A question for Masonic Light and other Masons

Originally posted by freudling
but you will find much hostility here against Masons because based on the vast material available (i.e. History of the Masons, the Knights of Templar, etc.), and from peoples "so called" personal experiences, the Masons appear to be Satanic, or at least a group with enough power to decide peoples fate: the ultimate conspiracy which drives people to keep coming back to this site and discussing the issues of humanity, Religion and our future. Course a group deciding our future does not fair well with some people and you two certainly are NOT the ones to persuade us otherwise, right Master Masons?

Masons don't have the power to decide anyone's future. The majority of the American government is non-mason, Bush is not a mason. Masons do not discuss politics or religion in the lodge. If you do not discuss politics in the lodge how exactly do you discuss taking over the world?

I too bought into Plato's Republic, which I feel is a doctrine intertwined with the end goals of the Masons. In fact, I was totally sold. If the information is correct, measures are being orchastrated by the most powerful, and thus, as speculated, the highest members of the Masons to take control of the world. Plato refers to pupeteering humans with "The Noble Falsehood." Forgive me if you already know, which you probably do. However, where I feel these people err is in the fact that Plato specifically says that the Rulers - the Philosopher Kings - are people who do not want to rule; people who do not want material things; people who will eat bread and drink a morsel of milk and be content. Is not one of the tenets of Masonary materialism? Further, we can observe the material lifestyle of those speculated as belonging to the Masons. Hell, we all lead those kinds of lives - well, most of us. But this is a so called Democracy, which, in Plato's 4 States, he placed a Democracy 3rd on the list, 2nd last that is. The last was a state run by the military, which is "supposed" to be the powers plan for America and perhaps the rest of the world. The fact that the Bush Administration passed the Patriot Act is suspect in this regard: now no search warrant is needed to come into your home.

Actually, they do still need a search warrant to come into your home. Sorry bur I've yet too see anyone who complained about the patriot act to have one quote from it or to even have read it. But then Bush isn't a Mason so what does his actions have to do with the Fraternity?

Well, if the conspiracy is correct, that the Freemasons most Powerful leaders (Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bushes, etc.) are plotting population reductions and martial law, then the Noble Falsehood has been adhered to beautifully: that is, Plato thought lying to the people for some "good" end in his eyes was Just (i.e. killing babies that were born from the 3rd class of people: the craftsmen). Now, I am not saying that our Governments are doing the latter example, it is just an example of a measure Plato thought was necessary to positively effect humans' evolution and thus the evolution of the State. Of course, nobody would know what happened to the babies. As I pondered, and discussed his State with people, he ended up being a cold blooded Aristocrat who advocated playing God. What was his goal for killing those babies? Of course, he wanted to, throughout many generations, convert the whole of the people of the state to "Philosopher Kings." He detailed a plan on how to accomplish this, which was keeping only the 2nd level people's babies alive, the ones who had silver in their souls, since these babies could ascend to having gold souls, the 3rd level, like the Philosopher Kings. Why can't the Philosopher Kings have babies themselves? Well, I think women can actually become Philosopher Kings as well, so they could do that. But, by definition, PK do not engage in Physical Pleasures of that sort, so the under-class are expected too.

Freemasonry's "leaders", by which I assume you mean the grandmasters of the 50 different grand lodges in the United States, can't even agree on how to recognize Prince Hall Masonry. I sincerely doubt they've all managed to come to together and decide to implent any Pilosopher King plan.

Sure, I too believe that the worlds population is too large, but in so many countries, the exponential growth of people has actually STOPPED and in some cases reverted, so I do NOT buy the argument that the population will continue to grow exponentially. To some extent, I feel the Economy dictates how many people can exist at one time, so the argument to wipe people out appears in part, fallacious. I guess I could go on, and perhaps if the conspiracy is correct, maybe it is GOOD for us. I admit, I still think about the conspiracy as being something GOOD, as I still think of the Plato's Republic as being good, but most times it is the absolute opposite. Why good? Well, maybe true Utopia comes with only a group of Philospher Kings. The crying question is this, in a Kantian sense: "Do the means justify the ends?" I simply DO NOT know.

Let me know when you find a group that is actually trying to implement that plan, because its not the Masons.

Originally posted by freudling
Senrak and sebatwerk:
YOUR REDICULOUS! Blah, blah.

No, what's ridiculous is your atrocious spelling. Try "you're" (a contraction of "you" and "are") and "ridiculous" ...as for "blah, blah" I think you actually spelled that right...assuming it's a word...

Your comments smell of emotionally charged, irrationality,

Like to know what YOUR comments smell of?

although some of the statements that poster made, I agree, are too general. However, how on earth can you first say you are a newly formed Mason and then come onto a internet forum and respond to people in a way that you think you are a good representation for Masons?

To whom are you speaking here? What newly "formed???" Mason? I've been a VERY active Mason for over 15 years.

What do you really know about them?

Well for starters I'm a member of the Symbolic Lodge (Master Mason), the Royal Arch Chapter, the Council of Royal & Select Masters, the Knights Templar, Allied Masonic Degrees, Knight Masons, Masonic Rosicrucians, a Knight Commander of the Court of Honour in the Scottish Rite....should I go on??? To answer your question directly I know a WHOLE LOT about them.

I too have been to some meetings

Masonic meetings? Tyled Lodge meetings? Were you made (not "formed") a Mason??? When? Where?

and have colleagues in my Government who are Masons.

Who's your government? Do you have your own country?

I never bought into as my earlier posts elude to. I still hang out with them and they are interesting people, but you will find much hostility here against Masons because based on the vast material available (i.e. History of the Masons, the Knights of Templar, etc.), and from peoples "so called" personal experiences, the Masons appear to be Satanic, or at least a group with enough power to decide peoples fate: the ultimate conspiracy which drives people to keep coming back to this site and discussing the issues of humanity, Religion and our future.

What in the world are you rambling about? "decide peoples fate?" More anti-Masonic, conspiracy puke. Why don't you do something really novel and come up with something different to bash Masonry with. We've heard this over and over (and disputed it over and over) Use the ATS search function. It's quite user-friendly.

Course a group deciding our future does not fair well with some people and you two certainly are NOT the ones to persuade us otherwise, right Master Masons?

Oh, I'm just crushed. Sebatwerk, I guess our little plan has been exposed. We'll have to take our cyanide capsules now (right after we destroy freud's toilet)

I too bought into Plato's Republic, which I feel is a doctrine intertwined with the end goals of the Masons.

Really? How much did you pay?

In fact, I was totally sold.

Now, wait a minute frued, ol' troll, I thought you BOUGHT into. Now which is it? Did you buy our sell?

If the information is correct,

..which it isn't

measures are being orchastrated by the most powerful, and thus, as speculated, the highest members of the Masons to take control of the world.

Once again. Been talked about ad nauseam. Use your search function.

Plato refers to pupeteering humans with "The Noble Falsehood." Forgive me if you already know, which you probably do. However, where I feel these people err is in the fact that Plato specifically says that the Rulers - the Philosopher Kings - are people who do not want to rule; people who do not want material things; people who will eat bread and drink a morsel of milk and be content.

I was wondering if we could get trolls to eat bread, and drink milk and be content...but anyway.

Is not one of the tenets of Masonary materialism?

Uh, NO. The tenet of Masonry are "Friendship, Moraliy and Brotherly Love"

Further, we can observe the material lifestyle of those speculated as belonging to the Masons.

Who are we speculating about? Do you think they'll let us observe their material life-style?

Hell, we all lead those kinds of lives - well, most of us. But this is a so called Democracy,

Is that "your" government that you were referring to earlier? In which country is your "so-called" democracy?

which, in Plato's 4 States, he placed a Democracy 3rd on the list, 2nd last that is. The last was a state run by the military, which is "supposed" to be the powers plan for America and perhaps the rest of the world. The fact that the Bush Administration passed the Patriot Act is suspect in this regard: now no search warrant is needed to come into your home.

Well, I knew you'd come around to bringing Bush into it sooner or later. I guess if he's going to take over the world while being a powerful Freemason, he'd better hurry up and JOIN the Freemasons, since he isn't one.

Well, if the conspiracy is correct,

...which it isn't

that the Freemasons most Powerful leaders (Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bushes, etc.)

Are there still Rockefellers around? Can't speak for the Rothchilds but I've said it before and will say it again. Bush is not a Freemason. His father, former President Bush is NOT a Freemason either.

are plotting population reductions and martial law,

I wonder how they'll achieve this? Population reductions, I mean.
Martial Law! I remember him well. I think I went to high school with him.

then the Noble Falsehood has been adhered to beautifully: that is, Plato thought lying to the people for some "good" end in his eyes was Just (i.e. killing babies that were born from the 3rd class of people: the craftsmen).

Ummm...dude, killing babies is much more that "lying to the people" That's a serious charge. Also, it must only effect YOUR government (wherever that is) because in the U.S. we don't have a "class" society, per se.

Now, I am not saying that our Governments are doing the latter example,

A while ago, you were talking about YOUR government. Now it's OUR government? Which is it? I thought, by your ramblings, that you were in a foreign country (or another planet) somewhere.

it is just an example of a measure Plato thought was necessary to positively effect humans' evolution and thus the evolution of the State.

Know what I think? I think Plato was drinking heavily.

Of course, nobody would know what happened to the babies.

If they were being murdered, I'd think SOMEONE (likely the killer himself) would CERTAINLY know.

As I pondered, and discussed his State with people, he ended up being a cold blooded Aristocrat who advocated playing God. What was his goal for killing those babies?

You tell us dude. This bizarre post has wandered WAY far from Freemasonry, but DO go on. We're on the edge of our seats.

Of course, he wanted to, throughout many generations, convert the whole of the people of the state to "Philosopher Kings."

I've never heard of that state. Is it anywhere near Rhode Island?

He detailed a plan on how to accomplish this, which was keeping only the 2nd level people's babies alive,

"2nd level people?" Who are they?

the ones who had silver in their souls,

Silver in their souls. WOW, this is getting weird. The only thing weirder would be gold in their souls....

since these babies could ascend to having gold souls, the 3rd level, like the Philosopher Kings.

ACKKK! I KNEW it. Please tell me....do any of them have Platinum in their souls?

Why can't the Philosopher Kings have babies themselves?

DO tell us!

Well, I think women can actually become Philosopher Kings as well, so they could do that.

There ya' go. Problem solved...but wait..

by definition, PK do not engage in Physical Pleasures of that sort, so the under-class are expected too.

Having sex for the King. What a concept. I wonder if you have to apply for this job or do you just automatically get it, being "2nd level"

Sure, I too believe that the worlds population is too large, but in so many countries, the exponential growth of people has actually STOPPED and in some cases reverted, so I do NOT buy the argument that the population will continue to grow exponentially.

Hopefully what you're saying is that you DON'T advocate the killing of babies. Freemasons sure DON'T!

To some extent, I feel the Economy dictates how many people can exist at one time, so the argument to wipe people out appears in part, fallacious.

....ramble, ramble, ramble.....

I guess I could go on,

...but you really don't have to. Really.

and perhaps if the conspiracy is correct,

...which it isn't.

maybe it is GOOD for us.

So you DO advocate killing babies? sheesh!

I admit, I still think about the conspiracy as being something GOOD, as I still think of the Plato's Republic as being good, but most times it is the absolute opposite.

I must need more coffee. You've totally lost me with that rambling sentence-fragment.

Why good? Well, maybe true Utopia comes with only a group of Philospher Kings.

Is that a college degree? Otherwise where else do they come from...these Philospher (sic) Kings?

The crying question is this, in a Kantian sense:

Ah, now you're bringing Kant into the discussion...

"Do the means justify the ends?" I simply DO NOT know.

What I simply do not know is what in the world all of this rambling nonsense has to do with Freemasons (except that you accused at least one person of being a "newly formed" Freemason...and he's anything but "newly formed" and you accused one person of BEING a Freemason when he isn't.

Freud ol' troll. Masons aren't out to take over the world. Who in the world would want it anyway? We can't get our member to attend meetings regularly, how could we organize enough to take over the world? We're certainly not into killing babies. In fact, we LIKE children. Why else would Shriners Hospitals give free medical help to crippled and burned children? Yes, it's been discussed, but in case you didn't know it...Shriners are Masons. All of 'em.

We're a fraternity. We help each other and we help others. We don't discuss politics in our Lodges and we're not out to take over the government. Legitimate research on your part would turn up a WORLD of info about the REAL Freemasons. But try to stay shy of whack-o sites like freemasonwatch and ephesians5-11. They say they're interested in exposing the Masons and saving your soul (which, by the way...does it have silver or gold in it???) but they're mostly interested (especially Ephesians5-11) in your "donation" to receive their invaluable material.

Now, to all the "thinking" members of the forum, sorry for the long post (I got up early and had some time while my coffee soaks in) To freudling...I imagine this will give you something to do....besides call sabatwerk and me "REDICULOUS" (by which, I assume you mean "ridiculous" ....or is that some secret term used by "your" government?

Senrak has spoken! Bush is not a Mason. Now we can all stop the conspiracy talk about the Freemasons being behind it. Thank you Senrak, you have gifted us with the knowledge only a brother of the Freemasons could bestow.

"Ummm...dude, killing babies is much more that "lying to the people""

Dude, I think you meant 'than' rather than 'that.'

See ya Bubba.

[edit on 29-1-2005 by freudling]

Originally posted by freudling
Senrak has spoken! Bush is not a Mason. Now we can all stop the conspiracy talk about the Freemasons being behind it.

That would be a refreshing break.

Thank you Senrak,

The pleasure's all mine.

you have gifted us with the knowledge only a brother of the Freemasons could bestow.

No. I've gifted you, individually, with the knowledge that anyone with a basic ability of web-searching could find out on his or her own.

Dude, I think you meant 'than' rather than 'that.'

You're right. I did. Mea culpa!

See ya Bubba.

I sure hope not, Bubba.



[edit on 29-1-2005 by senrak]

Here's a warm fuzzy feeling for you Bill McElligot.
All Masons who wanted you to improve yourself by the exact means they, and only they, provided.
Of course, any one could contend they were merely following their own will, for Freemasonry is exactly that, free. To each his own. Please don't mention that argument here.


* Aleister Crowley - master satanist of this century and founder of the anti-christ religion of Thelema.
* Arthur Edward Waite - occult writer and Masonic historian.
* Manly P. Hall - Rosicrucian adept, author, founder of the Philosophical Research Society.
* Dr. Wynn Westcott - member of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia and founding member of the occult Order of the Golden Dawn.
* S. L. MacGregor Mathers - co-founder of the Golden Dawn.
* Dr. Gerard Encaussé - (Papus) masterful author, teacher of the Tarot and leader of the occult Martinistes society.
* Dr. Theodore Reuss - head of the O.T.O., a German occult/satanic society which made Crowley its head for the British Isles.
* George Pickingill - the master warlock (male witch) of 19th century England, leader of the "Pickingill covens."
* Annie Besant - leader of the occult Theosophical society and Co-Masonic hierarch. (Yes, there are female Masons!)
* Alice Bailey - founder of the New Age organization, Lucis (formerly Lucifer) Trust.
* Bishop C. W. Leadbetter - Theosophist, mentor to the failed New Age "Christ", Krishnamurti, and prelate in the occult Liberal Catholic Church.

* Gerald B. Gardner - founder of the modern Wiccan (white Witchcraft) revival.
* Alex Sanders - self-styled "King of the Witches" in London and one of the most influential leaders of Wicca after Gardner.

Originally posted by senrak

What do you really know about them?

Well for starters I'm a member of the Symbolic Lodge (Master Mason), the Royal Arch Chapter, the Council of Royal & Select Masters, the Knights Templar, Allied Masonic Degrees, Knight Masons, Masonic Rosicrucians, a Knight Commander of the Court of Honour in the Scottish Rite....should I go on??? To answer your question directly I know a WHOLE LOT about them.

I thought we only knew what our leaders wanted us to know...? Only after reaching the 32nd degree do we really learn what's going on. Oh, I forgot, Senrak! You ARE a 32nd degree mason! Well I guess the truth must not be revealed until the 33rd!

I too have been to some meetings

Masonic meetings? Tyled Lodge meetings? Were you made (not "formed") a Mason??? When? Where?

Maybe he got his directions to the lodge mixed up and ended up attending comedy driving school meetings all those times!

Course a group deciding our future does not fair well with some people and you two certainly are NOT the ones to persuade us otherwise, right Master Masons?

Oh, I'm just crushed. Sebatwerk, I guess our little plan has been exposed. We'll have to take our cyanide capsules now (right after we destroy freud's toilet)

Of course we could just erase his memory instead..?

measures are being orchastrated by the most powerful, and thus, as speculated, the highest members of the Masons to take control of the world.

Once again. Been talked about ad nauseam. Use your search function.

Just WHO are these "highest members" of the masons we keep hearing so much about?!?

that the Freemasons most Powerful leaders (Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bushes, etc.)

Are there still Rockefellers around? Can't speak for the Rothchilds but I've said it before and will say it again. Bush is not a Freemason. His father, former President Bush is NOT a Freemason either.

No, but he is in the Illuminati~!

are plotting population reductions and martial law,

I wonder how they'll achieve this? Population reductions, I mean.
Martial Law! I remember him well. I think I went to high school with him.

I think freud has been forgetting to take his medicine... what exactly would be the point of population reduction and martial law!?!? What do you think that us notorious Freemasons plan to do with the world once we get control of it??? I mean, other than harvest your organs for beer money...

As I pondered, and discussed his State with people, he ended up being a cold blooded Aristocrat who advocated playing God. What was his goal for killing those babies?

You tell us dude. This bizarre post has wandered WAY far from Freemasonry, but DO go on. We're on the edge of our seats.

It seems to me that Freudling missed the point of The Republic.

The crying question is this, in a Kantian sense:

Ah, now you're bringing Kant into the discussion...

When all else fails, attempt to make absolutely no sense by citing Kant.

Freud ol' troll. Masons aren't out to take over the world. Who in the world would want it anyway? We can't get our member to attend meetings regularly, how could we organize enough to take over the world?
...
We're a fraternity. We help each other and we help others. We don't discuss politics in our Lodges and we're not out to take over the government. Legitimate research on your part would turn up a WORLD of info about the REAL Freemasons.

But the truth is so BORING!

Let's cool it guys before personal attacks get out of hand.

Originally posted by freudling
Senrak and sebatwerk:

[size=18] *SNIP*

I simply DO NOT know.

All that rubbish and all you had to do was type the last sentance.

Originally posted by intrepid
Let's cool it guys before personal attacks get out of hand.

Sorry intrepid. You know I get carried away when ignorance starts running rampant. Just trying to help deny it.

Besides, Sebatwerk and I weren't *really* going to destroy ol' freudling's toilet.....although I have to admit erasing his memory is tempting.

(I'll try to play nice w/ the trolls)

Regards,

That wasn't aimed at you, just a general "cool down".

Originally posted by senrak

Originally posted by intrepid
Let's cool it guys before personal attacks get out of hand.

Sorry intrepid. You know I get carried away when ignorance starts running rampant. Just trying to help deny it.

Besides, Sebatwerk and I weren't *really* going to destroy ol' freudling's toilet.....although I have to admit erasing his memory is tempting.

(I'll try to play nice w/ the trolls)

Regards,

In my opinion, the personal attacks got out of hand in Freudlings original post which I replied to. The following messages from myself, Senrak or Freudling were completely toned down from the original conversation. In any case, I don't mean to cause negative reactions and I'm sorry to argue with anyone on this board, but Freud barely stopped short of insulting our own mothers. Anybody who could just ignore that post is a better man than I.

Originally posted by freudling
I too bought into Plato's Republic, which I feel is a doctrine intertwined with the end goals of the Masons.

Since the entire purpose of Plato's "Republic" is to ascertain the true meaning of Justice, and to put it into action in our lives, I'll take that as a compliment.

Plato refers to pupeteering humans with "The Noble Falsehood." Forgive me if you already know, which you probably do.

This is not entirely true. What Plato actually says is that all cultures and societies are founded upon a creation myth. This could be Romulus and Remus, Pandora, or Adam and Eve. Plato simply suggested a creation myth that was virtuous, eliminating indecency. And Plato's suggestion, the Allegory of the Metals, should not be interpreted as merely a creation myth, since he took the position that the myth was true in the metaphysical sense.

However, where I feel these people err is in the fact that Plato specifically says that the Rulers - the Philosopher Kings - are people who do not want to rule; people who do not want material things; people who will eat bread and drink a morsel of milk and be content.

You are absolutely correct. Plato argues that in popular culture, the good do not want to rule, and that is the reason our leaders are currently immoral and wicked. In a Just Society, therefore, the Good are impelled to rule through fear that they themselves would be ruled over by the impious. That is why, in Plato's Republic, such discretion is taken concerning who will be appointed Guardians.

Is not one of the tenets of Masonary materialism?

Absolutely not. Masonry is anathema to materialism. Freemasonry is a Philosophical Society which explores the disciplines of Ethics and Metaphysics. Materialism is an enemy to both of these disciplines. Therefore, materialism is an enemy to Masonry.

Further, we can observe the material lifestyle of those speculated as belonging to the Masons.

We don't have to "speculate" as to who belongs to the Masons. We wear Masonic rings, tie tacks, and Have Masonic decals on our cars. In the Scottish Rite, every member elected to the Order of Knights Commander of the Court of Honour and 33° have their names published in the Supreme Council's biannual publication "Transactions", which are in the public domain. You'll also see us walk in Shrine parades with our fezzes. Masons do not make their membership a secret.

But this is a so called Democracy, which, in Plato's 4 States, he placed a Democracy 3rd on the list, 2nd last that is. The last was a state run by the military, which is "supposed" to be the powers plan for America and perhaps the rest of the world. The fact that the Bush Administration passed the Patriot Act is suspect in this regard: now no search warrant is needed to come into your home.

A government like the Bush administration is exactly what Plato was trying to prevent. Consider it this way, and perhaps you'll better understand Plato's criticism of democracy.

Right now in the USA, does everyone have an equal chance? Are everyone equally educated? Does every citizen have an equal opportunity to become President of the United States.

If your answer is "no", then Plato agrees with you. Plato points out that in a democracy, rulers are free to amass wealth, which corrupts them. Furthermore, in a democracy, only the wealthy have a chance to be elected to office; only they can afford to run campaigns. And furthermore, they will say and do practically anything to get elected because they want power. They use the ignorance of the masses as their tools, feed them garbage propaganda, enslave the minds of the citizens, and then call all of this stuff "freedom and democracy". Plato simply called it impiety and injustice.

In Plato's Republic, all citizens, regardless of gender or anything else, have an equal chance to become a ruler, or anything else they want. All children of all classes are educated in the same manner, and then their behavior is observed through practical tests. If a youth continually passes these tests by rejecting immoral behavior in favor of practicing the virtue he has been taught, he becomes a Guardian. However, if the youth succumbs to weakness and temptation, he instead becomes something that is more suited to his nature, such as a cobbler or a merchant.

Those who fail the tests and are rejected as Guardians are actually getting exactly what they want. If someone succumbs to weakness in sexual appetite or the desire of money, he is free to pursue those desires, but is unfit to be a Guardian. The Guardians, on the other hand, are pure of soul and of spirit. They have not succumbed to weakness or fear, have persevered in the virtues taught to them, and may become Guardians. In Plato's Republic, it is unlawful for Guardians to possess private property, or even to be in the same room with gold or money. This ensures that the Guardians cannot be corrupted by materialism, and therefore, through virtue, govern only for the benefit of the governed, and not for building up personal wealth and power.

Well, if the conspiracy is correct, that the Freemasons most Powerful leaders (Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bushes, etc.) are plotting population reductions and martial law,

None of these people are Freemasons, much less "leaders" in Freemasonry.

then the Noble Falsehood has been adhered to beautifully:

I do not know how you have confused these two issues, as Plato makes them very clear. His "Noble Falsehood", or creation myth, is that the rulers cannot possess, touch, or even be in the same room with, money because it would contaminate the purity of the gold in their souls (the Allegory of the Metals). If you want to argue against Bush and Co., that's fine. But you're trying to flip the facts. And the fact is that Bush was put into power through democracy, just because he was rich, had connections, and was able to use the masses' ignorance as a propaganda tool. This is EXACTLY WHAT PLATO SAID WOULD HAPPEN IN A DEMOCRACY. If anything, by arguing against Bush, Rockefellers, etc., you're only proving Plato right.

In Plato's Republic, Dubya would have been appointed to the Craftsman class a long time ago. He certainly would not be in a position of authority in the Platonic state. The whole purpose of Plato's laws was to weed out his type, which thrives in a democracy.

that is, Plato thought lying to the people for some "good" end in his eyes was Just (i.e. killing babies that were born from the 3rd class of people: the craftsmen). Now, I am not saying that our Governments are doing the latter example, it is just an example of a measure Plato thought was necessary to positively effect humans' evolution and thus the evolution of the State. Of course, nobody would know what happened to the babies. As I pondered, and discussed his State with people, he ended up being a cold blooded Aristocrat who advocated playing God. What was his goal for killing those babies? Of course, he wanted to, throughout many generations, convert the whole of the people of the state to "Philosopher Kings." He detailed a plan on how to accomplish this, which was keeping only the 2nd level people's babies alive, the ones who had silver in their souls, since these babies could ascend to having gold souls, the 3rd level, like the Philosopher Kings. Why can't the Philosopher Kings have babies themselves? Well, I think women can actually become Philosopher Kings as well, so they could do that. But, by definition, PK do not engage in Physical Pleasures of that sort, so the under-class are expected too.

This is not what Plato wrote. To begin with, all children of all the classes were to be educated equally. As Plato makes very clear, it will be common to find children among the Craftsmen class who will be made Guardians, just as it will be common to find children among the Guardians who will have to become Craftsmen. The Allegory of the Metals states that all men and women in the Republic are kindred; therefore, it will possibly for those with bronze souls to produce a child with a gold soul, etc.

Furthermore, the Guardians do indeed procreate, and Plato spends a lot of time in Books V and VI discussing marital arrangements for the Guardians. There are both male and female Guardians, and they will procreate among their own class. If their offspring fail the tests of virtue, they simply become Craftsmen.

The crying question is this, in a Kantian sense: "Do the means justify the ends?" I simply DO NOT know.

As I'm sure you're aware, Kant was a very vocal Platonist. And I certainly would agree with Kant that end does not justify the means. In the Republic, we are given a glimpse of a society which is perfectly happy, good, and just. The rulers do not rule because of hunger for power and money; indeed, they must forsake these things by law. They've been chosen rulers simply because they are good, honest, virtuous, and wise. And if there is a better reason to choose someone as a leader, what would it be.

The Auxiliaries and Craftsmen are also happy. The Auxiliaries, who have spirited souls, find their natural duty in defending the City. The Craftsmen carry on those occupations that they are designed by nature to do, and enjoy their material pleasures. Thus, in the Republic, there is a place for each individual, where he can realize his individual potentials designated him by Nature, while contributing to the whole.




[edit on 29-1-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by akilles
* Aleister Crowley - master satanist of this century and founder of the anti-christ religion of Thelema.
* Arthur Edward Waite - occult writer and Masonic historian.

And you were doing so well, en.wikipedia.org... here you will see that Crowley and Waite were not buddies, that Freemasoney was one tool that Crowley used and changed the rituals to further his own agenda.

· Manly P. Hall - Rosicrucian adept, author, founder of the Philosophical Research Society.

Indeed, Hall speculated on Freemasonry and wrote much on his interpretation of its Phylosophy, unfortuanetly the Anti Mason forgets to mention that Hall wrote most of it when he was in his early 20’s and did not become a Freemason until 30 years later.

* Dr. Wynn Westcott - member of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia and founding member of the occult Order of the Golden Dawn.
· S. L. MacGregor Mathers - co-founder of the Golden Dawn.

www.hermeticgoldendawn.org... We see here that the modern Order clearly reports that the original group ceased to exist in 1903 and has no mention of any links to freemasonry. Other than some of its members were at one time Freemasons.

· Dr. Gerard Encaussé - (Papus) masterful author, teacher of the Tarot and leader of the occult Martinistes society.

freemasonry.bcy.ca... The order which he took over copied the Masonic ritual but was never an accepted part of modern freemasonry.

Dr. Theodore Reuss - head of the O.T.O., a German occult/satanic society which made Crowley its head for the British Isles.

We can do no better than to quote what his erstwhile but now disillusioned friend August Weinholtz wrote about him in the French masonic periodical L'Acacia in 1907:
“This man's cleverness and extraordinary activities, his sophistries, his knowledge of languages, his ability to play no matter what role, make him a real international menace. In some respects he reminds one of Cagliostro, the most brilliant of all masonic charlatans, who successfully contrived to dupe his contemporaries ... Reuss uses more up to date methods to make people believe in his connections with powerful masonic bodies and, in accordance with the spirit of our age, places sexuality in the foreground ... From a journalistic point of view Reuss is rather an interesting figure. In him we encounter the kind of adventurer portrayed by 17th- and 18th-century writers. But he is a child of our time and social conditions. What is lamentable is that at the threshold of the 20th century it is necessary for the masonic world to be warned anew against a Cagliostro, also that there are men who publicly dare to defend such a person.”

· George Pickingill - the master warlock (male witch) of 19th century England, leader of the "Pickingill covens."

I can find no evidence that Pickingill was a Freemason other than on Anti Masonic web sites. Actually, I grew up in the area he lived.

· Annie Besant - leader of the occult Theosophical society and Co-Masonic hierarch. (Yes, there are female Masons!)

freemasonry.bcy.ca... here you have chosen another vehicle Crowley tried to hi jack for his own purposes Co-Masonry. He and Beasant were sworn enemies.

· Alice Bailey - founder of the New Age organization, Lucis (formerly Lucifer) Trust.

The writings of Alice Bailey have never been adopted as "authoritative" by any Grand Lodge; neither were they among any writers recommended by any Grand Masters.

· Bishop C. W. Leadbetter - Theosophist, mentor to the failed New Age "Christ", Krishnamurti, and prelate in the occult Liberal Catholic Church.

His initiation into International Co-Masonry on June 12, 1915 by James Ingall Wedgewood (1883/05/24- ), his association with many of the "fringe masons" and his subsequent writings on Masonic themes have led anti-masons to mistakenly assume he speaks with some Masonic authority and often quote, out of context, his writings on theosophy and the occult.

· Gerald B. Gardner - founder of the modern Wiccan (white Witchcraft) revival.

From the Biography of gardner: www.bcholmes.org...
It seems to me quite clear that even if Gardner received a traditional set of rituals from his coven, they must have been exceptionally sparse, as the concepts that we know of as Wicca today certainly derive from ceremonial magic and Freemasonry to a very great extent. Indeed, Gardner always claimed that they were sparse.

* Alex Sanders - self-styled "King of the Witches" in London and one of the most influential leaders of Wicca after Gardner.

www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk... here we see the problem with taking Anti Masonic web sites at face value, - if the reader would care to go to the site they will see a picture of Sanders giving the sign of a mason. Every Mason here will testify this is not a Masonic sign.

All these descriptions have been taken at face value directly from Anti Masonic web sites. It is these sites which perpetuate the mis-information that gives rise to all the suspicion and mistrust of freemasonry. None of them has been able to find any actual proof of occult connections to Freemasonry and have to rely on quoting specific passages from authors that have long since died and mostly of the 10th century when the general intelligence of the public was not as advanced as it is today. Modern young people do not take information at face value they require and intelligent informative and evidential background to a statement.

Perhaps you can point me to another authority because I think the Noble Falsehood is lying to the people for their own good by the Philosopher Kings. How is it not? They are told they were brought to the land by divine provadence: they are all realted in the same way, a "true brotherhood." He promoted breeding among the citizens in a way that would ensure none of them would know who was the father and mother of each child. Also, if I remember correct, citizens with iron and bronze in their souls who have babies TOGETHER meet the following fate, "Their children will be born into darkness."

And in fact, I have not mis-interpreted the Republic, since my Professor uttered those words about Plato being an Aristocrat. To this day I feel he is, although the Republic has some profound elements in a positive light.

And a more broad sweeping interpretation of Plato's Dialouges elicits, in my opinion, and many others, that he never believed a large part of what he wrote, save for the Republic (i.e. stuff about the cycle of life and after death: what life is like with the gods and how to ascend to the non-material state of existence). I don't have the book, but I wish I did right now, since in one of his dialogues he seems to reveal this subtly and makes reference to the Noble Falsehood, thus saying something like, "Well, if you are atune enough to understand that I don't believe all of this, perhaps you will agree that we need this information to circulate for those of you who are not as atune and need the guidance." For, as Plato, or Socrates tries to conclude that being Just is worth it, since there is life after death. If he did not convince us of life after death and dwelling with the Gods, if you have been a Just person while in material form, then the whole being Just on Earth loses much of its force. Moreover, as you know, the dialouges were not Plato's serious work, and seemed to be written for entertainment. I have read that Plato actually changed his name, like movie stars do, before the Dialogues began circulating.

And as you know, Plato's serious works were not to be published, since he believed that knowledge should be discussed at the Lyceum and not in printed form: of course, he was talking about Philosophizing, which back then meant to be a Philosopher was the Ultimate academic figure, one who was schooled in all the branches the tree of Academics spawned.

Originally posted by freudling
Perhaps you can point me to another authority because I think the Noble Falsehood is lying to the people for their own good by the Philosopher Kings. How is it not?

Socrates (or perhaps Plato) was making several independent points here. First of all, his point is that everybody believes the lies of their cultures, regardless of whether such lies are good for them. A second interelated point is that the common people are not able to understand or comprehend "All Truth", and that even such All Truth can be harmful for them.

Now, if you disagree with Plato/Socrates on this, that is certainly your right and privilege. But history tends to support his argument: consider Galileo being arrested and condemned to death unless he recant science, or the infamous Scopes-Monkey Trial here in the good old US of A less than 80 years ago. It would seem that the masses are fully dedicated to their myths, and will persecute even unto death those people who attempt to replace their myths with the truth.

Therefore, Plato says: "If they want their myths, let them have them". BUT...if the people are going to accept myths instead of truth because it is in their nature to do so, let's at least supply them with virtuous ones that reflect the order of nature, instead of contradicting it.

Since we're on the subject, I'll briefly explain the myth that Plato recommended, for the benefit of those who've never read the "Republic."

The myth of the new state is known as the Allegory of the Metals. In it, Socrates, who is the chief speaker in Plato's book, recommends that if we found a new city, we teach the inhabitants that they are all brothers and sisters, and that their ancestors were formed from the earth (this is similar to the Judeo-Christian creation myth in this regard). Because they are brethren, they must behave brotherly to one another; they must defend their city which was given to them by their Mother Earth, and they must honor the gods who have blessed them.

Furthermore, when they were created inside their mothers' wombs, the gods fashioned their souls by mixing metals. Those who would be the Guardians, or rulers, of the City had their souls fashioned from pure gold. The auxiliaries, or the army, had their souls fashioned from silver, and the Craftsmen, who are everyone else, had souls fashioned from iron and bronze.

Because the Guardians had gold souls, they would not be allowed to touch, or even to sit in the same room with, material gold; the greed associated with material gold would corrupt the pure gold of their souls. The Auxiliaries are likewise refused to possess money, because their souls contain a mixture, predominately of silver, but of also some gold.

The Craftsmen, on the other hand, are "normal folks", and go on living as most people do, making money, acquiring property, holding drinking parties, etc. This is class is what Nietzsche termed "the herd".

Because it is unlawful for the Guardians to possess wealth, they do not rule with their own interests in mind. Therefore, they must rule for the benefit of their subjects, and become, in this sense, true civil servants.

They are told they were brought to the land by divine provadence: they are all realted in the same way, a "true brotherhood." He promoted breeding among the citizens in a way that would ensure none of them would know who was the father and mother of each child. Also, if I remember correct, citizens with iron and bronze in their souls who have babies TOGETHER meet the following fate, "Their children will be born into darkness."

Plato expands in Book V of the Republic on the Metals by saying that, since all are kindred, there will be instances of gold children born of bronze parents, and vice versa. For example, a wife who is a seamstress and a husband who is a farmer could give birth to a child fitted by nature to be a Guardian, because regardless of class, everyone is related to one another, and so the possibility always remains.

The only way to tell who is fit to rule is to educate all children in the same way. For education, Plato recommended music and poetry for the soul, gymnastics for the body, and logic, philosophy, mathematics, and physics for the mind. During educational training, youths would be subject to temptation, in order to test their character. For example, after having learned the virtue of moderance, a group of youths may be left overnight in a room full of wine. Those who drank themselves into drunkeness would show that they had been unable to resist the weakness of temptation in their souls, and that therefore, they are not by nature fit to rule over a perfectly good state. They would therefore be sent to learn a craft such as farming or shoemaking, where they could live according to their nature without doing any harm to society as an intemperate ruler.

Therefore, in Plato's Republic, the position of one's parents in society means absolutely nothing, while in the USA it is virtually impossible for someone born poor to enter high government office. In the Republic, all children are tested and trained equally, regardless if their parents are Guardians or day laborers. In the USA, government is practically limited to Ivy League graduates, who may or may not could maintain even a B average.

And in fact, I have not mis-interpreted the Republic, since my Professor uttered those words about Plato being an Aristocrat. To this day I feel he is, although the Republic has some profound elements in a positive light.

I would disagree with your professor. Plato had no time for aristocracy; what Plato stood for was meritocracy.

Meritocracy is simply based upon merit, and such merit is demonstrated through testing. Aristocracies can only flourish in monarchies and democracies; consider the Bush and Kennedy families. These families are aristocratic, but few of them show intellectual or moral merit. In Plato's Republic, they would have been tested from youth in order to ascertain if they had the merit needed to rule. If they were found lacking, they would simply be sent to a print shop or cobbler's store to learn a trade.

And a more broad sweeping interpretation of Plato's Dialouges elicits, in my opinion, and many others, that he never believed a large part of what he wrote, save for the Republic (i.e. stuff about the cycle of life and after death: what life is like with the gods and how to ascend to the non-material state of existence).

Keep in mind that Plato is not trying to indoctrinate us, or even himself. He simply asks questions, and then sees where they lead. The simple question of "What is Justice?" led to the Republic being formed in the minds of Socrates and the sons of Polemarchus.

But I think you make a good point here. After all, the only reason they spoke of forming the perfect state was to try to find justice in it. After they found it, they could then look for it in the soul of the individual, and defeat the argument of Thrasymachus, that it is more profitable to be unjust than just.

But in pursuing, the team made some interesting discoveries, to say the least, concerning the nature of government and political science.

If he did not convince us of life after death and dwelling with the Gods, if you have been a Just person while in material form, then the whole being Just on Earth loses much of its force.

It actually makes me sad that you have reached this conclusion. The whole point of Plato's argument was to show that Justice is good in itself, without regard to anything else. Therefore, according to Plato, Justice is always the most wise path, and it would be so regardless of life after death.

Moreover, as you know, the dialouges were not Plato's serious work, and seemed to be written for entertainment. I have read that Plato actually changed his name, like movie stars do, before the Dialogues began circulating.

Plato was his bith name, and he was named after his mother's brother. I would certainly disagree that the Dialogues were not his serious works; indeed, the Dialogues are the only works he penned, with the exception of the "Laws".

And as you know, Plato's serious works were not to be published, since he believed that knowledge should be discussed at the Lyceum and not in printed form:

Plato died before Aristotle founded the Lyceum, but he did indeed teach at the university he founded, the Academy. But we have it on Aristotle's record (who was a graduate of the Academy), that Plato taught the same things found in the Dialogues. Aristotle even points them out one by one, then lists whether or not he himself agrees, and why.

"The myth of the new state is known as the Allegory of the Metals. In it, Socrates, who is the
Furthermore, when they were created inside their mothers' wombs, the gods fashioned their souls by mixing metals. Those who would be the Guardians, or rulers, of the City had their souls fashioned from pure gold. The auxiliaries, or the army, had their souls fashioned from silver, and the Craftsmen, who are everyone else, had souls fashioned from iron and bronze."

I disagree: Bronze and Bronze mixed with iron cannot ascend to the Auxillary class, that is why those babies are, and I quote, "born into darkness." Maybe I am wrong, and I don't have the dialogues to check. If a bronze and silver mate, only then can the child, perhaps, ascend to the silver class completely, thus on his way or that much closer to the gold class, the realm of the Philosopher Kings.

They are told they were brought to the land by divine provadence: they are all realted in the same way, a "true brotherhood." He promoted breeding among the citizens in a way that would ensure none of them would know who was the father and mother of each child. Also, if I remember correct, citizens with iron and bronze in their souls who have babies TOGETHER meet the following fate, "Their children will be born into darkness."

Plato expands in Book V of the Republic on the Metals by saying that, since all are kindred, there will be instances of gold children born of bronze parents, and vice versa. For example, a wife who is a seamstress and a husband who is a farmer could give birth to a child fitted by nature to be a Guardian, because regardless of class, everyone is related to one another, and so the possibility always remains.

Interesting, I will read that. However, I think your example is wrong. Like I said earlier, that instance will occur when that child was born to a bronze/silver couple, not bronze/bronze.

And in fact, I have not mis-interpreted the Republic, since my Professor uttered those words about Plato being an Aristocrat. To this day I feel he is, although the Republic has some profound elements in a positive light.

I would disagree with your professor. Plato had no time for aristocracy; what Plato stood for was meritocracy.

Well, we disagree with you. I think we should both remember here that his dialogues were literature for the masses, the masses that could read! not his serious work - an ideal snapshot on the thinkings of perhaps just one powerful thinker: Plato. That is a whole other topic, "What went on in the Academy?" We have some fragments on the actual teachings in the Academy by a student who took notes, one instance regards taxonomy and humor: how they went through all the positions on the hierarchy of plants to show where a pumkin fell. Another the Mathematics being taught in there, like equations from Pythagoras himself, sine Plato went to visit him, who was in exile in Sicily. In fact, Pythagoras was said to have a secret society, a religous one of sorts. I can't help but think that Religious society was derived from the Egyptians, since they studied acient Egyptian Mathematics, which is quite interesting per sey mind you.

How is Plato not an Aristocrat? even though his Republic does not advocate a Democracy? Aristocracy: People of noble families or the highest social class; a group acknowledged to be superior to all others of the same kind. Based on the Republic, Plato is exactly that. However, I must say this again: that was an entertaining work.

And a more broad sweeping interpretation of Plato's Dialouges elicits, in my opinion, and many others, that he never believed a large part of what he wrote, save for the Republic (i.e. stuff about the cycle of life and after death: what life is like with the gods and how to ascend to the non-material state of existence).

If he did not convince us of life after death and dwelling with the Gods, if you have been a Just person while in material form, then the whole being Just on Earth loses much of its force.

It actually makes me sad that you have reached this conclusion.

You are right, and I knew that of course, since that is the "light" if you will that is perhaps the single most profound piece of knowledge to take away from the dialogues, since all of the dialogues are mostly an exploration of morality, justice and what exactly they are. And my above conclusion still stands, since not everyone will be able to grasp their conclusion that being just is something to do in and of itself, almost Kantian. That is, we should be Just for the sake of being Just; however, I say almost Kantian because perhaps Plato really intertwined this with life after death: being moral and "good" in order to ascend to living with the Gods as much as possible. So Plato has covered himself from a few angles, that is, if you don't believe in being just for the sake of being just, do it because you will be blessed with good things after you die. Those who are unjust meet a very imaginative fate as he describes, going through mud-slides and firey areas within the depths of earth, only to come back a spider or something low on the Taxonomy of Intelligent life.

Oh and, I love the Laws, how about you?

Plato died before Aristotle founded the Lyceum, but he did indeed teach at the university he founded, the Academy.

Yup, my mistake, it was the Academy, not the Lyceum, but of course they mean Universities. Lastly, do you have a reference about his name, because I have read and been told that that was not his real name. I can't remember what his real name was said to be.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by freudling]

[edit on 30-1-2005 by freudling]

Man, there is a lot of good stuff in this thread.
I want to quote a couple of sentences that to me define freemasonry. It is out of page 167 of Morals and Dogma, by Albert Pike.
"No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another. To that great Judge, Masonry refers the matter; and opening wide its portals, it invites to enter there and live in peace and harmony, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Jew, the Moslem; every man who will lead a truly virtuous and moral life, love his brethren, minister to the sick and distressed, and believe in the One, All-Powerful, All-Wise, everywhere-Present God, Architect, Creator and Preserver of all things..."
This one is from pg 213:
"Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion and its teachings are instructions in religion. For here are inculcated disinterestedness, affection, toleration, devotedness, patriotism, truth, a generous sympathy with those who suffer and mourn, pity for the fallen, mercy for the erring, relief for those in want, Faith, Hope, and Charity."
On the surface, these look like quotes that are full of peace and loving and tolerance, which they are. But I don't see how any christians can tolerate any of this. This sounds like universal religous doctrine and can easily make a bible believing christian, like myself, look wrong for believing what the bible says, like Jesus in the only way. I'm not a mason, nor do I ever want to become one. I have nothing personaly against them, although the more prominent masons, Karl Marx, Jesse Jackson, Albet Pike, G.H.W. Bush are on my list of people I don't like. My opinions about these people are based on several different issues and alot of research. I do have a couple of questions that I hope ML or other well qualified masons can answer.
1. Do blacks attend the lodge near you? I never seen any attend here.
2. How many oaths, blood oaths have you taken?
3. What does B'nai B'rith and the anti-defomation league have to do with freemasonry. Both of these orginazitions were created by Albert Pike along with the KKK.
4. Do masons believe that their is one god for all religions?
Sorry for the q's, but I would greatly appriciate any response. Thanks.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
I have nothing personaly against them, although the more prominent masons, Karl Marx, Jesse Jackson, Albet Pike, G.H.W. Bush

Neither Karl Marx or George Bush were or are Freemasons.

Do blacks attend the lodge near you? I never seen any attend here.

Yes. there are black people in Freemasonry. You even mentioned Jesse Jackson yourself. I know many black Freemasons.

How many oaths, blood oaths have you taken?

None. The "oaths" refer to symbolic penalties and are therefore not "blood oaths".

Both of these orginazitions were created by Albert Pike along with the KKK.

Albert Pike did not create nor was he a member of the KKK.

Do masons believe that their is one god for all religions?

Each mason believes in his own god - it could be a Christian god, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever. There is no definition of a god dictated by Freemasonry.

Is there a place one of you masons can direct me to read some of the stuff that is taught in freemasonary, like popular books within the sect? My take on Religion and Masonary and all the other clubs and societies:

The bible holds much weight, as one can find pround statements throughout. As well, many great thinkers over the past 2000 years and more have written some like things, mostly, of course, related to humanity, like morality and principles of Ethics that derive from moral "truisms." It is simple for me, I don't need some club to tell me that being moral and respecting other people and Religions and blah, blah is something good. Go to the library and look at all the books: you will doubtless get a much better snapshot on this topic than some club could afford. Read the Bible, it is a fairly complete work and people seem to just repeat stuff in there in the modern language and thus context of the day. Here is the mystery of Religion solved: Take a few moral axioms and then derive a system of Ethics based on those moral axioms: deductively deriving what is "right" and what is "wrong" in a society, and make it into a book and call it the law of the land. What are some obvious moral axioms? (1) Everyone deserves the right to life. (2) Everyone deserves their rights to be protected. Perhaps the overarching principle in Morality and Ethics is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Of course, we are talking about Empathy.

Originally posted by freudling
I disagree: Bronze and Bronze mixed with iron cannot ascend to the Auxillary class, that is why those babies are, and I quote, "born into darkness." Maybe I am wrong, and I don't have the dialogues to check. If a bronze and silver mate, only then can the child, perhaps, ascend to the silver class completely, thus on his way or that much closer to the gold class, the realm of the Philosopher Kings.

The following is taken from the G.M.A. Grube translation of the Republic, revised by C.D.C. Reeve, Book III, 415 C:

"All of you in the city are brothers", we'll say to them in telling our story, "but the gods who made you mixed some gold into those who are adequately equipped to rule, because they are most valuable. They put silver in those who are auxiliaries and iron and bronze in the farmers and craftsmen. For the most part you will produce children like yourselves, but, because you are all related, a silver shild will occassionally be born from a golden parent, and vice versa, and all others from each other. So the first and important command from the gods to the rulers is that there is nothing that they must guard better or watch more carefully than the mixture of metals in the souls of the next generation. If an offspring of theirs should be found to have a mixture of iron or bronze, they must not pity him in any way, but give him the rank appropriate to his nature and drive him out to join the craftsmen and farmers. But if an offspring of the craftsmen or farmers is found to have a mixture of gold or silver, they will honor him and take him up to join the guardians or the auxiliaries.

This why it is an allegory: Plato nor Socrates believed that the metal mixture myth was true. The point was simply that nature and nurture produce the characters of men, and only those with merit should rule.

Plato does recommend their mating within their own classes, but this does not guarantee like offspring. For example, people mate thoroughbreds
in hope of getting a champion racehorse, but it is very possible that the offspring turns out to be just a regular horse. On the other hand, it is very possible for two regular horses to beget a champion.

Interesting, I will read that. However, I think your example is wrong. Like I said earlier, that instance will occur when that child was born to a bronze/silver couple, not bronze/bronze.

Theoretically, like would only mate with like; therefore, there would be no silver and bronze couplings. The exception would be that bronze and iron may marry, and raise traditional families, as the are both possessed of craftsman souls. The Guardians and Auxiliaries, however, do not mate with craftsmen because they have wives in common, and do not have traditional families.

Well, we disagree with you. I think we should both remember here that his dialogues were literature for the masses, the masses that could read! not his serious work - an ideal snapshot on the thinkings of perhaps just one powerful thinker: Plato. That is a whole other topic, "What went on in the Academy?" We have some fragments on the actual teachings in the Academy by a student who took notes, one instance regards taxonomy and humor: how they went through all the positions on the hierarchy of plants to show where a pumkin fell. Another the Mathematics being taught in there, like equations from Pythagoras himself, sine Plato went to visit him, who was in exile in Sicily.

A couple of points here: Plato was born in 428 B.C., while Pythagoras died in 501 B.C., many years before Plato's birth. Secondly, I should have elaborated more on Plato being an aristocrat. If your professor meant that Plato was a member of the aristocratic class in Athens, then of course, he was correct: Plato was indeed born into an aristocratic family, and was therefore himself an aristocrat. My point is simply that Plato despised aristocracy, even though he was born into it; his philosophy taught the virtue of merit in and of itself, without regard to aristocracy, which was corrupt even in Plato's time.

As for your comment on Plato writing for the masses, as you yourself indicated, only the educated could read at that time. It is true, according to Aristotle, that Plato had an "unwritten doctrine", but Aristotle also informs us that this was simply the doctrine of the Mysteries, to which had been initiated at Eleusis. This doctrine did not contradict the middle and late Dialogues, but only expanded upon them. For example, in the Meno, Plato has Socrates tell Meno, after a lengthy discourse on the meaning of virtue, that if he would like a deeper understanding of virtue, he should accompany him to the mysteries and be initiated. Therefore, we can infer that the mysterious doctrines of the Hierophants would not have contradicted what Socrates had already told Meno, but would simply expand upon them.

In fact, Pythagoras was said to have a secret society, a religous one of sorts. I can't help but think that Religious society was derived from the Egyptians, since they studied acient Egyptian Mathematics, which is quite interesting per sey mind you.

I tend to agree. In the ritual of the Third Degree of Masonry, the candidate is given a lecture concerning Pythagoras, where he is referred to as "our ancient friend and Brother, who traveled throughout Africa and Asia, was ordained into several orders of priesthood, and raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason", the last comment indicating that he had been initiated into the mysteries at Heliopolis, which the author of the Third Degree ritual presumanly considered the "Freemasonry" of that period.

How is Plato not an Aristocrat? even though his Republic does not advocate a Democracy? Aristocracy: People of noble families or the highest social class; a group acknowledged to be superior to all others of the same kind. Based on the Republic, Plato is exactly that. However, I must say this again: that was an entertaining work.

Aristocrats, by their very definition, inculcate succession of powr through family ties. Plato, on the other hand, saw the evil of this: he recognized that a good father could produce a bad son, and vice versa. He was also aware that it was the aristocracy that had murdered Socrates, and would have possibly gotten him too, had he not fled to Italy. By the time he wrote the Republic, we see that he has embraced meritocracy: it did not matter who your family was, as long as you could pass the guardians tests, demonstrating the natural ability to practice wisdom, self-control, virtue, and temperance. This could perhaps be called a "natural aristocracy", in the words of Nietzsche, but it represents something entirely different than the word "aristocracy" as used commonly.

That is, we should be Just for the sake of being Just; however, I say almost Kantian because perhaps Plato really intertwined this with life after death: being moral and "good" in order to ascend to living with the Gods as much as possible. So Plato has covered himself from a few angles, that is, if you don't believe in being just for the sake of being just, do it because you will be blessed with good things after you die. Those who are unjust meet a very imaginative fate as he describes, going through mud-slides and firey areas within the depths of earth, only to come back a spider or something low on the Taxonomy of Intelligent life.

I would agree that Plato thought that a man who is just will be rewarded hereafter. Early in Book I, Cephalus mentions this as a motive to behave justly, and Socrates does not dissent. However, Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge him by inferring that unjust people are often wealthy, while just and good people are often poor. The wealthy are able to offer sacrifices to the gods and donate to charity, even though they are wicked; and the poor, although they may be good, often must neglect these duties. So, they say, since the poets and theologians say that the wealthy can be forgiven through sacrifice and charity, and be esteemed by the gods, while the poor could be seen as neglecting their sacrificial and charitable duties, they ask Socrates to demonstrate that justice is good in itself without regrd to favor with the gods.

And even if a state that Plato describes never comes to be, and I don't believe it will, we may still use his argument. The only reason he formed his state was in order to apply it to the individual. If the state consists of 3 classes, so does the soul. And if the state is blessed with 4 virtues, so is the soul. In the soul, says Plato, the reasoning part corresponds to the guardians; the spirited part corresponds to the auxiliaries; and the passions correspond to the craftsmen.

He discovers that, in the state, wisdom is found in the rulers by governing for the benefit of the governed, using reason and virtue. The spirited auxiliaries demonstrate a pure courage which is tempered with gentleness, and both of these classes represent temperance. Therefore, according to Plato, the only virtue left is justice, and must be found in each class practicing its own craft, without meddling in the others. In the soul, this would represent the reasoning part of us ruling us, the spirited and courageous part of our soul would support the reasoning guardian, and the passions would obey, allowing us discipline and self-control. If we can so organize our souls in this manner, then, according to Plato's argument, we have found justice within us.

But if the passions (craftsman) attempt to usurp the soul's guardian (reason), we become intemperate, with lust and greed controlling us. And if our spirited part (courage) usurps the soul's guardian, we lose moderation, and become fierce. But if each part of the soul performs its own function given to it by nature, we are just and happy.

In this sense, the entire City is merely an allegory of ordering the soul.

Oh and, I love the Laws, how about you?

Absolutely; I love all philosophy, even that I disagree with. Whether or not I agree with a person's philosophy takes a back seat to my happiness that at least people are thinking and questioning. And even though you and I disagree on several philosophical points, it's great to be here talking philosophy with you, and I hope our readers are becoming interested in the subject, if they weren't already.