School of Economic Science
The Opening of the New Thought
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Richard Wongkew
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you say specifically what you mean? Through a common example. And perhaps by giving us the text?

If I see a plane tree, and then another down the road, and then a third, I may make a leap. These are all plane trees. Is that what you mean? Or, something of that kind?

That everywhere is nous, doesn’t that mean that the world is rational, that the rational is the real? Thus, nature is thought as teleological, as having a view to an end, as the stone wants to fall, the world wishes to conform to cosmos. Is that what you mean?

But with Socrates wasn't his problem not with the weeds and plane trees, but with Justice and Virtue? One can apply to the gardener to learn gardening, but not to the, let’s say, phronimos, to learn practical wisdom. Is morality capable, thus, in any age, of mathematical perfection, this was the idea that Locke developed, and Hobbes, but it became that shadowy thing, political arithmetic, and so economics.

----

I wanted to insert some more ways of understanding how philosophy plays itself out, in its completion, in truth as correctness:

Just as Kant is a thoroughgoing Newtonist and does not feature the crew of former schools of physics, Heidegger completely embraces the findings of the sciences, admitting no more philosophers after Nietzsche, who he canonizes as the final Hericlitiean, especially genetics is important as it is a fundamental shade of great fate with the being of technological essence, the great additions since Kant’s time have been thought. What looms large in our second passage to Kant, our sojourn with Kant after philosophy, is how the theoretical findings come to find their way into the obstinacy of folk experience.

The example of the setting sun, thus, setting or standing still. He finds the problem of Dasein in that transformation of our cherished daily life and light. Thus with Heidegger the question is the realist question, how does the intelligibility come into things? In this way the production of representation, the theme of idealism, is banished. Here we are making a baby step forward into the clear articulation of the theme, through surveying the uneven ground from a high tower, by synoptical seeing without close looking at examples.

It is obvious that the ancients did not have the modern shocks available to them, even with Kant, mutation was wholly unimagined. The world with Kant maintained a primal stability, so that the moral question was the main thing still with Kant. Our sequence develops, in our consciousness, the problems that we think through, given our role in the story. What is decisive, in principle, is the moment when it is seen that all thinking has been historical. That may mean, to bring the point home, that all is in the flux. Only with the development of the sciences has this come clear, the thinking of it in this way.

Why is there no question of ‘consciousness’ with the Greeks?, it is obscured here with us in this forum due to ignorance of this unintroduced problem, there is no productive, ‘creative’, subject with the Greeks. the Greeks stamp things in the mind. No subject at all. Perception is not a problem yet with the Greeks, it is only touched on, the Greeks live in medias res with their ideas. The logic of removing from the clarity of this simple and golden answer of Plato must come to face hard questions in the course of the unfurling of time.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As everywhere is νους it seems unlikely that the ancient oak wood called Barnhill should not be νους; but the question for man is how does he come upon νους? I say, it is by a kind of fore-taste or fore-knowledge that precedes direct contact in time (though not in being). But it is not a given, for such a dialectical foretaste gives us no more than choice or a judgment.

If analyzed further this particular aspect of νους questions what is seen - a 'patch of weeds'; we might be helped if we think of the old gardener’s adage – a weed is a flower in the wrong place; but everywhere is undoubtedly νους, so what is cannot be in the wrong place. Hence the impasse. As νους orders every thing in the way that is best for that thing, and what is best is κοσμος and κοσμος is meant to be seen, the solution surely is to look.

Another νοητικος (nous-like) question begins to emerge. It is true that in the clear sight of νους (its primordial function was as a ‘way of seeing’) everything that was tangled in a clump becomes completely distinct. And it is seen that this is a perfection that could not be bettered. The question being, isn’t this the way a horticulturalist, the man of science, sees? Not necessarily, because the distinctions described are before the names in as much as they precede them in being. When names are learnt the special ‘seeing’ luminescence, which νους grants, may no longer be of interest, and subsequent seeing falls away into the precincts of the unregarded. So the horticulturalist regards the order of name rather than the order of νους.

Therefore when the maker of anything, in forming its shape and quality, keeps his gaze fixed on the eternally unchanging, using it as a model, that object, executed in this way, must of necessity be good (beautiful); but whenever he to something at that which has come be and uses it as his model, the object thus executed is not beautiful. Timaeus 28

My working reference here is Phaedo 97b>

I eagerly await continuance of our study of Platonic number.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Wongkew
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This material and what it provides us is more precise and stimulating than usual, however we shall not dwell on extended commendations.

Quote:
I say, it is by a kind of fore-taste or fore-knowledge that precedes direct contact in time (though not in being). But it is not a given, for such a dialectical foretaste gives us no more than choice or a judgment.’


I would call that essence. It is a we (a social) sense. Thus the French, for example, say, we are Tuesday (when they mean to say, it is Tuesday). But, it is no longer possible to think of this simply as a matter of convention, because of the power of the scientific essence. The prethinking of the world as transcendent object.

This nous, or noos, names intelligibility with regard to doxastic perception, but essence with respect to being.

Is it not that the order that is the best order names the rational, and that the rational is a telos?

How do you understand the question that arises in regard to the moral injunction present in the essencing of the weed, as the thing ‘in the wrong place?’ It indicates a doxastic difficulty which points to the problems associated with the postmodern. Thus the totality of the ways of thinking rationality or cosmos seem established as a mighty construction. Many difficulties of a greatly trying character surely follow. The question of the way to regard the aspect of the problem of hen and ta panta comes into consideration, I believe. What I have said here is very limited, and serves only as a slim answer to what has been expressed.

Quote:
‘Hence the impasse.’


Thus you establish a concrete way to the problem of the one and the many. Hen and ta panta.

--

‘So the horticulturalist regards the order of name rather than the order of νους.’

However there is something very cryptic here, that we must sort out. Is it not that there is merely a verbal transformation of the element of nous? Since, although it is said that individual things are not met prior to the naming, the homogeneity of all nature is thought prior to the naming (and with the sight of the thing, nature). Thus the sight of nature, thought as mathamatical, its face the representation of the transcendent object of so-called natural science, is simply named. Thus the talk of the standing reserve in the essence of technology. Everything is leveled before hand. But, with cosmos, there is a prior intelligibility too. I see a story of two essences and so two truths.

Quote:
‘subsequent seeing falls away into the precincts of the unregarded’


One sleeps in the homogeneity of technological research, the interpretation that has come down to us with Kojeve (‘the universal and homogeneous state’) after much wending.

---

Quote:
‘the object thus executed is not beautiful’


Of course, here beauty is not the beauty of the fine arts. Yet, given the comprehensive sense of that which brings into harmony and orders, is it not that the Greek element, now a completely dead language, and a dead history, brings forth a manifestation radically different, and, speaking tongue and cheek, not to the taste of many other peculiar elements, or peoples, if you wish?

Do you maintain the infinite stillness of the Greek cosmos, as the perfect model? Others which we can not even dream are perhaps preparing the destruction of the current essence, with none other to follow, now, as we write. But, it is no use to rush.

--

Quote:
‘our study of Platonic number’


I must not forget about that. To begin with, I must say that the way number is thought in modernity seems to stem from the idea of perception as mechanical perception. Would you say that you understand that problem as wholly outside the purview of Plato?

I only ask this as a first grasping of the difficulties which I wish to return to, in near future, and there treat with more attention.

----

Two addendums of a general nature:


the sun stirs the air
the rushing wind

hitch-up

choice light
give rise to thoughts



The critique of Sartre is that he stays too much with the things that have light and the things that are snorted into them, in this way with man and his projects. But he does not think the element of the two as a whole, although in his very strange development he seems to approach it.

If we follow Nietzsche this thinking becomes chaos, why?: who says the blowing of the winds, those that filled the sails of Jason and his troop, are the same or different from the inner wind, the psyche? All distinctions, according to this view, have no proper support; it is thought as supported only by what Nietzsche calls the will. Chiefly, here, that between life and science (from whence comes the concern with the matter of mechanical perception) is at stake.

Everyday sense, practical sense, does not compel us to heed the Nietzsches of this world nor the Humboldts of this world. Da-sein, which meant, three hundred years ago, existentia, thus names this hook, that of history, on which the others can be hung, in this way the vision can be cosmically absorbed.

--

Today we are surrounded by those who are in blinders, rigidly pursuing the discoveries which led to the long stale war of abstractions and concrete things, of the nineteenth century, thus, the EGS style with its fashionable snobbism and the philosophical-scientific style with its haughty too-sureisms. Therein we have no thought at all, but sleepers, pulling from one station to the next, with ever increasing innovation and intensification matched by vast automated research programs. Thus two piles of radically tendentious debris form, under the spell of the passions associated with academia, in the age of the decline of thought.

That which is guided by the long preconceptions does not attempt to see itself. The teaching about the new beginnings must be taken more seriously, but not lopsidedly; without the balance of the history, thought without-time.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(For those that find it useful there is an explanation of Greek Terminology below.)


Quote:
I would call that essence. It is a we (a social) sense. Thus the French, for example, say, we are Tuesday (when they mean to say, it is Tuesday). But, it is no longer possible to think of this simply as a matter of convention, because of the power of the scientific essence. The prethinking of the world as transcendent object.


I wonder if I’m not being more radical than you here. It depends on what you mean by prethinking. Is prethinking dianoia heavily influenced by doxa, or is it directly related to the noetic, some impulse arising from νους itself? If you do mean the second, then perhaps you could explain more clearly how ‘we are Tuesday, etc.’ is relevant. I’m missing that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, for others who have not even the little Greek that I have, I will try and include a mini lexicon here of recently used words:


διακοσμησις (diakosmesis) lit. 'orderer' or nous (in the embodiment of the Demiurge, the artificer of the cosmos in the form of the heavens, including the circles (κυκλα - kukla) of the stars and planets. But it could be extended to any master craftsman).

διανοια (dianoia) thought or thinking, but more practical than intuitive. I shall include an interesting insight on dianoia by Jacob Klein in my next post (hopefully)

δοξα (doxa) opinion (true or false), expectation, fancy, notion, assumption, judgement; though it can be extended to include reputation, glory, splendour.

κοσμος (cosmos) usually meant to be the heavens but, coined by the Pythagoreans, it can mean anything that is ordered beautifully. That is the meaning I have adopted on this thread so far.

κυκλος (kuklos) circle, ring, cycle, orbit, ambit, wheel.

νοητικα (noetiika) an adjective which I am taking to mean vous-like.

νους (nous) has many meanings. Plato calls Nous 'the Great King' or King of the Heaven and The Earth and, in this form, regarded by some as the Demiurge, the Craftsman God of the dialogue TIMAEUS. It also can stand for Divine Mind (which I adopt or the=is thread) or even rationality or the rational, but should not be confused with the (lower) dianoia which represents nous in the soul.

I think its time that I spring-cleaned the Glossary of Terms Folder, so all these terms will be added to it as they turn up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How dumb am I?- nous sommes Mardi - Oh dear, but I've stopped making that connection. Is there any mileage in it?
Yet I think my point holds and I'd still like you to respond, if you wish. But please; French me no French - I am after all an Englishman!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Wongkew
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I wonder if I’m not being more radical than you here. It depends on what you mean by prethinking. Is prethinking dianoia heavily influenced by doxa, or is it directly related to the noetic, some impulse arising from νους itself? If you do mean the second, then perhaps you could explain more clearly how ‘we are Tuesday, etc.’ is relevant. I’m missing that.


The question of radicality is difficult. If I say the earth stands still, that is true (true by opinion?). Do I than uphold that doxastically, or do I uphold it from the ground of being (by what we, each one, grow into as we find our way to language)? For, one also says, the earth is violently spinning. Does it spin, then, by convention? Do I say of my opinion about the standing still of the earth that it is subjective (subjectivity is not the same as convention, it is part of the scientific prethinking of the transcendent object which thinks the scientific fact and the anthropomorphic value), and that the fact is that the earth, in its transcendent objectivity, hurtels through space?

There is something of a genetic circle involved, and that is at the core of Heidegger's thinking. This is why Heidegger must be understood as a behaviorist, for there is no ethical stance on the degree of radicality, but a description of what is. In this we must try to bring out, in the strongest way, what is herein expressed in a weak way.

The doxastic, which speaks to the many things, and the noetic substance, which is the opening of the one, moves by the transformations of ousia in its basic way of being, thus in history as thought of as the simple unity of time:

The question about ousia, as the question about the how of being:

The water moves: the waves in their furrows shake upon the breadth of the bay, as they support the animals and vessels that buoy in the water.

--

Some of your terms may be simply dogmatic assertions, those that can come only by a kind of training in a school, and not consonant with the judgment of people as people in the ground of being as ordinary life, but I will not not treat with that yet.

We must, it seems, conduct ourselves through a tuning-up of our way of proceeding with the attempt at getting knowledge of these matters. The matter of terminological ambiguity stands on the foundation of what is customary with one, with, one might say, that which is born of a soil, ‘a people’.

There’s a question about the status of terminological vagueness. If a word is used in more than one way, and only one way is intended, this may lead to a trivial confusion. Is it dogmatic, is it a question that must be answered: who says it is so!?, that one says, there is a trivial ambiguity in such a case?

‘The store is at the end of the block.’ This kind of speech is so well known to us in its basic use, as a direction in a town or city, that we can not fail to understand, as English speakers, both the terminological matter, and the matter as it stands before us in being, and so, what remains is genuine ambiguity. The matter is readied for proper research.

Yet, a second problem may arise, we may fail to acquaint ourselves with a subject for reasons of no importance to the matters as they stand before us as the genuine problems with which our research is concerned.

There is a question about the ‘baggage’ we take with us to the text, is it intellectual (psychological) or of being (the way of thinking as a being of our being)?

Correspondingly, from a thematic point of view: Nous is the genetic thing, it is pushed by the force of nature, which is transcendent, and un-influenceable. Yet, how does nature move in its ground? In the way it is nature. That is not the matter of the transformation of the laws of nature as natural laws, but as being.

A confusion may arise in regard to the way of thinking, the nous grasps its object and genuinely sees its idea, but being changes the way of nous, of the one who correctly finds the use that is indeed aimed at, inasmuch as the way of thinking is different the thing is being in another way. So, for example, it is questionable whether the French ‘bonjour’ means the same thing as the English ‘good day’, one may locate in language, speech, a way of being, nous says it is the same, for the translation is manifest, reason may say that it is the same. A more difficult example would be der Stuhl and the chair. In that case the intellect finds it very difficult to locate any difference. Language, logos, must not be confused with the reason that thinks the idea, the eidos of the ratio. If nous means the rational, it must be separated from logos, speech.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a simplicity here in what I say regarding foreknowing that may not be to your taste. To me however it is fundamental, relating to the simplicity of the virtues. Is a man to think and think until he is all thought out or does he align his thought in this way? Sophia creeps into the mind unbidden and seemingly without power, just as the Brahmin is outwardly like a beggar relying on the service of the community - and as, in the same way, the scribes (harkening back to Mesopotamia) lived at their leisure to contemplate their art without material gain. The wonders that had their beginning in Greek mathematics did not arise merely from practical matters but from the love of knowledge itself; and its protection - the Academic life as originally conceived. The precocious geometer Theaetetus hears Socrates exhorting him: Never say it is beyond your power. It will not be so if heaven wills it and you take courage. Here are all three virtues at work and thus is the response to your previous question about Justice; however the battlefield is not outside the walls of Troy but the mind itself. Sophia makes no act other than to appear. All else is up to the man himself. Andreia, sophrosune - courage, discipline, is what he brings to the party. The effective application is what is seen in the world, as the merchants of Babylon accrued rich benefits from the indifferent sexagesimal contemplations of the scribes of Fara.

If this is merely an image of the past, we should remember that even today's most earnest endeavours invariably end up as tomorrow's cartoons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Wongkew
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You think my example about the store at the end of the block takes too much thought or what? Or the matter of the earth standing still, that is primarily too complex?

What does your simplicity mean that ‘common sense’ doesn't say? Immediate intelligibility. Try engaging with what is written, or bring intelligent questions of your own. You begin to sound like a simple idiot.

What are the signs of your ‘virtues’? What do they mean for us, here and now? Simply, not from the point of view of your metaphors of beauty and heavens and storms in the sky.

Why did you use the example about the weed, that is ‘in the wrong place’? Simple common sense changes. Some people like tin cans in their yard.

You write in terms of teleological prethinking, it means you presuppose natural inclinations. You write with meaning predications.

Do you see the distinction between teleological nature, and nature thought in the scientific way? It’s problematic for any discussion that you’re in the false posture of one who is so happily innocent of that distinction. Now please try to say something simple, like the example about the weeds. Which you refuse to comment on, since, the way it's shows the simple falseness of what your saying is manifest there.

It’s unfortunate having spent so long studying philosophy you got stuck on one defective doctrine which simply doesn't hold up. I mean if you only want to say, I have a very primitive feeling this is true. Then why trouble others with the semblance of deliberative discussion, that is a private matter. Your honesty would be of great benefit to us.

--

Now, for those capable of asking about serious matters, I should hope to be allowed to continue. Also, I should wish for more open and flexible auditors to pipe up. We may need to learn to play with mirrors, and deal with the postmodern nuances of reality which claim to be simple, to counter the dismal images of the charlatans and their undemonstrative dogma, which claims to be simple.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's very little for me to relate to here. I got interested when you feigned interest in number, but it's obvious to me that in your philosophy there is little Plato and even less mathematics. So perhaps you should try your luck on another forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Wongkew
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean if it were demonstrated to you that Plato were mistaken, you would still stay with him?

If one treats the problem very simply, one must conclude that essences change. That is a real problem, not a matter of sticking to some old doctrine. Your spirit seems very unlike Plato's in this regard.

But, why can't you go through your idea simply. I think you don't make it clear to yourself what you are saying.

What could be more in the spirit of Plato than dialectic?

As a follower of dialogic simplicity, I can not claim to know the method of 'running through' the possibilities, but what I can see, through acquaintance with Plato, is the emphasis on short question and answer.

Q What does it mean: 'virtues?' (Philosophers always assume everything is obvious, but what do we actually mean here in simple terms.)
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK

<<Nous is the genetic thing, it is pushed by the force of nature, which is transcendent, and un-influenceable. Yet, how does nature move in its ground? In the way it is nature. That is not the matter of the transformation of the laws of nature as natural laws, but as being.>>

Do you mean that nous as the receptacle of the forms? As, how mammals appeared and nous was 'pushed' to accept change in that aspect, or as the computer also changed the forms that were held in nous. Or are you reading something else in to your words? It’s best to be clear as it seems important to you. Though nature was mover in the first and man in the second.

And also Plato admitted to somekind of ‘touch’ between soul and nous in Sophist.

Do you find this remarkable? You must mean something more as this is schoolboy's stuff.
-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want to continue, I’ll deal with recent points you make one by one to let you know where I stand on them.

Quote:
The question of radicality is difficult. If I say the earth stands still, that is true (true by opinion?). Do I than uphold that doxastically, or do I uphold it from the ground of being (by what we, each one, grow into as we find our way to language)? For, one also says, the earth is violently spinning. Does it spin, then, by convention? Do I say of my opinion about the standing still of the earth that it is subjective (subjectivity is not the same as convention, it is part of the scientific prethinking of the transcendent object which thinks the scientific fact and the anthropomorphic value), and that the fact is that the earth, in its transcendent objectivity, hurtels through space?



I would say that the question of radicality is simple. ‘Concavity’ is more radical than ‘snub’ as it underlies it. Its root lies more deeply in being; let me be clear on what I mean here. Paradoxically Aristotle might consider that the ‘deepest’ being, if he ever used such a term, would be the individual thing as it underlies everything in a certain kind of way. Yet it is also the least interesting philosophically as it cannot form a predicate. You can say that “Jack is a …” and many predicates will fill the space; but none fill the space of “… is a Jack”. I don’t mean radical in this sense. The rest of your paragraph here I would say has nothing to do with radicality and more with the concept-forming faculty of dianoia. The earth hurtling through space is a complex concept and depends on many standpoints, and is therefore not radical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1093
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

<<You mean if it were demonstrated to you that Plato were mistaken, you would still stay with him?>>


If I felt his philosophy no longer rung true, I would not follow him.

Quote:
<<As a follower of dialogic simplicity, I can not claim to know the method of 'running through' the possibilities, but what I can see, through acquaintance with Plato, is the emphasis on short question and answer.>>

You realize that the internet is not friendly to dialectic. However I’ll put forward a gambit (no more) and let’s see if you can play. And in the true dialectical ethos I will not try and ‘win an argument', but see where truthful questioning and answering would lead us.

Q What does it mean: 'virtues?' (Philosophers always assume everything is obvious, but what do we actually mean here in simple terms.)

Response: Qualities of human conduct we would call admirable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Wongkew
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Q What does it mean: 'virtues?' (Philosophers always assume everything is obvious, but what do we actually mean here in simple terms.)

Response: Qualities of human conduct we would call admirable.

Call for Clarification: Then, by ‘we’ do you mean just anyone, or do you mean researchers of a certain and distinctive kind? Do you ask about what the ‘man on the street’ calls admirable, or what Emmanuel Kant calls admirable; using Kant as an example of a good man, who is yet perhaps as distant from the average member of his own society as a remote star.

--
-----
--------

Not Part of the Dialectic Game (marginalia):


In suggesting that we take up dialectic, it may be that we are merely attempting to capture what it meant in the first place.

Although you approach Aristotle with severe and disorientating prejudice, and whiz away from his teachings, it is apposite to attempt to catch that which he may have meant, what reaches us about dialectic is not complete, and we have never yet practiced it as the Greeks did:

And here is evidence of this fact. Dialecticians and sophists wear the same appearance as the philosopher, for sophistry is Wisdom in appearance only, and dialecticians discuss all subjects, [20] and Being is a subject common to them all; but clearly they discuss these concepts because they appertain to philosophy. For sophistry and dialectic are concerned with the same class of subjects as philosophy, but philosophy differs from the former in the nature of its capability and from the latter in its outlook on life. Dialectic treats as an exercise what philosophy tries to understand, and sophistry seems to be philosophy; but is not.

Aristot. Met. 4.1004b

This is not to disparage dialectic, however, but to keep careful watch on its relation to the settlements which surround it. Dialectic is not the only way, but, thus, as we see, one among others.

By the way, we could of as well walked the streets of an imaginative Athens with the question about numbers, but here I think we could learn a lot with this way we have already, anyway, started.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved