|
And, speaking as for what passes for an expert on the subject on an internet forum, medieval Christianity was pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Kyrie didn't even understand the theory of forms, you can't expect pesky little details like 'are your terms well defined and not just vague bullshit' to bother him.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
At least we know what 'social cohesion' is then.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Wow... what a hellhole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFe2-hqA2Q
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
This kid thought he could just go online and insult Christians... not so fast, punk. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/amos-yee-trial-date-set/1824352.html
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This kid thought he could just go online and insult Christians... not so fast, punk. I am doing that now, because you are praising a nation whose legal code protects your religion from "hurt feelings."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This kid thought he could just go online and insult Christians... not so fast, punk. This is pretty much exactly what Christ would say in response to that as well. Hypocrite
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
tbh kyrie I'm not opposed to the idea of collective identity, but real world human beings are both collectivist and individualistic, you need to grant a space for them to express both. That and in the countries you call deviant, actual homicides are falling, so you can go gently caress yourself with your society-as-(biological/physical)-metaphor bullshit, tia.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Wow... what a hellhole. Like I said, I've lived there. It's incredibly pleasant if you're the right person, which I was extremely fortunate to be. Do only the right people as determined by a narrow set of dogmas deserve happiness and prosperity? You still haven't answered wrt the case of Alan Turing and others like him.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Like I said, I've lived there. It's incredibly pleasant if you're the right person, which I was extremely fortunate to be. Do only the right people as determined by a narrow set of dogmas deserve happiness and prosperity? That's pretty much Christianity's entire schtick, so.....
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's pretty much Christianity's entire schtick, so..... The Christian God of the second testament, to my knowledge, doesn't wish harm on anyone. If legitimately good people, who in some cases do far more for others and have a positive impact on so many people's lives are to be harmed because they do not fit into a specific ideological mould, then I would rather stand by them in hell/nazi internment camps/gulags. Great people often do not fit the mould, that is what makes them great in the first place. We probably only remember a few of them, others have likely had their legacies buried by those who despised them for being different or odd. The analogy of the beautiful flower is poignant I think. In a world where ideology is brutally enforced by threats or by harm, fragile and amazing things will fail to grow or flourish. Surely even the staunchest of religious individuals can see that much.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This kid thought he could just go online and insult Christians... not so fast, punk. We have to stop Sharia law! But a Catholic version, now that is all right. No drawing the Pope! Ocrassus posted:The Christian God of the second testament, to my knowledge, doesn't wish harm on anyone. If legitimately good people, who in some cases do far more for others and have a positive impact on so many people's lives are to be harmed because they do not fit into a specific ideological mould, then I would rather stand by them in hell/nazi internment camps/gulags. Yeah, but if its the same Christian god of the First Testament, he's already done exactly that. Its like a guy who slaughtered millions and gets off on a technicality because he promises he won't do it again.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Kyrie has to be a troll, right? Maybe I'm just being a naive liberal who doesn't have contact with such people.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:Kyrie has to be a troll, right? Could be, we've had some people come by D&D who act like trolls but are dead serious as well, so sometimes its just best to treat trolls as the real thing. After all, if they are that good at trolling about it, they just might actually believe it...
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:43
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:Kyrie has to be a troll, right? ya he's a troll
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Trent posted:Lol at reading Plato's Republic and seriously thinking it's a suggestion for government. It's a suggestion for self-government and every bit of it is a metaphor for facets of the soul/ human experience. I guess I could see a modern person with no concept of how ancient people wrote taking everything at literal face value, but using that argument in here baffles me. No metaphor in the bible thread, no sir. This opinion is frankly ridiculous. It is not supported by wiki or any encyclopedia of philosophy. You think that because he draws comparisons between politics and the soul that therefore his political opinions are not sincerely intended. You think that in describing the ideal city he is only doing so metaphorically and has no desire to see such a city in practice. This is absurd and I can assure you it is a political work (in fact the cornerstone of political philosophy) and I don't know how anyone reading it could come to any other conclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This opinion is frankly ridiculous. It is not supported by wiki or any encyclopedia of philosophy. You think that because he draws comparisons between politics and the soul that therefore his political opinions are not sincerely intended. You think that in describing the ideal city he is only doing so metaphorically and has no desire to see such a city in practice. This is absurd and I can assure you it is a political work (in fact the cornerstone of political philosophy) and I don't know how anyone reading it could come to any other conclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I feel like this would be a lot more persuasive if you said his interpretation was stupid a few more times, and continued to not actually do things like "quote from the text." Maybe you could appeal to authority? Anyone who sincerely doubts it is rationalizing their wrong opinion and it's fruitless to try and change their mind. Anyone who is actually curious will investigate and see that I am right. There is no point to providing more information, especially if this is the best objection you can come up with.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:40
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Anyone who sincerely doubts it is rationalizing their wrong opinion and it's fruitless to try and change their mind. Anyone who is actually curious will investigate and see that I am right. There is no point to providing more information, especially if this is the best objection you can come up with. Are Platonic Forms, in your view, eternal?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Are Platonic Forms, in your view, eternal? Of course.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
It would be cool if both sides would cite sources tbh, much fun as it is to put the whole burden on Kyrie, he's not likely to actually turn up with citations.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:45
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Of course. So, then, they cannot be unchanging. For let us consider domestication. The Form must have changed to accommodate the domestication of various animals from the dog onwards, or else the universe is not responsive to rational inquiry and Plato was wrong. So Forms must be mutable. Given that, how can we say that there are such things as objective morals, as they can be altered?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:46
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, then, they cannot be unchanging. For let us consider domestication. The Form must have changed to accommodate the domestication of various animals from the dog onwards, or else the universe is not responsive to rational inquiry and Plato was wrong. So Forms must be mutable. Given that, how can we say that there are such things as objective morals, as they can be altered? I think the point is that domestication as an ideal form represents purely the abstract and de-contextualised epistemic content (e.g. it isn't specific to a given animal); it only has to deal with the concept of a being capable of being domesticated, regardless of its individual conditions.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think the point is that domestication as an ideal form represents purely the abstract and de-contextualised epistemic content (e.g. it isn't specific to a given animal). Yeah, I should have said "domesticated animals" but gently caress editing. Kyrie probably won't even play along enough to get into hierarchies of ideas.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, then, they cannot be unchanging. For let us consider domestication. The Form must have changed to accommodate the domestication of various animals from the dog onwards, or else the universe is not responsive to rational inquiry and Plato was wrong. So Forms must be mutable. Given that, how can we say that there are such things as objective morals, as they can be altered? He'd probably respond with something along the lines of YEC ideals about domestication was done by god and we got the animals that way.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This opinion is frankly ridiculous. It is not supported by wiki or any encyclopedia of philosophy. You think that because he draws comparisons between politics and the soul that therefore his political opinions are not sincerely intended. You think that in describing the ideal city he is only doing so metaphorically and has no desire to see such a city in practice. This is absurd and I can assure you it is a political work (in fact the cornerstone of political philosophy) and I don't know how anyone reading it could come to any other conclusion. The whole republic you're describing isn't even the one Socrates was arguing for. He suggested the best city would be a simple one with only the necessities. His interlocutor calls this the city of pigs, and says he needs cushions and delicacies, and the entire rest of the description, the city you seem to think Socrates was championing, was a list of all the hoops they'd have to jump through to have a well run city in spite of Glaucon's requirements for luxuries. So, even if it's meant as a literal political text (I maintain that it is certainly not), you've missed Plato's point entirely. As to citations, I don't have any handy, but I've taken a graduate level course specifically on Republic, said I can sure you there are quite a number of them. I can post some later if anyone feels like arguing the point
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Trent posted:The whole republic you're describing isn't even the one Socrates was arguing for. He suggested the best city would be a simple one with only the necessities. His interlocutor calls this the city of pigs, and says he needs cushions and delicacies, and the entire rest of the description, the city you seem to think Socrates was championing, was a list of all the hoops they'd have to jump through to have a well run city in spite of Glaucon's requirements for luxuries. So, even if it's meant as a literal political text (I maintain that it is certainly not), you've missed Plato's point entirely. That's you're a grad student in philosophy offers no credibility to your claim, quite the opposite I'm afraid, since it's clear you're incapable of reading the text, or matching with the general consensus viewpoint on this. Wikipedia says: "Plato's best-known work, it has proven to be one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory - both intellectually and historically." Yes -- political theory. The article on "political philosophy" on Wikipedia features a Renaissance painting of Plato and Aristotle talking and says, "One of the first, extremely important classical works of political philosophy is Plato's Republic, which was followed by Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Politics." What a waste your education is. Eagerly awaiting your retort that Wikipedia is not to be trusted, or something. Taking a graduate course does not make you an authority, it makes you a foolish student whose view departs from the mainstream due to a lack of understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What a waste your education is. Eagerly awaiting your retort that Wikipedia is not to be trusted, or something. Taking a graduate course does not make you an authority, it makes you a foolish student whose view departs from the mainstream due to a lack of understanding. Ummmmmm.....You pretty well described yourself, right there. Just, in place of 'Graduate', say 'Dedicated Follower'
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Here's an excerpt from Book II. Tell me this excerpt isn't about trying to design the ideal State.quote:I will tell you, I replied; justice, which is the subject of our enquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State. It of course goes on like this as they spend basically the entire rest of the book describing the ideal State. CommieGIR posted:Ummmmmm.....You pretty well described yourself, right there. *rolleyes* A graduate student's opinion is worth absolutely nothing compared to consensus, which I have argued from.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
you know your translation sucks when 'state' is in it
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 20:34 on May 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Anyone who sincerely doubts it is rationalizing their wrong opinion and it's fruitless to try and change their mind. Anyone who is actually curious will investigate and see that I am right. There is no point to providing more information, especially if this is the best objection you can come up with. You know, when the confidence doesn't slip.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:*rolleyes* A graduate student's opinion is worth absolutely nothing compared to consensus, which I have argued from. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority rofl
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
You're correct. Let me fix this: CommieGIR posted:Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad populum
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:Kyrie has to be a troll, right? I'm new to this thread, but I refuse to believe I'm not witnessing Poe's Law.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
lushka16 posted:You're correct. Let me fix this: Pretty sure the popular view on Plato is "hurr door you mean the toy clay for children?" which is basically the one represented in this thread
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Your average Plato-hater https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ulbI9k5eA
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That's you're a grad student in philosophy offers no credibility to your claim, quite the opposite I'm afraid, since it's clear you're incapable of reading the text, or matching with the general consensus viewpoint on this. Wikipedia says: "Plato's best-known work, it has proven to be one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory - both intellectually and historically." Yes -- political theory. The article on "political philosophy" on Wikipedia features a Renaissance painting of Plato and Aristotle talking and says, "One of the first, extremely important classical works of political philosophy is Plato's Republic, which was followed by Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Politics." Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them. Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They will feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle. And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war. But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish to their meal. True, I replied, I had forgotten; of course they must have a relish-salt, and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans; and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation. And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them. Edit: Hell, the Wikipedia entry that you seem content to regard as authoritative makes it clear that all scholarship on the dialogue since the 20th century has interpreted it as something other than a practical guide to good governance. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 21:57
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them. Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They will feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle. And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war. Yourself and Trent have definitely got this wrong. Firstly, you left out the most salient part of your own quotation: 372e posted:'I see,' I replied. 'So we are not just looking at the origin of a city, apparently. We are looking at the origin of a luxurious city. Maybe that's not such a bad idea. If we look at that sort of city too, we may perhaps see the point where justice and injustice come into existence in cities. I think the true city - the healthy version, as it were - is the one we have just described. But let's also look at the swolen and inflamed city, if that is what you prefer. We can easily do that. What's to stop us? In my edition this is about page fifty, leaving 200 pages more of The Republic. Socrates did not go to this trouble to describe a city in which he did not believe. This is essentially a very bad misreading of Plato (or the character of Socrates, at least). It totally forgets that Socrates will then go on to say: 399b posted:'Ye dogs! Without meaning to, we have purged the city we said was too luxurious.' The error here is quite fundamental. Socrates simply takes the case that Glaucon offers and then progressively demonstrates why Glaucon's form of social organisation is not preferable in describing kallipolis. The earlier city is to be seen as a first sketch of some of the aspects of the ideal city, but it does not contain every necessity for an orderly and good life: Eric Brown, Stanford Encyclopaedia posted:To consider the objection, we first need to distinguish two apparently ideal cities that Socrates describes. The first, simple city is sketched very briefly, and is rejected by Glaucon as a “city of pigs” though Socrates calls it “the healthy city” (369b-372e). It contains no provision for war, and no distinction among classes. The second, initially called by Socrates a “fevered city” and a “city of luxuries” (372e) but later purified of its luxuries (see especially 399e) and characterized as “Kallipolis” (527c2), includes three classes, two that guard the city and its constitution (ruling and auxiliary guardians) and one that produces the goods that the city needs. (At 543c-d, Glaucon suggests that one might find a third city, as well, by distinguishing between the three-class city whose rulers are not explicitly philosophers and the three-class city whose rulers are, but a three-class city whose rulers are not philosophers cannot be an ideal city, according to Socrates (473b-e). It is better to see Books Five through Seven as clarifications of the same three-class city first developed without full explicitness in Books Two through Four (cf. 497c-d, 499c-d).) However, it is probably best to think of the cities as merely examples of justice, rather than their absolute and ideal forms. Socrates never fully defines justice in The Republic, he simply discusses around it with reference to the good city. It is not a total program for government in that respect. So I think don't believe Plato definitely wants you to build an exact replica of Callipolis, but don't entirely disbelieve it either. I think the work is fundamentally somewhat political, but its focus is so individualistic that it is probably more of a work of moral philosophy. To quote John Ferrari's intro: [quote]For all the historical particularity of The Republic, it has also achieved enduring recognition as a classic of political philosophy. Its position within the range of political philosophy, however, has proved more difficult to pinpoint than the work's canonical status might lead one to expect. Some, indeed, have wondered whether it ought to be considered a political work at all. Does it not set out to answer a problem of individual rather than collective action, and demonstrate the claim of morality on individua choice and its effect of individual well-being, regardless of social consequences? Does Socrates not explicitly subordinate politics to psychology, describing social structures as only an analogeu of for corresponding structures of character within the individual? In which case, it would be better to think of The Republic as a work of moral philosophy. Others have chosen to emphasise the fact that its proposals for social reform - its utopian refashionings of education, of property rights, of the very structure of the family - go well beyond what correspondence with the individual would require, and seem to be developed for their own sake. Even where that correspondence is more strictly observed, in the parralel analyses of unjust societies and individuals that fill Book 8, the critique of actual social conditions that emerges from the correspondence has a relevance and bite of its own... The philosopher, even the philosopher who becomes king, does not look to society as the realm in which to exercise his freedom and realise his virtue, but rather to the life of the mind for his liberation; nor does he define himself by his social station or the values of citizenship, but by his individual search for wisdom. For a work that is, in truth, no ancestor of liberalism, the Republic lays an unusual emphasis on the individual; however, it regards individuality not as a possession that confers rights on all and gives society its defining basis, but as an achievement of the few - an achievement in which society can play, at best, only a supporting role. Small wonder, then, that some have doubted whether The Republic is truly a political work. One might say, rather, that it is counter-political. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 22:35 on May 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Trent posted:If he crafted us to experience joy, and the universe for us to experience it in, he did nearly the shittiest possible job. Far worse than one might expect from an omnipotent omniscient being who was trying. If we were created for no other reason than to experience joy/suffering, and we do experience it in this existence, then by that metric God did a great job. Sure, if he created it he could also avoid it or enjoy it, probably has a lot of options to choose from.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
