11-29-2017, 12:00 AM
Le_Regard wrote:
I'll give this a better response later, but I skimmed that. Do you you're actually typing IN the quote blocks?
What!? I had no idea!
It makes you very, very difficult to respond to point by point.
Why?
I completely disagree that we can make ANY assumptions about what Plato was "really trying to say" through the voice of his characters. Some of the dialogues say OPPOSITE things and reach totally incompatible conclusions. We can't take any educated guesses on what Shakespeare was "really thinking" either, and people still don't even agree on who he even was.
The explanation for this that I know best is that, well look, they KILLED SOCRATES, didn't they? They tried him in a kangaroo court and just because he took the hemlock without a fight doesn't mean that was justice.
You make a good point. Obviously being what was then considered politically correct could be a matter of life and death as Plato would surely know. Seems strong motivation to disguise one's true beliefs. Still I think that writing out "The beliefs Plato's writings seemed to favor" every time would get old fast. Got any better suggestion?
If you're interested in these things check out The Laws. It is VERY DIFFERENT from The Republic, and probably because it wasn't available to the public until after Plato was dead. It's widely considered probably the closest to what he really wanted to say.
Yeah, I don't care what he really wanted to say about laws. Mostly I'm interested not in what's in the cups of the famous philosophers but rather the design of the cups themselves. When they present ideas about the nature of reality that differ vastly from what I normally hear that can get my interest sometimes. As does the drama which surrounded them.
I'll give this a better response later, but I skimmed that. Do you you're actually typing IN the quote blocks?
What!? I had no idea!
It makes you very, very difficult to respond to point by point.
Why?
I completely disagree that we can make ANY assumptions about what Plato was "really trying to say" through the voice of his characters. Some of the dialogues say OPPOSITE things and reach totally incompatible conclusions. We can't take any educated guesses on what Shakespeare was "really thinking" either, and people still don't even agree on who he even was.
The explanation for this that I know best is that, well look, they KILLED SOCRATES, didn't they? They tried him in a kangaroo court and just because he took the hemlock without a fight doesn't mean that was justice.
You make a good point. Obviously being what was then considered politically correct could be a matter of life and death as Plato would surely know. Seems strong motivation to disguise one's true beliefs. Still I think that writing out "The beliefs Plato's writings seemed to favor" every time would get old fast. Got any better suggestion?
If you're interested in these things check out The Laws. It is VERY DIFFERENT from The Republic, and probably because it wasn't available to the public until after Plato was dead. It's widely considered probably the closest to what he really wanted to say.
Yeah, I don't care what he really wanted to say about laws. Mostly I'm interested not in what's in the cups of the famous philosophers but rather the design of the cups themselves. When they present ideas about the nature of reality that differ vastly from what I normally hear that can get my interest sometimes. As does the drama which surrounded them.