|
Kyrie eleison posted:Your average Plato-hater I too find it strange that an ancient text can be mistranslated in language, cultural context and historical context in order to serve the needs of any number of arguments.
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
For real though use a better translation at least Kyrie.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Merely pointing out that the Republic doesn't end at 372e does not by itself answer the the position that Trent took, which is that Plato is interested in something other than political philosophy. And I'm not convinced by 399e really. The city Socrates goes on to describe still needs to expand militarily to fulfill its needs; it's not self-sufficient. As an aside, my translation reads: 399e posted:And, by the dog, without being aware of it, we've been purifying the city we recently said was luxurious. I'm not sure how much the past tense/present participle change alters the semantics, and I don't have the ancient greek to go check the original text, so if you do I'd be interested in an explanation. Anyway, even you agree that if Plato has any political topic in mind it is the nature of justice in general (i.e., as a relational property, maybe), rather than a literal policy proposal, which seemed to be how Kyrie was taking it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Merely pointing out that the Republic doesn't end at 372e does not by itself answer the the position that Trent took, which is that Plato is interested in something other than political philosophy. Can you please explain the leap of logic necessary to believe that saying "this would be the ideal, just city, and here's why" is somehow not the same thing as a political proposal for it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:42
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Merely pointing out that the Republic doesn't end at 372e does not by itself answer the the position that Trent took, which is that Plato is interested in something other than political philosophy. He goes further and precariosuly asserts that Callipolis is only intended to be seen as the example of the luxurious and swolen city which is quite simply a misreading. Juffo-Wup posted:And I'm not convinced by 399e really. The city Socrates goes on to describe still needs to expand militarily to fulfill its needs; it's not self-sufficient. As an aside, my translation reads: I don't think the translational difference is substantial here. But I simply don't see your point vis. war. That is no less contradictory than the other problem, which is that reason does not govern the lives of those who live in the simple city. In fact, it's much less of a problem for my reading given the overall emphasis of the work. The first city, as a passage I cite says, is only appetitively self-sufficient. quote:Anyway, even you agree that if Plato has any political topic in mind it is the nature of justice in general (i.e., as a relational property, maybe), rather than a literal policy proposal, which seemed to be how Kyrie was taking it. They're both images through which we're supposed to relate to justice (although it's not clear that Socrates has a unified concept of justice - in fact, in Vlastos's reading you see two concepts of justice). But the position cannot be that the first city, sketched in a paltry section, is highly indicative of Plato/Socrates' view on the ideal city and of justice, and the second city not at all. Moreover, that is definitely not the academic consensus view. But I don't think they should be taken as fully programatic. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 22:47 on May 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Can you please explain the leap of logic necessary to believe that saying "this would be the ideal, just city, and here's why" is somehow not the same thing as a political proposal for it? Can you give me a stephanus number for that quote? Disinterested posted:He goes further and precariosuly asserts that Callipolis is only intended to be seen as the example of the luxurious and swolen city which is quite simply a misreading. The point from the SEP is well-taken. I think the view would have to be something like: the simple city is impossible because people lack the mental orderliness to keep their appetites in check. What follows, rather than being a concession to that psychological reality, is a metaphorical description of the sort of well-ordered mind that could be content in the simple city. Disinterested posted:Moreover, that is definitely not the academic consensus view. Fair enough. History of philosophy certainly is not my area, so it's not always obvious which views are the revisionist ones. Oh well. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 22:53 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Can you please explain the leap of logic necessary to believe that saying "this would be the ideal, just city, and here's why" is somehow not the same thing as a political proposal for it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:50
|
|
Nessus posted:You ever hear tell of a parable? Yeah. I mean we have to remember when reading Plato that we are dealing with someone who ostensibly believes that lies, half-truths and myths are a good way to be enjoined to virtue.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Can you give me a stephanus number for that quote? 420
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah. I mean we have to remember when reading Plato that we are dealing with someone who ostensibly believes that lies, half-truths and myths are a good way to be enjoined to virtue.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:22
|
|
Nessus posted:As did a certain Jew in the construction trades that was the original topic of discussion. (At least, as reported.) I mean myths sure but not lies.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Your average Plato-hater quote:Plato believed all substances to be composed of air, earth, fire, and water. He believed in a spherical Earth Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy which was the center of his universe, and a motion of planets along crystalline spheres. Plato invented a theory of vision involving three streams of light: one from the what is being seen, one from the eyes, and one from the illuminating source. In keeping with his belief that philosophy should be pursued for the attainment of pure knowledge, he proposed studying astronomy as an exact mathematical science based on the assumption that motions were regular and circular. He wanted to discover the truth behind appearances, but believed that absolute truth could not be derived. Man, because his Platonic Solids cult was SO COOL.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Kyrie, your guess as to what I'm a grad student of is as irrelevant as it is wrong. I only mentioned it as an aside to point out that I know there are many sources, not that I personally am any kind of authority. Reading back, I still think that's clear. Also, I have been very polite to you in this thread, and you speak shamefully to others. In any case, I don't have references handy, and I may have overstated something in the process of phone posting. Socrates may have been as happy with the final vision as the first, but his discussion with Glaucon was that truly just people wouldn't need so many checks and balances to live together, and this would be the best city. Given that even his learned interlocutor couldn't buy that people would live like this, he went to further lengths to seek justice in the city Glaucon would agree to. He did this even though he thought the city of pigs was sufficient for the task of finding justice, because Glaucon, his stand in for the reader, would object that such a city was possible. The more detailed city is explicitly unnecessary for Socrates' task, but less objectionable to the likely audience. It's an exploded view because the subject is still too obscure in the first example. I think talking about which city Socrates preferred largely misses the point, though, because he never wanted to talk about city governance per se anyhow. Remember, the exercise was in seeking justice. The three classes of people and three metals were analogs for the three parts if the soul he was describing, the appetitive, honor-driven, and executive/deliberative. Justice was about each part doing it's own job, and the best of them (the philosophical one, natch) being in charge. As a literal form of governance, the republic is preposterous. As a teaching tool to discuss the internal balance of that which moves individuals, it makes sense. Principle of charity, here. I do realize that this is not the historical consensus, because much like the bible, literalism is easier. Even your quote started with the idea that justice is the same in a city and a man so let's find it in a theoretical city, SO THAT WE MIGHT RECOGNIZE IT IN A MAN. The city is a heuristic device that's easier to be walked through than direct discussion of internal states and virtues. Socrates wouldn't have wanted the literal city, because it would have banned the classes having philosophical debates with each other. It would have done this on the grounds that the silver and bronze/iron were incapable. Socrates didn't believe this, but as a metaphor for your urges and pride, which can be directed and controlled but not reasoned with, it works. As another aside, if Socrates/Plato were pressed for a simple answer to what justice is, he'd almost certainly have said wisdom, his ubervirtue. In this case, the wisdom to self govern properly. The text isn't about giving people answers, though, because that wouldn't help (in the Socratic mindset), rather it's about walking through with someone and coming to conclusions yourself. Whether it does that well is another question entirely. The Bloop fucked around with this message at 00:05 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Yeah I can go with most of that. Reminder this is why I loving hate Plato.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Trent posted:Socrates wouldn't have wanted the literal city, because it would have banned the classes having philosophical debates with each other. It would have done this on the grounds that the silver and bronze/iron were incapable. Socrates didn't believe this, but as a metaphor for your urges and pride, which can be directed and controlled but not reasoned with, it works. He totes did. They even rant in the book about how philosophy has a bad name because all these wannabe philosophers make them look bad. I think they could philosophize to some extent but they had to know their role and their subservience to their superior classes.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
When you worship God, are you not really worshipping yourself?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Bear in mind you're debating with a literal Christian Fascist here, he just likes it because it's tyrannical, not because it's supposedly good. BTW Kyrie, psychically mutilating yourself trying to find some piece of yourself that God likes is fruitless, because there is nothing good in you (or anyone else for that matter). He'll send you to Hell no matter what you do unless He's arbitrarily decided he wants your sinful rear end in Heaven.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:He totes did. They even rant in the book about how philosophy has a bad name because all these wannabe philosophers make them look bad. Plato had no love for self-proclaimed sophists, to be sure, but not because they were incapable. They were just doing it wrong. He wouldn't have bothered showing Socrates engaging with every shlub at the marketplace otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:When you worship God, are you not really worshipping yourself? Your imaginary friend, not yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:36
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:When you worship God, are you not really worshipping yourself? I believe the Catholic position is that if you're not worshipping God that's what you're doing.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:I'm still fascinated by BrandorKP's assertion some time ago that Nietzsche was a prophet, but I guess he's crazy too. More specific BrandorKP quoting a theologian calling Nietzsche a prophet. I can explain what's going in in that one. Tillich considers Nietzche part of broader existentialism. He thinks of Existentialists as defined this way: EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY,Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1944), pp. 44-70, TIllich posted:All of them are reacting-in theory and practice-against an historical destiny the fulfilment of which they are furthering by their very reaction against it. They are the expression of the great revolution within and against Western industrial society which was prepared in the nineteenth century and is being carried out in the twentieth Now think of the story of Jesus, particularly in the sense of Jewish opposition to the Roman empire. There is a parallel to the existential revolution against industrial society and the Jewish movements reacting to Roman Imperialism. In the sense that Nietzsche is an existentialist , using Tillichs understanding of the term, he (Nietzsche) is being prophetic in a way similiar to Jesus! One could say the same about Marx too.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:47
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Now think of the story of Jesus, particularly in the sense of Jewish opposition to the Roman empire. There is a parallel to the existential revolution against industrial society and the Jewish movements reacting to Roman Imperialism. In the sense that Nietzsche is an existentialist , using Tillichs understanding of the term, he (Nietzsche) is being prophetic in a way similiar to Jesus! One could say the same about Marx too. Not unless you substantially redefine 'prophet' to have so broad a meaning as to mean simultaneously everything and nothing. Stop doing that with words.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Now think of the story of Jesus, particularly in the sense of Jewish opposition to the Roman empire. There is a parallel to the existential revolution against industrial society and the Jewish movements reacting to Roman Imperialism. In the sense that Nietzsche is an existentialist , using Tillichs understanding of the term, he (Nietzsche) is being prophetic in a way similiar to Jesus! One could say the same about Marx too. Being insightful does not make you a prophet like Jesus. You are attaching too much religious connotation to your definition. It makes you insightful. By this logic, anyone with extremely valuable or intellectual insights about society or civilization/philosophy is a prophet, but does not jive with the actual definition of prophet you are using. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:57 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Not unless you substantially redefine 'prophet' to have so broad a meaning as to mean simultaneously everything and nothing. By prophet I mean: some one who proclaims the will of God. Not doing a drat thing with that word.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:10
|
|
BrandorKP posted:By prophet I mean: some one who proclaims the will of God. Nghhhhhhhhh Nietzsche was not proclaiming the will of God. If you would like to contend he was please either do so at length or go away. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof and all that. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:14 on May 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:By prophet I mean: some one who proclaims the will of God. What does this even mean? This is such a vague and useless definition. The commonly accepted definition of prophet is someone who predicts the future. Your definition is just a steaming heap of meaningless garbage trying it's damnedest to appear wise and insightful.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:By prophet I mean: some one who proclaims the will of God. So, then, no Nietzsche was not a prophet. Because he was pretty clear with his writings on nihilism about the death of god and the downfall of metaphysics.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Posters often attack Brandor because he demystifies religious jargon by refusing to adhere to ahistorical conceptions of religiosity. E: the 'commonly accepted definition' of any given word is total irrelevant to its usage in philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
I also don't think Marx was proclaiming the will of any gods either, his manifesto doesn't really leave much room for interpretation there. Unless you're redefining "God" to mean "anything at all".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:20
|
|
Miltank posted:Posters often attack Brandor because he demystifies religious jargon by refusing to adhere to ahistorical conceptions of religiosity. I think you think Brandor is smarter than he is. He doesn't exactly nail contemporary historical religious discourse on the head either. And even if he did, it would be one small historical slice from a broad continuum. Miltank posted:E: the 'commonly accepted definition' of any given word is total irrelevant to its usage in philosophy. But on the other hand, defining your terms is not.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Marx's God the Father is history itself.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
When I think of a prophet, I think of an exceedingly angry man in the temple grounds during wartime yelling at everyone and saying they're going to do die for their sins, saying God would kill everyone for their infidelity and that they deserved it, decrying all political alliances to defend themselves as pointless, and generally being hated and persecuted by the authorities and everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:22
|
|
Miltank posted:Marx's God the Father is history itself. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Miltank posted:E: the 'commonly accepted definition' of any given word is total irrelevant to its usage in philosophy. This is true but this also exactly why you should define your terms from the outset, something Brandor absolutely refuses to do because he likes to play the shell game with definitions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Marx's God the Father is history itself. What the gently caress is going on here. Miltank posted:Posters often attack Brandor because he demystifies religious jargon by refusing to adhere to ahistorical conceptions of religiosity. Its the 'Faith' versus 'Faith' argument all over again. Brandor is trying to stretch the definition of prophet to mean that any use of the word prophet (like when you say prophetic) means a connection to god. And that isn't how it works.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
I AM as what is, has been, and what will be.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I AM as what is, has been, and what will be. Hydrogen? No seriously, appealing to Biblical ideals in the case of Marx is not going to do you much good.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:26
|
|
Miltank posted:I AM as what is, has been, and what will be. I don't think there's any need to pick up Kyrie's troll slack, he hasn't been that remiss of late.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I don't think there's any need to pick up Kyrie's troll slack, he hasn't been that remiss of late. Eh, he's definitely getting lazier and less interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Trent posted:Plato had no love for self-proclaimed sophists, to be sure, but not because they were incapable. They were just doing it wrong. He wouldn't have bothered showing Socrates engaging with every shlub at the marketplace otherwise. Only because Socrates liked owning people.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:31
|
|