Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I'll give this a better response later, but I skimmed that. Do you you're actually typing IN the quote blocks? It makes you very, very difficult to respond to point by point.
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.
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The real Socrates, it turns out, was a veteran of three different wars. Old school wars, the kind you fought with swords and horses.
Why do you think Plato left that out, so that no one knows that and everyone paints Plato's Socrates completely differently?
Well it's NOT left out actually, it's in The Charmides, but Philosophy 101 courses don't generally teach The Charmides.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Le_Regard wrote:
Also, and I'm saying this in anger now, mistaking all of Plato for the doctrine of Forms is totally a 101 level mistake.
Ha! If I thought you were really angry I'd egg you on but suffice to say although level 101 mistakes about philosophy are by no means beneath me mistaking all of Plato for the doctrine of forms is one I didn't make.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Le_Regard wrote:
The real Socrates, it turns out, was a veteran of three different wars. Old school wars, the kind you fought with swords and horses.
Why do you think Plato left that out, so that no one knows that and everyone paints Plato's Socrates completely differently?
Well it's NOT left out actually, it's in The Charmides, but Philosophy 101 courses don't generally teach The Charmides.
Hmmm, how do you think Plato arranged for Philosophy 101 classes to avoid The Charmides?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Le_Regard wrote:
The real Socrates, it turns out, was a veteran of three different wars. Old school wars, the kind you fought with swords and horses.
Why do you think Plato left that out, so that no one knows that and everyone paints Plato's Socrates completely differently?
Well it's NOT left out actually, it's in The Charmides, but Philosophy 101 courses don't generally teach The Charmides.
Hmmm, how do you think Plato arranged for Philosophy 101 classes to avoid The Charmides?
I was more wondering how YOU managed to avoid The Charmides.
I don't know. Maybe you're an astral time traveling wizard and you and Pythagoras get drunk together on the weekends, and you know all about. But your assessment that we have solved the problem of what Plato really thought, and that apparently he thought a lot of about elements and regular solids, is at best false.
However, if you want to have a long discussion on what Laws are, how they work, and why we have them, that's fine with me too.
My understanding is that most responsible philosophers would tell you that provoking such a discussion, and not recording his opinions for posterity, was the intent behind writing in dialogue form.
And I'm not just trying to be a jerk about this, I'm just saying this like it's a fact, but I don't think you've read Heraclitus either. That's fine, not everybody alive has to read Heraclitus, but I didn't bring it up.
Everything we know about what Heraclitus thought is written down in REALLY cryptic aphorisms that don't even make a lot of sense in the original Greek.
"Nature loves to conceal herself"
"War is the Father and King of All"
"Everyday the Sun is new"
That's what Heraclitus thought.
Look, I will TEACH YOU Neo-Platonism if you want. I'm not trying to put you down. I'll lift you up if you like, but don't tell me what Plato really thought.
"Though this Word is true evermore, yet men are as unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as before they have heard it at all. For, though, all things come to pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they had no experience of them, when they make trial of words and deeds such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its nature and showing how it truly is. But other men know not what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they do in sleep."
Heralitus, Fragment #1
"Word" here is a form of Logos, by the way, I looked it up.
(Edit - 10 posts in a row by Le_Regard condensed to 1 - Julio)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I really don't think this was off topic.
I do like them better all put together though.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
But if you're going to abuse your admin powers just because I called you out on publicly lying to everyone about Heraclitus, I think this is pretty much over anyway.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Le_Regard wrote:
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Le_Regard wrote:
The real Socrates, it turns out, was a veteran of three different wars. Old school wars, the kind you fought with swords and horses.
Why do you think Plato left that out, so that no one knows that and everyone paints Plato's Socrates completely differently?
Well it's NOT left out actually, it's in The Charmides, but Philosophy 101 courses don't generally teach The Charmides.
Hmmm, how do you think Plato arranged for Philosophy 101 classes to avoid The Charmides?
I was more wondering how YOU managed to avoid The Charmides.
Pro tip - The emphasis on "you" in there isn't as dramatic unless you actually point at me while saying it.
I don't know. Maybe you're an astral time traveling wizard and you and Pythagoras get drunk together on the weekends, and you know all about.
Don't dox me bro.
But your assessment that we have solved the problem of what Plato really thought, and that apparently he thought a lot of about elements and regular solids, is at best false.
However, if you want to have a long discussion on what Laws are, how they work, and why we have them, that's fine with me too.
My understanding is that most responsible philosophers would tell you that provoking such a discussion, and not recording his opinions for posterity, was the intent behind writing in dialogue form.
Some philosophers might argue that sneaking "responsible" in there before describing those who agree with you is just a hidden ad hominem argument against those who don't. Aristotle wrote about that tactic. I guess he must have been one of those irresponsible philosophers then.
And I'm not just trying to be a jerk about this, I'm just saying this like it's a fact, but I don't think you've read Heraclitus either. That's fine, not everybody alive has to read Heraclitus, but I didn't bring it up.
Everything we know about what Heraclitus thought is written down in REALLY cryptic aphorisms that don't even make a lot of sense in the original Greek.
I haven't read them myself, however when I consider your claim that those writings are REALLY cryptic aphorisms that don't make a lot of sense in the original Greek, I find it impossible not to keep in mind how you seem to fare at interpreting the straightforward things I write in today's English.
"Nature loves to conceal herself"
"War is the Father and King of All"
"Everyday the Sun is new"
That's what Heraclitus thought.
The first one is self-explanatory. I can see several ways in which the 2nd could be true, I'd have to see it in context. The 3rd one is something Heraclitus talked about a lot. That being that everything is always changing, (another famous quote of his along that order is "One cannot step into the same stream twice"). But really who cares?
Look, I will TEACH YOU Neo-Platonism if you want. I'm not trying to put you down. I'll lift you up if you like, but don't tell me what Plato really thought.
*yawn*
"Though this Word is true evermore, yet men are as unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as before they have heard it at all. For, though, all things come to pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they had no experience of them, when they make trial of words and deeds such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its nature and showing how it truly is. But other men know not what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they do in sleep."
Heralitus, Fragment #1
"Word" here is a form of Logos, by the way, I looked it up.
(Edit - 10 posts in a row by Le_Regard condensed to 1 - Julio)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Le_Regard wrote:
But if you're going to abuse your admin powers just because I called you out on publicly lying to everyone about Heraclitus, I think this is pretty much over anyway.
I do hope you start referring to yourself as an abuse victim in light of this.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"It is what opposes that helps." Fragment 8
"Every beast is driven to pasture with blows." Fragment 11
"Men would not have known the name of justice if these things were not." Fragment 23
"Gods and men honour those who are slain in battle." Fragment 24
"The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to be called by the name of Zeus." Fragment 32
"The people must fight for its law as for its walls." Fragment 44
"It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and to confess that all things are one." Fragment 50
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I suppose if you can't argue with me, you can just ban me instead.
But I'm still calling you out as a poser regarding Plato AND Heraclitus. You should just apologize and say "I never even knew there was a Charmides" and we could talk about it like adults.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice will find him out." Fragment 94
Why don't you just move this whole thing to a thread called, "I got Heraclitus confused with someone else, someone called me out on it, and I couldn't handle it"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
|
