of the masses? It's not so outlandish to consider him the ultimate source of the gnostic idea of an inferior god opposed to the true, thoroughly transcendent, god (equal to the philosopher's god).