Your link is broken
Works for me.
Just do a search for your posts...
the forms in the caves are the concept of perfection, of ideals, of perfect norms. While they are hard to grasp and see for man the forms do exist.
I did not say forms do not exist. What I am saying is that they don't exist in the two dimensional fundamentalist way people think.
The forms are transcendental, meaning they transcend simplistic human thinking, which is exactly the type of thinking that gravitates to fundamentalist thought.
Plato required his students to be highly educated and able to reason for themselves, not followers of someone else's thought process.
You are so afraid of thinking you had to pollute your discourse with a fear of fundamentalism. Again liberal knee jerk.
Nonsense.
More arguments, less statements please.
For Plato the tough question would not be is there a right and wrong, but who is nominated to figure out what is in the caves and how to conform the laws as closely as possible with what is just and right. Who gets to say what must be in the cave.
Those who can go in the cave, see what is in the cave.
Those who are capable of transcending the simplistic dull minded two dimension thought process have a shot of progressing toward more abstract truths.
Plato suggested Philospher Kings.
Yes, and their kinship was a developed level of consciousness, not royal parents.
People who believe in Natural Law and God also come to similar conclusion.
Most don't. Some do, but from the looks of this world, clearly most don't.
The law must conform to what is right. When the law is wrong it must be improved.
This is where I think you are missing the depth of Plato.
Law doesn't conform to what is right.
At the level of the forms, there is no distinction between right and law.
Divine right of kings, in principle was a deeply philosophical concept, where the king was so evolved as to have surrendered his human mind to God, and upon doing so, his mind was fully Divinized. The Divinized mind of the King was nothing more than God speaking through the king, there was no King separate from God, so whatever the King said or did, was truth and law accordingly.
What we saw in practice was nothing at all like this.
People who say is is wrong because it is illegal (statutory) as you suggest have not really thought the concept of society and law through very far.
That may be true, but age of consent is a very practical approach to the masses.
What should the law embody. What is just.
Only God knows what is just. We humans flip coins in our mind and call out heads or tails.
Saying it is wrong because it is illegal. Allows perverts and wack jobs to potentially legalize man boy sex if they get enough votes. Is that what should make an act legal? Majority rule. A liberal like you should shudder at the concept.
Judge not...