What do you mean by Platonic conclusions? Strictly speaking, we know nothing Plato taught, as he himself never speaks in any of his dialogues.
To be sure, he most frequently uses Socrates as a mouthpiece, but even Socrates qualifies his statements so as to make the true beliefs ambiguous.
This is particularly true in the Republic, in which Socrates lays out the "best city in speech." Toward the end of the Republic (I believe the end of Book IX), he acknowledges that this city could not exist in reality.
In spite of this, some topics Plato addresses, particularly his views on metaphysics, are discussed in a number of dialogues, which seems to indicate that Plato did in fact believe these things.
I am being a bit picky, but one of my philosophy professors was big on saying that it is dangerous to say with certainty what Plato did in fact believe. So we ought to be careful. I hope that's relevant in some way to what you said. Let me know what you think.
I was always of the impression that Plato's preferences were fairly clear, however shrouded by his Socrates "character."
Bah, now that I think about it I don't think it's easy to separate the two and determine who originated what concepts.
Hm. Thanks for your thoughts. Regardless of whether my initial impressions of the philosophers was correct, I do feel a greater reluctance to stand definitively, which I've now accepted. I think much of this is due to the last vestiges of my old Randianism; in individuals as in the world, the advent of new ideas takes time to cement and affect change.
I see what you mean, but why worry about assailability? No matter what you come up with, it will be able to be picked apart. Unless you stumble across something that is so glaringly obvious that we somehow have defied all chance and nature and not found it with, someone can pick at your ideas. All conjecture (and what in this world isn't conjecture?) is by its very nature assailable. Hell, even if you can't do it on a logical basis, you can just say that you think it's crap. I mean, we revere the philosophers of old and those of the modern world for all their pretty mental masturbations and their soundings out about numerous topics, but if you think they're just full of shit, it doesn't much matter. The true strength of Socrates, as near as I can figure, is that he doesn't make definite assertions. Granted, I would find it totally valid if he made personal assertions, but he seems not to. So what if he merely deconstructed the bullshit around him? It's a damn fine start.
I feel as though it is better to remain truly agnostic and skeptical, holding onto my current "version" of beliefs loosely. It's much "safer" philosophically, but much less interesting to other people. When one has little to contribute himself, all analysis is then focused on the deconstruction of the other's beliefs.
i agree that you should hold onto beliefs loosely, but to acquire many opinions and insights from others. when i read the last sentence i thoughtyou meant deconstruction in the negative sense. i retraced and realised you could mean negative or positive. still, i i misunderstand your proposed semantics. of course, safe ideas are less interesting. people like to see emotion. that's why we only have an interest in robots as slaves.
I use "deconstruction" in the sense of a razor slicing away rational inconsistency, which even then is an assumed/arbitrary standard.
As I told Brett, I think much of this is due to the last vestiges of my old Randianism; in individuals as in the world, the advent of new ideas takes time to cement and affect change. I'm unfortunately still limited by old perceptive schemes while still utilizing the new one.
Those "Platonic Conclusions", based on reflection and a Socratic "knowledge", help drive cognitive evolution much faster than non-positions.
Take positions. Let them get assailed. Modify positions. Let them get assailed. Repeat ad nauseum.
The game has less to do with finding finalized positions than it does with finding utilitarian/sustainable positions that work for your particular place in development.
Absolutely. A scientist constantly reassesses their hypothesis based upon their conclusions, and the experiment is repeated until sufficiently satisfying results are obtained. Fortunately, the mind's constant state of restlessness won't allow it to be satisfied with any conclusion!
no 'e'. Robert Bruce Crow III Curious: do you still identify with Randian Objectivism? Also, had a blast last night, really glad you came out. Give me a ring some time this week and we will get together for tea. Anytime you are downtown feel free to give me a ring at that.
The old Objectivism is precisely what's cropping up here though I disowned it at least in name months ago. Assimilation is a slow process, and at present I still have methodological loose ends even if my idealism is becoming more founded.
The issue is that I can't call myself a Skeptic/Agnostic if I'm still using objective thought patterns. Hence my slight slant into semi-dogmatism/definitive conclusion-making and my subsequent dissonance.
Thanks for the invite, both for Saturday and future outings. I will try to start making the Tuesday classes even if transport may be an issue. Please pray to whatever gods you can for a successful car purchase (see next post).
Comments 14
To be sure, he most frequently uses Socrates as a mouthpiece, but even Socrates qualifies his statements so as to make the true beliefs ambiguous.
This is particularly true in the Republic, in which Socrates lays out the "best city in speech." Toward the end of the Republic (I believe the end of Book IX), he acknowledges that this city could not exist in reality.
In spite of this, some topics Plato addresses, particularly his views on metaphysics, are discussed in a number of dialogues, which seems to indicate that Plato did in fact believe these things.
I am being a bit picky, but one of my philosophy professors was big on saying that it is dangerous to say with certainty what Plato did in fact believe. So we ought to be careful. I hope that's relevant in some way to what you said. Let me know what you think.
Brett
Reply
I was always of the impression that Plato's preferences were fairly clear, however shrouded by his Socrates "character."
Bah, now that I think about it I don't think it's easy to separate the two and determine who originated what concepts.
Hm. Thanks for your thoughts. Regardless of whether my initial impressions of the philosophers was correct, I do feel a greater reluctance to stand definitively, which I've now accepted. I think much of this is due to the last vestiges of my old Randianism; in individuals as in the world, the advent of new ideas takes time to cement and affect change.
Reply
Reply
Epiphanies take time to digest.
Reply
I feel as though it is better to remain truly agnostic and skeptical, holding onto my current "version" of beliefs loosely. It's much "safer" philosophically, but much less interesting to other people. When one has little to contribute himself, all analysis is then focused on the deconstruction of the other's beliefs.
i agree that you should hold onto beliefs loosely, but to acquire many opinions and insights from others. when i read the last sentence i thoughtyou meant deconstruction in the negative sense. i retraced and realised you could mean negative or positive. still, i i misunderstand your proposed semantics. of course, safe ideas are less interesting. people like to see emotion. that's why we only have an interest in robots as slaves.
Reply
As I told Brett, I think much of this is due to the last vestiges of my old Randianism; in individuals as in the world, the advent of new ideas takes time to cement and affect change. I'm unfortunately still limited by old perceptive schemes while still utilizing the new one.
Reply
Those "Platonic Conclusions", based on reflection and a Socratic "knowledge", help drive cognitive evolution much faster than non-positions.
Take positions. Let them get assailed. Modify positions. Let them get assailed. Repeat ad nauseum.
The game has less to do with finding finalized positions than it does with finding utilitarian/sustainable positions that work for your particular place in development.
Namaste.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Namaste.
Reply
Curious: do you still identify with Randian Objectivism?
Also, had a blast last night, really glad you came out. Give me a ring some time this week and we will get together for tea. Anytime you are downtown feel free to give me a ring at that.
Reply
The old Objectivism is precisely what's cropping up here though I disowned it at least in name months ago. Assimilation is a slow process, and at present I still have methodological loose ends even if my idealism is becoming more founded.
The issue is that I can't call myself a Skeptic/Agnostic if I'm still using objective thought patterns. Hence my slight slant into semi-dogmatism/definitive conclusion-making and my subsequent dissonance.
Thanks for the invite, both for Saturday and future outings. I will try to start making the Tuesday classes even if transport may be an issue. Please pray to whatever gods you can for a successful car purchase (see next post).
I look forward to seeing you again.
Reply
Leave a comment