Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Should have been included in the poll given his primary importance today
    Here today, gone tommorrow?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Let's hope so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most people grow out of Ayn Rand by the time they're 25.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kard)
    Most people grow out of Ayn Rand by the time they're 25.

    Even if thats true what is your point? As people grow older they tend to vote conservative more and more. So?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Objectivism---have you even read the Republic? Your criticisms of Plato are pretty absurd.

    "Totalitarian"! He said that tyranny was the worst form of government. As for censorship, "brainwashing," etc., keep in mind this was the ancient world. One thing that was agreed, one thing everyone believed in, was authority and heirarchy. (Sure the Athenians were "democratic," as far as the 1/3rd who weren't slaves was concerned.) The concept of authority wasn't even remotely questioned until after the Reformation ... and you're hanging Plato because he wasn't preaching "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." This "ideal government" section of The Republic isn't the reason anyone likes Plato anyway. (Why aren't you attacking Bismarck, who said he liked Otto von Bismarck best---a notorious censor in practice?) As for the Forms---what's the alternative? To deny universals? It's no answer to say "existence exists"; that's just a refusal to philosophize.

    Read him for yourself; quit trashing him because of something Ayn Rand said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Iz the Wiz]Objectivism---have you even read the Republic? Your criticisms of Plato are pretty absurd.

    "Totalitarian"! He said that tyranny was the worst form of government.

    North Korea call themselves as democracy. Lets believe them than...


    As for censorship, "brainwashing," etc., keep in mind this was the ancient world.
    Something is wrong, whatever its era.

    One thing that was agreed, one thing everyone believed in, was authority and heirarchy. (Sure the Athenians were "democratic," as far as the 1/3rd who weren't slaves was concerned.) The concept of authority wasn't even remotely questioned until after the Reformation ... and you're hanging Plato because he wasn't preaching "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."

    What's your point? A bad idea is still a bad idea.


    As for the Forms---what's the alternative? To deny universals? It's no answer to say "existence exists"; that's just a refusal to philosophize.
    Its called a self-evident fact. Also how about the alternative Aristotle proposed - we learn from particular expereinces, not awareness of some abstract other world.


    Read him for yourself; quit trashing him because of something Ayn Rand said
    .

    Read him, studied him and rejeced him. Also Rand hardly made any comment towards him, i happend to side with Karl Popper in my asertion of Plato.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Basilisk)
    Wacky? Yeah I suppose bringing up children in a nunnery and keeping them from the outside world falls into that catorgry, but it would have been quite effective. A child's mind is easily corrupted by society.
    Yeah, I mean the point was certainly not to advance a "totalitarian" agenda. Aristotle agreed with the principle, as in the Ethics when he said, "It is therefore not of small moment whether we are trained from childhood in one set of habits or another; on the contrary it is of very great, or rather of supreme, importance." And keep in mind---Aristotle and Plato wanted a certain type of childhood for people, in order to teach them truth and virtue. Not to make them "orthodox"; not to make them Communists; not to make them love McDonald's hamburgers; not to manipulate or exploit or stunt them in any way: but to do the right thing. This makes a difference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    North Korea call themselves as democracy. Lets believe them than...




    Something is wrong, whatever its era.




    What's your point? A bad idea is still a bad idea.




    Its called a self-evident fact. Also how about the alternative Aristotle proposed - we learn from particular expereinces, not awareness of some abstract other world.


    .

    Read him, studied him and rejeced him. Also Rand hardly made any comment towards him, i happend to side with Karl Popper in my asertion of Plato.
    Have you read The Republic? Because your emphasis is all wrong. I don't know who Karl Popper is, but doing dirt on Plato is a lousy way to make a buck.

    Aristotle did NOT reject Plato's universal. He expanded upon it and brought to bear the importance of the particular, and this was a great advance, but platonic universals are still essential to classical logic. (E.g., you base the good on "man's proper happiness qua Man": what do you mean by Man? If you can only mean this or that particular man, why would & why should you have anything in common with him?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And Plato never denied that we learn from experience. This exaggeration of his Cave story goes too far. He was a sound logician and his thinking was grounded in fact, not mysticism (it only went off into mysticism in its extrapolations).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Have you read The Republic?
    You obviously haven't read my post, as i clearly said i had.


    Because your emphasis is all wrong. I don't know who Karl Popper is, but doing dirt on Plato is a lousy way to make a buck.
    If you don't know who he is, never mind not having read 'The Open Society', your knowldge of Plato has fatal gaps. Doing dirt? What wrong with opposing someone? Plato was not infalliable.

    Aristotle did NOT reject Plato's universal. He expanded upon it and brought to bear the importance of the particular,
    Aristotle did reject Plato's belief in two worlds - the apparent real world and the intelligible world. Aristotle maintaned we are in reality - A is A.

    (E.g., you base the good on "man's proper happiness qua Man": what do you mean by Man? If you can only mean this or that particular man, why would & why should you have anything in common with him?
    If you take away his freedom, your freedom can be taken away. It is contradictory to defend freedom yet take it away from another.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    And Plato never denied that we learn from experience. This exaggeration of his Cave story goes too far. He was a sound logician and his thinking was grounded in fact, not mysticism (it only went off into mysticism in its extrapolations).
    The parable of the cave is part of his theory of the forms and this is the basis of his Kallipolis. Grounded in fact? So do you see this other world, which allows one person to have access to all knowlegde. Such a theory has no scentific gronding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You obviously haven't read my post, as i clearly said i had.
    No you didn't. You just said, "Read him, studied him and rejeced him." (This sounds like you spent about 20 minutes on him.)

    If you don't know who he is, never mind not having read 'The Open Society', your knowldge of Plato has fatal gaps. Doing dirt? What wrong with opposing someone? Plato was not infalliable.
    "Fatal." Crimony. It's Popper's knowledge of Plato that has "gaps," if there's any truth to what I've been reading on Amazon: Popper apparently ignores Plato's later rejection of more dominant government, as represented by his Statesman and Laws, and pretends that the sketch in The Republic is a full-fledged manifesto. (Anyone who has read the Republic knows that its "perfect gov't" speculations are not the point of the book: the point is to refute the Sophist claim that power equals justice i.e. might equals right. "Totalitarian" my ass!)



    Aristotle did reject Plato's belief in two worlds - the apparent real world and the intelligible world. Aristotle maintaned we are in reality - A is A.
    You're misunderstanding Plato's forms, and putting way too much emphasis on things like the Cave fable. Aristotle completely affirmed the universal in his logic: see "the Formal" in his conception of causality.

    If you take away his freedom, your freedom can be taken away. It is contradictory to defend freedom yet take it away from another.
    What you're saying presupposes a universal Form of "freedom"; you're just too ignorant to know that. (If you dispense with universals, you can only mean this or that person's freedom, and I can take someone else's away without affecting my own. The idea of Freedom as a concept is platonic, like all universals.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Very highbrow I only know the last three. Where's David Brent, anyway?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No you didn't. You just said, "Read him, studied him and rejeced him." (This sounds like you spent about 20 minutes on him.)
    The words 'read him' are very clear, its not my fault you interpretet things wrongly.

    "Fatal." Crimony. It's Popper's knowledge of Plato that has "gaps,"
    It would help if you had actaully read him yourself.

    (Anyone who has read the Republic knows that its "perfect gov't" spoeculations are not the point of the book: the point is to refute the Sophist claim that power equals justice i.e. might equals right. "Totalitarian" my ass!)
    Yes that is the point but his response to what is justice is each doing his own job. Thus there is no choice, you do what the philopsher kings say you are able to do.


    You're misunderstanding Plato's forms, and putting way too much emphasis on things like the Cave fable. Aristotle completely affirmed the universal in his logic: see "the Formal" in his conception of causality.
    You obviously don't understand Plato. The cave just demonstrates his view of the forms and they are of crucial importance to him. Also its more of a parable than a fable, it does not have animals.



    I haven't taken it away from anyone. Besides, what do you mean, "freedom"? I thought we had dispensed with universals!
    What!!?? You obviosuly have no idea about objectivsim as well as Platonism.

    You can only mean this or that person's freedom, and I can take someone else's away without affecting my own. The idea of Freedom as a concept is platonic and mystical, remember?
    Plato did not support my type of freedom, i believe freedom can only exist where pluralism is allowed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Very highbrow I only know the last three. Where's David Brent, anyway?


    ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    The words 'read him' are very clear, its not my fault you interpretet things wrongly.
    ??? You hadn't said you'd read the Republic. "Clearly" or otherwise.


    You obviously don't understand Plato. The cave just demonstrates his view of the forms and they are of crucial importance to him.
    No. The Cave is an illustration of The Good, not forms as such. Plato is attempting to postulate a Universal Good, and the cave story is a sort of allegory. Socrates introduces it as "a figure for how far our souls are enlightened or unenlightened."

    To call this a "basis" for his thought betrays a complete misunderstanding. First of all, Plato's whole argument rests on particular premises, and the Cave is an abstraction that comes much later; it isn't a premise for anything. Second, Plato maintained that being able to contemplate the Good or Universal Truth was the result of a disciplined life devoted to logic, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy. In other words, Particular Truth was where he started, and knowledge of the Universal came later, as a result of the mind having been trained in reason. You can call this mysticism if you want to, but it's hardly the same as going off into the woods, fasting, burning incense & getting high on peyote or opium.

    What!!?? You obviosuly have no idea about objectivsim as well as Platonism.
    Yeah, right. You don't know what universals are or what their place in logic is. You obviously have no real familiarity with classical thinking. I think I can safely say now, in response to your claim to have read Plato (or Aristotle) in any depth, that I don't believe you.



    Plato did not support my type of freedom, i believe freedom can only exist where pluralism is allowed.
    Fine. That doesn't make him a totalitarian.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ??? You hadn't said you'd read the Republic. "Clearly" or otherwise.

    We were clearly talking about the Republic and the words 'read him' are very clear. If you can't catch onto this i pity you.

    No. The Cave is an illustration of The Good, not forms as such. Plato is attempting to postulate a Universal Good, and the cave story is a sort of allegory. Socrates introduces it as "a figure for how far our souls are enlightened or unenlightened."

    To call this a "basis" for his thought betrays a complete misunderstanding. First of all, Plato's whole argument rests on particular premises, and the Cave is an abstraction that comes much later; it isn't a premise for anything. Second, Plato maintained that being able to contemplate the Good or Universal Truth was the result of a disciplined life devoted to logic, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy. In other words, Particular Truth was where he started, and knowledge of the Universal came later. You can call this mysticism if you want to, but it's hardly the same as going off into the woods, fasting, burning incense & getting high on peyote or opium.

    The cave indicates there are two worlds - the apparent and the intelligble (those who have knowldge of the good have access to this world). It is because they have access to this that they are fit to rule according to Plato.
    Plato believed in studying those above subjects but in order to gain access to the good, which led to knowing all. Thus they were right to hold absolte power because they had full knowledge. If Plato truly valued particular situations, why not advocate liberalism, where the individual is allowed to judge what is right or wrong for them in the context, not someone else.


    Yeah, right. You don't know what universals are or what their place in logic is. You obviously have no real familiarity with classical thinking. I think I can safely say now, in response to your claim to have read Plato (or Aristotle) in any depth, that I don't believe you.
    Like i care. Do you even go to university?




    Fine. That doesn't make him a totalitarian.
    Actually it does. As Schlesinger notes 'a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul". In the Kallipolis there are no institutions without the philosphers consent, people are brainwashed, for example the myth of the metals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    We were clearly talking about the Republic and the words 'read him' are very clear. If you can't catch onto this is pity you.
    I asked you directly if you'd read the Republic: you ignored the direct question & responded to my advice to read him (by saying you'd "read Plato and rejected him.") It sounded evasive so I asked again.

    The cave indicates there are two worlds - the apparent and the intelligble (those who have knowldge of the good have access to this world). It is because they have access to this that they are fit to rule according to Plato.
    Plato believed in studying those above subjects but in order to gain access to the good, which led to knowing all. Thus they were right to hold absolte power because they had full knowledge. If Plato truly valued particular situations, why not advocate liberalism, where the individual is allowed to judge what is right or wrong for them in the context, not someone else.
    He based his arguments on particular premises. To say "why didn't he value particular intitutions then, & become a 20th century liberal...?" is totally specious---the dialectic equivalent of a bad pun. (Only you misconceive your punning as reasoning.)




    Like i care. Do you even go to university?
    I have a profile, you know. "University" ... no, I'm American. I go to college. (A crappy little college too ... make of it what you can.)

    Actually it does. As Schlesinger notes 'a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul". In the Kallipolis there are no institutions without the philosphers consent, people are brainwashed, for example the myth of the metals.
    This is the fallacious argument known as affirming the consequent: a corruption of Modus Ponens. Go read up on elementary logic ... then we can talk.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE]
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I asked you directly if you'd read the Republic: you ignored the direct question & responded to my advice to read him (by saying you'd "read Plato and rejected him.") It sounded evasive so I asked again.
    There was no need to answer your first question as i clearly answered it in my last sentence in the post. I try to avoid repeating myself.

    He based his arguments on particular premises. To say "why didn't he value particular intitutions then, & become a 20th century liberal...?" is totally specious---the dialectic equivalent of a bad pun. (Only you misconceive your punning as reasoning.)


    Its not a question of the 20th century. Its about something that is right. An era has nothing to do with it. He based his argument on for what was for him an objective truth - there are two worlds etc. You seem incapbale to understand that he believed knowledge was gained through knowing the good and its not just that we gain this through particulars rather education etc merely recondtions our souls, its does not make them.




    I have a profile, you know. "University" ... no, I'm American. I go to college. (A crappy little college too ... make of it what you can.)
    Evidently. Ever heard of the LSE?

    This is the fallacious argument known as Modus Ponens: the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. Go read up on elementary logic ... then we can talk.
    Why is my initial premise wrong. Do you accept he advocated censorship?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=objectivism]



    Evidently. Ever heard of the LSE?
    Ooooh...get you with your fancy ideas and your fancy university never worked an honest day down t'pit in your life.....
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 4, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

1,840

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.