Blaine Connett: The method wherein the tale of Atlantis is written makes it transparent that it was once now not intended to be truly. The concept that the Greeks traced any form of civilisation again to nine,six hundred BC (roughly) is under no circumstances intended to be a truly date; even the legendary groundwork studies of towns do not date again so much past a thousand BC. As such, it's completely external the authentic global because the Greeks knew it, facet of the legendary global of tale. It is used as a philosophical allegory; attributing the tale to Solon is a typical trope of Athenians seeking to deliver the which means in their stories bigger respectability. Critias might good be an incomplete textual content, which means it's some distance from transparent what its over-arching which means was once intended to be, however this doesn't imply that the instantaneous context isn't especially transparent. People - good, people who take greater than a superficial! curiosity, a minimum of - don't suppose that Socrates' conversations as recorded always occurred. It is the message inside them that's huge, now not the element of the tale itself....Show more
Anibal Scheid: He thinks philosophy is a lot of things; (training for death; pursuing wisdom; grasping the world of the forms/ideas; a "passed torch"); but only talks about the "true philosophy", mostly employing Socrates as an exemplary philosopher to describe the "true philosophy", rather than to actually define philosophy as you request above. Why wouldn't Plato actually define this "true philosophy"? He tells you why, quotePLATO:Thus much at least, I can say about all writers, past or future, who say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing the teaching of me or of others, or by their own discoveries-that according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real skill in the matter. There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on t! he subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other bra! nches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself. Yet this much I know-that if the things were written or put into words, it would be done best by me, and that, if they were written badly, I should be the person most pained. Again, if they had appeared to me to admit adequately of writing and exposition, what task in life could I have performed nobler than this, to write what is of great service to mankind and to bring the nature of things into the light for all to see? But I do not think it a good thing for men that there should be a disquisition, as it is called, on this topic-except for some few, who are able with a little teaching to find it out for themselves. As for the rest, it would fill some of them quite illogically with a mistaken feeling of contempt, and others with lofty and vain-glorious exp! ectations, as though they had learnt something high and mighty. On this point I intend to speak a little more at length; for perhaps, when I have done so, things will be clearer with regard to my present subject. There is an argument which holds good against the man ventures to put anything whatever into writing on questions of this nature; it has often before been stated by me, and it seems suitable to the present occasion. For everything that exists there are three instruments by which the knowledge of it is necessarily imparted; fourth, there is the knowledge itself, and, as fifth, we must count the thing itself which is known and truly exists. The first is the name, the, second the definition, the third. the image, and the fourth the knowledge. If you wish to learn what I mean, take these in the case of one instance, and so understand them in the case of all. A circle is a thing spoken of, and its name is that very word which we have just uttered. The second thing belon! ging to it is its definition, made up names and verbal forms. For that ! which has the name "round," "annular," or, "circle," might be defined as that which has the distance from its circumference to its centre everywhere equal. Third, comes that which is drawn and rubbed out again, or turned on a lathe and broken up-none of which things can happen to the circle itself-to which the other things, mentioned have reference; for it is something of a different order from them. Fourth, comes knowledge, intelligence and right opinion about these things. Under this one head we must group everything which has its existence, not in words nor in bodily shapes, but in souls-from which it is dear that it is something different from the nature of the circle itself and from the three things mentioned before. Of these things intelligence comes closest in kinship and likeness to the fifth, and the others are farther distant. The same applies ... (snip)... For this reason no man of intelligence will venture to express his philosophical views in language, especia! lly not in language that is unchangeable, which is true of that which is set down in written characters. [Plato 7th Letter; 341b - 343a]In other words if Plato defined "the philosopher" or "philosophy" that would be a 2nd level or very low level of understanding of the word at about 3 removes from the "true philosophy itself", which he refuses to put into writing, for the above stated reasons. That is why he founded an "Academy" so that he could personally "pass the torch" of "true philosophy" on to other personal initiates.Kevin...Show more
Paul Maymi: let me check in books.
Byron Fortmann: "...Socrates argued that people cannot understand the world until they use rational thought to understand the true nature of themselves [12]. Socrates was a mind-body dualist, this means that he thought that the mind is composed of a different substance to the brain, one that does not obey the same physical laws. The argument that the mind is made of a substance which does ! obey the laws of physics is known as Physicalism or materialism. Socrat! es believed that the mind has an irrational part which is controlled by emotions and this is drawn to the body. Once the mind and body merge, the mind is limited by what we are able to perceive with our senses. The rational part of our mind mostly remains beyond our conscious knowledge, however Socrates believed that it is the job of philosophers to connect to the rational mind in order to become a whole person. Once this is achieved, a rational person will see things for what they really are. Socrates' pupil, Plato, elaborated upon this theory in The Republic, where he described how the things we perceive on Earth are really composed of ideas, or Forms [13]. A Form is an eternal and perfect concept, something which is strived for but never actualised. All horses, for example, are united by the concept of 'horse', an ideal which all horses on Earth were built to resemble. But it is not just physical objects that have Forms. Forms also apply to abstract concepts such as beau! ty. Plato argued that all of the Forms exist outside of the realm of regular perception, in the 'realm of the Forms'.Plato did not trust sensory information because we can confuse reality with the imagination, the most extreme cases happen when we dream or hallucinate but this also occurs when we confuse one object for another. Plato argued that we are often presented with illusions of this kind, a stick, for example, can appear bent in water, yet when we pick it up we will find that it is straight. Things are not always what they seem and we are not always aware that we are making these mistakes. Plato praised mathematics as one of the only forms of true knowledge and disliked art because he thought that we distort our perception even further when we attempt to copy an imperfect image. Plato's simile of the cave describes how we are analogous to people who spend their lives looking only at shadows. These people will come to believe that only shadows exist and when someone ! tells them of the world of light above they do not believe them. Plato ! argued that it takes a philosopher to leave the cave and see the world as it truly is. Like Socrates, Plato believed this could only be achieved through rational introspection.Socrates and Plato's belief in the soul came from the need to explain human intellect, animals do not possess anything similar and it could not be explained mechanically. The Forms explain how the mind interprets the continuous stream of sensory data it is exposed to by recognising certain, eternal concepts. If our intellect is composed of Forms, then it is eternal and distinct from the body. Plato did not believe that the mind exists in time or space and thought that it would return to the Realm of the Forms upon death.Plato set up an academy for men to learn philosophy and one of its pupils was Aristotle, who was born in 384 BC. Aristotle rejected many of Plato's theories including rationalism, he argued that the mind does not have innate ideas and compared it to an unscribed tablet, a 'tabula rasa'! [15]. Aristotle rejected Plato's realm of the Forms, arguing that the Forms are concepts devised by men to categorise things. Aristotle argued that the soul was a part of the human body and so also rejected dualism. He did however, believe that intellect was different from any other part of the body as our conscious range is not restricted in the way that our physical senses are. Aristotle argued that intellect does not have a corresponding bodily organ. This means that it does not exist in space, despite having a physical origin..."http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/FirstScience.html...Show more
No comments:
Post a Comment