Philosophy

» pink101 - Philosophy Drives

In response to Philosopher Kings posted by RLSharp:

.
Obviously, our president is driven by his philosophy(ies) of life.
.
What philosophy drives him and his decision making. He is the "decider" after all.
.
Who was Leo Strauss? Check out this site:
http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/Stra...
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Philosophy Drives

In response to Philosophy Drives posted by pink101:

.
Forms & Particulars
.
The reasons behind Plato coming up with the ideas involved in forms and particulars has to do with his interest in having a clear understanding of what was under discussion. The Greek language, apparently, has a certain thing about it that creates certain ways of thinking. All languages have their own ways. I've read that Greek and German are structured in a similar way. Every now is preceded by gender identification. So, you don't just talk about night, you talk about the night. Everything has a name--as an idea--is at the root of his thinking on his Republic. So, it sort of follows that he would come up the the ideas of forms and particulars. The form of night for example presents us with the perfect and compete definition of night--THE night.
.
If red is the form and we say that a fire engine is painted red, what are we saying about the form and the particular? Red is the form; but, so is the FireEngine a form. So, to speak of a red fire engine we are creating an new form. It goes on and on and on. There doesn't seem to be any end to it. We can speak of the red and of the fire engine. While it is a particular of red as well as a particular of fire engine, the red fire engine also becomes a specific form in and of itself. Forms that we don't know about just haven't been discovered or invented as yet--that's all. So, things that develop on in to the future are still not known as they will be known. It is ontology in action.
.
The idea of forms and particulars does something very important for us as it teaches us to be distinct in our expressions--to know what we're talking about. To Plato, every thing has a name. The Greek word for name and word are the same--I think. Onomos?
.
I hope I haven't confused any reader. You do owe it to yourself to learn to speak about philosophy and Plato is a very good place to start. If you stay a while, I expect you will learn the importance of knowing as much about philosophy as it applies to you as is possible. I think you will want to learn more. But, remember, you have probably been conditioned to reject such an interest.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - In Search of Truth

In response to Philosophy Drives posted by pink101:

.
Much of what Plato thinks derives from Socrates or so it seems to me.
.
The socratic way of teaching is all about how Socrates sought definitions for every thing. He questions were to learn definitions--not examples. Both of these men seemed to believe in the idea that there are absolute definitions of everything--they were in search of truth. There must be the idea of an absolute good for example. Today, we think more in terms of models and we believe in empiracle observation. So, in our way, things are constantly changing. We work with the best model available until we are able to find a better one--then we move to it for our thinking.
.
Much of the thinking, today, seems based on premodern ways of looking at life. There is a movement that goes back in time looking for absolute truths. I think this is one of the major dangers with which we are faced in our society today.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» RLSharp - In Search of Truth

In response to In Search of Truth posted by pink101:

Could you clarify that last statement about the dangers? Is the danger how we think today or is the danger the movement that looks for absolute truths? Are you saying the idea of an absolute truth is dangerous? Is that because it leads people to believe that people who disagree with them are wrong? In other words, are you associating it with things like fundamentalism or the kind of thinking that say terrorists have (if you disagree you are wrong...and not even worthy of life)? I'm just curious about these things.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - The Future

In response to In Search of Truth posted by RLSharp:

.
Sure.
.
The "dangers that face us today" describes the predicament in who are being prepared to go into a form of bondage to an authority that is convincing us that it operates on our behalf. Many of them are bald faced liars. There are many dangers in that dark alley with them.
.
When we think about folks who want to base their reality on the premodern--ideas out of the dark ages and earlier--we know they want us to give in to an authority they want to have over us. Theirs is a backward way of dealing with the exigencies of life. We need leaders--of vision--who get involved with us--ones who are openly honest with us about our best interests. When a people is convinced that it should go back to a better (?) time, it has been trapped. There has never been a time in the past as good as the present. We need to learn about the alternatives and the possibilities for improvement as we move into the future. We are capable of great things.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - ERATA

In response to The Future posted by pink101:

This sentence, The "dangers that face us today" describes the predicament in who are being prepared to go into a form of bondage to an authority that is convincing us that it operates on our behalf.,
.
should have read:
.
.
The "dangers that face us today" conotes the predicament in which we find ourselves. Are we being led into bondage under an authority that is trying to convince us that what it is doing is for our own good?

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» RLSharp - I understand

In response to ERATA posted by pink101:

I see. I'm not sure how we would judge whether our time is better than any other, but I see your overall point. Authoritarian governments are based on the idea that the govt. knows better than you do. SO....they can tell people what to do, and even use deception, in order to get done what needs to be done, i.e. what they THINK needs to be done. That's very Plato.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Plato

In response to I understand posted by RLSharp:
.
Plato ends up being a nut in many ways.
.
But, he puts out some very interesting condemnations on democracy--maybe telling on our national politics today. I remember my mother telling me when I was a child (sometime around 1940) that the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship. I was probably 10 so, she had to explain that to me. Plato would have been very proud of her for what she said.
.
Your comments on Rule Utilitarianism remind me of the troubles Plato had with his explanations of form and particulars. Form led to particulars led to further forms led to futher particulars, etc. A rule for every thing. Made me think of the Gold rulers of Magnesia and the "rule of law".
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» RLSharp - Plato

In response to Plato posted by pink101:

Yes, Plato's views on democracy are very interesting. The truth is that Churchill (?) was basically right. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones. A benevolent dictatorship IS the best form, I think, but it's purely theoretical. There is no way to create a benevolent dictatorship. It would have to happen by chance, and would likely be short-lived. There have been monarchs who somewhat fit the bill (Marcus Aurelius comes to mind), but their successors are often the opposite! (Commodus, for example).

I also agree with you about the difficulties Plato faced regarding forms and particulars. Aristotle has a lot to say about that as well. The whole idea of a world outside of this one somehow affecting this one is very problematic in itself.

-- posted by RLSharp

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Plato

In response to Plato posted by RLSharp:

.
I think most of us agree with Churchill on that one.
.
Plato may have been a nut in a lot of ways--it especially seems so to us in twenty-first century America. But, he pretty much covered the waterfront when it comes to asking questions about life. And, it becomes obvious--when some serious study of Plato is done--that there has to be a concerted effort that holds back investigating the questions he raises in his writings. For, if we were investigating the ideas he raised about such subjects as laws, reality, truth and justice. What are they? What is their purpose? Are there different explanations of each? And on and on.
.
After 75 years I notice that there is a very strong resistance in most people to ever question the ideas as they get laid down by our leaders. And, that was one of the problems Plato seems to have with a democratic form of government.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds