Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=objectivism]

    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.
    If you're not going to accept the fact that ANY thinker outside our era is bound to support a few things that we abhore, you'll simply cut yourself off from all learning pre-WWI or so.

    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.
    No, that's incorrect. The Republic is grounded in premises like, just politics is for Man, it can be judged on the analogy of individual integrity, etc.; and these premises are grounded in antecedant observations; and in fact all of Socrates' arguments rest on premises that no one questions. The Cave story is not a premise for anything.

    Evidently. Ever heard of the LSE?
    Yeah. Did they stop teaching classical thinkers & Logic there, or what?

    Why is my initial premise wrong. Do you accept he advocated censorship?
    Premise 1: [Antecedent:] If a government is totalitarian, [consequent:] it crushes all autonomous institutions etc.
    Premise 2: Plato's utopia lacked autonomous institutions.
    Conclusion: Plato was a totalitarian.

    The fallacy of this form of argument can be seen more clearly when the conclusion is patently absurd: "All cheese is salty. The ocean is salty. Therefore, the ocean is cheese."
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    i looked at the results and plato is of the most votes, i guess its because more people knows who plato is???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasht)
    i looked at the results and plato is of the most votes, i guess its because more people knows who plato is???
    I only know the last 3, but i imagine in terms of impact the biggest were Marx and Keynes, and in terms of turning out to be right(probably)Keynes, but then he did have the benefit of hindsight with Marx going quite a few years behind him.....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    I only know the last 3, but i imagine in terms of impact the biggest were Marx and Keynes, and in terms of turning out to be right(probably)Keynes, but then he did have the benefit of hindsight with Marx going quite a few years behind him.....
    Er...Keynes was discredited in the '70s. Considering that his ideology lasted less than 3 decades, I fail to see how he made the biggest impact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Er...Keynes was discredited in the '70s. Considering that his ideology lasted less than 3 decades, I fail to see how he made the biggest impact.
    Keynes and Marx i said, i also pointed out that it was of the bottom three, as i'm not familiar with the others, thats all. And how long did Marx's ideology survive at large? Its nitpicking!
    You mean Keynes' own specific theories were discredited?
    Wasn't he the person who produced the most significant evidence that capitalism is for the greater good, the lesser of two evils?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    You mean his own specific theories were discredited?
    Wasn't he the person who produced the most significant evidence that capitalism is for the greater good, the lesser of two evils?
    He claimed that private firms don't care about their own profitability, and only seek to perpetuate themselves. His solution was to have government officials heavily regulate every industry to make sure that the private firms try to maximize profits. He claimed that people have a preference for money, meaning they won't keep their money in banks during recessions. He claimed that deficits don't matter, which means the government should spend whatever it wants without any repercussions. He wanted the government to be in control over monetary policy and to use that policy to reduce unemployment (by having low interest rates), ignoring the effect this has on inflation. He supported the gold standard and wanted to create an international currency, which would require the fixing of all currencies in the world to this currency. The last point in particular helped discredit his ideology once the slightly altered form of the gold standard fell apart in the early '70s.

    Keynes' main contributions to economics (that have not been discredited) are: creating the concept of a GDP thereby creating the field of macroeconomics, and proving that governments can somewhat tame the business cycle by spending more during recessions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    You mean its been shown that private firms are more often willing just to get up to half decent, mediocre, stable earnings, rather than take risks for big money? If so, how?
    Rational individuals do not take risks unless they're properly rewarded for taking them. It is not in the interest of large firms to take huge risks, as the potential cost (bankruptcy) is much higher than any potential benefit. Are you honestly going to claim that firms don't try to maximize profit? Because the history of capitalism proves that assertion to be dead wrong. Companies like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, IMB, etc. would not exist if they didn't try to make as much money as possible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE]
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    If you're not going to accept the fact that ANY thinker outside our era is bound to support a few things that we abhore, you'll simply cut yourself off from all learning pre-WWI or so.
    I'm criticisng Plato for his political views of how society should be organised and this in turn rests on his theory of the forms and his conception of justice. I like many post ww1 thinkers such as Adam Smith, Jefferson and Paine, Cicero, Mill and Locke. Your above comment is irrelavent give the fact that i praised Aristotle before.

    No, that's incorrect. The Republic is grounded in premises like, just politics is for Man, it can be judged on the analogy of individual integrity, etc.; and these premises are grounded in antecedant observations; and in fact all of Socrates' arguments rest on premises that no one questions. The Cave story is not a premise for anything.
    You are VERY wrong. I have a completely different interpretation along with the likes of Popper and Coleman. If you read any simple guide to Plato it will highlight the Cave as a very important part of his thought, why don't you accept mainstream thought?



    Yeah. Did they stop teaching classical thinkers & Logic there, or what?
    I don't know what your being taught at your state college, but i'll trust the 11th best university in the world over your views anyday.



    Premise 1: [Antecedent:] If a government is totalitarian, [consequent:] it crushes all autonomous institutions etc.
    Premise 2: Plato's utopia lacked autonomous institutions.
    Conclusion: Plato was a totalitarian.

    The fallacy of this form of argument can be seen more clearly when the conclusion is patently absurd: "All cheese is salty. The ocean is salty. Therefore, the ocean is cheese."
    So are you saying because the Kallipolis does not crush different institutions its not totalitarian. Of course the reason why the philospher kings don't crush them is because they don't allow them to emerge. Thus they are crushing an idea. Also Plato does state that in forming the Kallipolis all those over the age of 10 would be expelled, thus they would lose the institution of private property.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasht)
    i looked at the results and plato is of the most votes, i guess its because more people knows who plato is???
    Yes, thats what i now believe. I think if they have not studied all the thinkers in the poll they should not vote. I also beleive there is a tendency to think 'ohh Plato, better vote for him to appear clever'. These people are very ignorant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Rational individuals do not take risks unless they're properly rewarded for taking them. It is not in the interest of large firms to take huge risks, as the potential cost (bankruptcy) is much higher than any potential benefit. Are you honestly going to claim that firms don't try to maximize profit? Because the history of capitalism proves that assertion to be dead wrong. Companies like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, IMB, etc. would not exist if they didn't try to make as much money as possible.
    No i misunderstood...took the post to mean that was one of Keynes' "proven" assertions
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=objectivism]

    I'm criticisng Plato for his political views of how society should be organised and this in turn rests on his theory of the forms and his conception of justice. I like many post ww1 thinkers such as Adam Smith, Jefferson and Paine, Cicero, Mill and Locke. Your above comment is irrelavent give the fact that i praised Aristotle before.


    You are VERY wrong. I have a completely different interpretation along with the likes of Popper and Coleman. If you read any simple guide to Plato it will highlight the Cave as a very important part of his thought, why don't you accept mainstream thought?
    Oh, come on. Scholarship doesn't consist of reading "very simple guides to Plato" or going by what they tend to say; it consists of reading and understanding people like Plato. The Cave parable is a famous story because it's striking and thought-provoking. It is representative of Plato, but as an extrapolation, not a foundation, of his thought. You can disagree with it or with this element in his thinking, and still learn a great deal from him. (I find it amazing that you can equivocate about a butcher like Pinochet on another thread, but Plato and his cave story are inexcusable!)

    I don't know what your being taught at your state college, but i'll trust the 11th best university in the world over your views anyday.
    (I'll tell you one thing I've been taught, and this in grade school: When to use "your" and when to use "you're.")

    You're not going to intimidate me with the prestige of your stupid school (I've known too many Ivy League airheads for that), so get to work on a substantive argument or pack it in.


    So are you saying because the Kallipolis does not crush different institutions its not totalitarian. Of course the reason why the philospher kings don't crush them is because they don't allow them to emerge. Thus they are crushing an idea. Also Plato does state that in forming the Kallipolis all those over the age of 10 would be expelled, thus they would lose the institution of private property.
    No, you ignoramus, I am saying that the structure of your argument is completely fallacious, and is in fact illustrative of one classic fallacious argument ("affirming the consequent").
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Strauss’s philosophy boils down to the age old and historically discredited aspiration to power and empire (as your mate Machiavelli). His ideology, more coherent and elaborate than you suggest, expresses itself in a presumption of unilateralist self righteousness for those in government above all decent notions of accountability to the obligations of international law for those with the strength or cunning to circumvent or simply ignore such obligations. Familiar? :rolleyes:
    Firstly, the main goal of neoconservatives is not empire. Empire is the means of achieving their goal, which is the spread of democracy. Machiavelli would never approve of such crusades, as their purpose is to change human nature and they require disregarding one's own interest. The former is stupid as it's impossible, and the latter is dangerous. The neocons' view is not much different from that of Woodrow Wilson. A large portion of liberals, Gladstone chief amongst them, held the same view. Realism, which is the ideology adhered to by Machiavelli, von Bismarck, de Richelieu, and di Cavour, is the polar opposite of liberalism (in politics, not necessarily in economics). Von Bismarck would never support a crusade, which can be evident by his unwillingness to create a German empire. I can assure you that this unwillingness was not based on morality, but rather on practicality (same reason Bismarck was the first European leader to create a welfare state).

    The wonderful neocons go further in stressing a total lack of obligatory accountability to the citizenry as well, which it sees as no better than chattel, to be lied to, manipulated and even sacrificed in order to further the intents of power for its own sake. Still familiar? :rolleyes:
    Nope, neocons don't want power for its own sake. They want to spread their ideology (democracy and free markets) to the entire world, which requires an ungodly amount of power. Coincidentally, this is the reason they support Israel (it's the only democracy in the Middle East), and to a lesser extent Turkey (for the same reason). Realism has always been opposed to ideologically-driven foreign policies, which led many of them to oppose the Cold War on the grounds that some arrangement with the Soviet Union can be agreed upon. It is the ideologically-driven policy of political liberals (granted they didn't exist in Machiavelli's time) that is responsible for the moral crusades.

    3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
    Any rational leader will use preemptive warfare under certain circumstances.

    4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
    See above.

    10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
    There is no neutrality in foreign affairs. If someone is not your ally, then they either are or might become an ally of your enemy. In fact, your own allies might become allies of your enemies or even become enemies themselves, which makes neutrality an ill-advised objective of foreign policy.

    All the other reasons you provided can be explained by neocons adhering to a mixed Marxist-liberal ideology, which none of the thinkers I mentioned (nor me personally) adhere to.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Cheers. Pleased you're not a neocon wannabee.

    I'm pleased too that you allow there is an imperial program 'to spread democracy'. I would see it as spreading US corporate hegemony over the developing world, but the Imperial is the part that hits it's victim's hardest. Do we agree that the sadly real PNAC program should have the same fate as the sadly unreal Guantanamo Quran?

    Honestly now Biz, did you keep a straight face when you typed that the neocon allegiance to Israel is simply because Israel is a 'democracy'? Other perfectly understandable factors make for a rather closer identification with Israel surely? An ancient and historic identification (yea I know your lot don't like Macdonald but I think he's illuminating).

    Recommended background. Brezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Bizzy is well informed about the neo***** but most people probably don't look too close - you should.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Do you think that socialism is a Jewish movement merely because many of its early proponents were Jews? Is capitalism a Scottish movement merely because most of its early proponents were Scots?

    If you agree that the goal of neocons is the spread of their own ideology (democracy being the main component), isn't it logical for them to support countries that are both democratic and have the same opponents as them?
    The neocons are all fervent Zionists, none as far as I'm aware is a fervent supporter of Indian nationalism or Philippino nationalism. The identification with Israel is therefore not simply owing to democracy. They were Zionists long before they discovered democracy, Israel is their unifying interest and the one they carried over from their famous Trotskyist past.

    The neocons incidentally also make alliances with non-democracies such as Uzbekistan under Karimov. As Marc Perelman phrased it in the neoconnish Jewish daily Forward: "The recent violence in Uzbekistan has cast a spotlight on the cozy relationship between the authoritarian regime of President Islam Karimov and Israel and its American supporters." Quite.

    Curious way to promote their primary goal of spreading democracy. Perhaps I was right that their primary goal is to spread US hegemony and corporate control over developing economies?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Firstly, the main goal of neoconservatives is not empire. Empire is the means of achieving their goal, which is the spread of democracy. ...
    Nope, neocons don't want power for its own sake. They want to spread their ideology (democracy and free markets) to the entire world ....
    Do you think there's a CHANCE (just a slight possibility) that there's a third possible motivation? That is, rather than empire-building, or spreading free democracy, their growth is actually an expression of the corporate need for growth & new markets (both labor markets and consumer markets)?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Do you think there's a CHANCE (just a slight possibility) that there's a third possible motivation? That is, rather than empire-building, or spreading free democracy, their growth is actually an expression of the corporate need for growth & new markets (both labor markets and consumer markets)?
    No, there's no chance of this ridiculous motivation. Corporations can grow just fine without interference from the government. Furthermore, America does not rely on exports, which means creating a foreign policy whose main objective is the increase of exports would be quite stupid. Then there's the fact that many of the leading neoconservatives are former Trotskyists and I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone can go from being a Trotskyist to being a corporate "slave". If you don't accept the ideologies of people at face value, then you have nothing more than conjecture. You can't decyphor people's intentions, which leaves little choice but to accept their definition of their own ideology. You wouldn't want me to define socialism the way I like just so I can attack it easier, do you?

    Argh. Chose the wrong option; nevermind. See Bismarck's post...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    Argh. Chose the wrong option; nevermind. See Bismarck's post...
    :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    Argh. Chose the wrong option; nevermind. See Bismarck's post...
    If not Plato, than who? Burke?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by technik)
    myself.
    lol - methinks you're out of your depth!
 
 
 
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

1,534

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.