School of Economic Science
The passion for philophy anxiously glances about itself.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:37 pm    Post subject: The passion for philophy anxiously glances about itself. Reply with quote

Only philosophers ever speak of philosophy. What we have long been in the habit of calling humans are philosophers, however, they usually never reach philosophy with their speech. Instead, they speak in average expressions, or, they build walls, which are, positive attempts to marshal the lowest forces; the greatest concealer of being: the political mob. Others, in simple ignorance, stumble about without concern for their most extreme possibility, that of philosophizing.
_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear David Tang,
If your mail was algorithmically generated I know I won't get a reply. But I suspect that there may be a real David Tang, so I will approach you as if.

Philosophy isn't an elite subject except in the minds of those that think it is. There you are, I have matched your tendentious sentences that seem to allow no room for conversation. But you really should put something up that shows your own philosophy as compassionate towards those whom you judge, or is it that you include yourself among those who "stumble about in ignorance"? If so, welcome to the club.
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree. I'm of the view that some persons are smarter than others (and not only in the mind). And some are extraordinary. And some fewer still are the true and proper philosophers. Only they, I should imagine, stumble about in the dark. However, if you would like to show me, through the style of Plato's Socrates, that I don't believe that (more to the point, that it is not so), I should be supremely grateful.

Are you willing to put forward simple statements? For example, supposing someone would say, does the work of those men we have long been used to calling general contractors deal chiefly with things like putting up and smoothing drywall, cutting lengths of wood, and with things to do with building and repair of houses? And to by putting such questions lead me into a contradiction?

Supposing, however, as is likely, you have not prepared such a path, would you give way and answer questions yourself?

_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

David, I'm really pleased that you are a human being though I'm not attracted to your subject regarding contractors, especially through the style of Socrates, who surely would ask what on earth the purpose of such an elenchus would be. It sounds more like something from Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Arguments. But perhaps you are leading to something more specific and fruitful.

I'm much more interested in who you think these true and proper philosophers are and why you consider them remarkable. For example, did they show themselves to be compassionate in their judgements or were they merely sophistical in the way of the young men that Socrates talks of often enough - for instance in Philebus 14cd (a mild example)?

What also is of genuine and heartfelt interest to me is why you would want to make anyone contradict themselves - unless of course it would be cathartic to their souls; although I would consider that too high a presumption for me to bear, a bear of little brain.

If you wish I can enlarge on this.

Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You remind me of Polyphemus, he not only mistreated his guests, he eat half of them. The test to see if you can deal honestly with people, and not chew them up, in conversation, has established that you are a rabid sort, and not friendly, straightforward or civilized.

Your intelligence derives a peculiar gratification form avoiding the search. Perhaps it is because, in the woods, you expect to find a ravening monster, that you delay the hunt indefinitely. I for one do not know that the hunt will lead to anything lovable and attractive, perhaps your attitude of endless deferral is justified. Or, perhaps you were not born with the scent of the quarry.

Answer me this: Will you grant that Socrates, perhaps, had himself in mind, when he made the example of the doctor who had to argue before children, against a confectioner? If you admit as much, you will already have a whiff of what contradiction is. Such fragrance might help one’s nose to find its path, and it is said, if there were only smoke the venerable nose would find the path.

_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tell me what contradiction is O Third Man.

What draws one to the hunt is a satisfactory quarry. Your nose, you say is full of its scent. Tell me O reconstituted Lemminkainen, what is to be hunted – mere contradiction or something to make us all a little wiser? Is it perhaps the whiff of compassion that disturbs thee? - or that we children will always prefer dolly mixtures to your finely honed phrases?


________________________________________________________
Planets wander shamelessly - stars are trapped in their own brilliance
Whence this heartless cosmos?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the dolly mixture not pleasure? An intransigent polemic with probity alone prevents you to learn what contradiction has to teach. Why not show you are capable of dealing fairly, and draw the conclusion yourself?

How eternally grateful would be one who would heed the prompt to vanquish the curtain walls that keep the wind from entering their dwelling, since that storm carries the scent.

The ancients were oft to say: I am with truth, and if pleasure or compassion are not, I set them aside. The Christian thing says the reverse. I am with compassion, and if truth is otherwise, let it go away. You are like a lover, mad for your beloved. No longer mere pleasure, now you call your pleasure compassion. And in our own time, marriage of love is said to beat all. For Socrates truth was a mystery, knowledge of virtue signals an enigma, not your cheap Christian democracy in gnostic viel. Of course, Nietzsche and I harbour a burning resentment for your Christian thing, and your great compassion. Your compassion which is greater than truth.

_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did Krsna not show compassion for Arjuna long before your heroes - and never more so than when he took his jelly babies away? Perhaps you stand in silhouette to Christianity. No quarry, no hunter. An imagined strength in pursuit of an imagined weakness. What then are you pursuing, O third man?
What is your truth without compassion?
Cough it up.
___________________________________________________
Senses pass illusion onto soul, but it is soul that is deluded.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I want, and shall be eternally grateful for, is someone who will answer simple questions in the style of a Socratic dialogue as written by dear Plato. I don't see why that should be so hard. You seem to have a rather small parvitude of trust in your fellows who you take liberty to weary with supreme sanctimony.
_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Socrates didn’t usually answer questions so you are asking me to be interlocutor. This means you will be Socrates, which means most likely that you have something in mind. We will only know what that is through conversation. Is this is what you suggest?

I seriously doubt whether dialectic can be maintained over cyber space but I don’t mind partaking in an experiment to see if it can. However you also must be aware that dialectic is when both are willingly seeking a truth – a revealing of a profound obscurity. This is an unusual activity in our day and age, where the default attitude is to ‘win’ an argument. And even in Athens we only know of the reasonably successful attempts, nothing of those ground underfoot into the dust of the agora.

This was my initial antipathy: seeking to force an opponent into a contradiction for its own sake is not, as you know, dialectic, it’s what boys play. What is cathartic to the soul in contradicting a view that meant nothing to me in the first place?

So, if we are to play, how shall we do it? – if not, what is the point of the thread?

The ball, as ever, is in your court, David Tang.

__________________________________________________
Difference is the honourable bond between two self identities
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But, in the Parmenides, didn't Socrates introduce things peculiar to himself, and also, didn't he, rather candidly, answer quite a number of questions? I would say, the method most used by Socrates is only a part of the dialogues of Plato, and, further, is it not extrinsic, at bottom, to the soul's work of uncovering in the path it makes?

And so, we are brought to something which is not an old course, but for which no philosophic horoscope can have prepared us. Although, I would be the last to say, that for that reason, it deserves to be called what is new or has just now come forth.

_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Socrates was young and in the august presence of Parmenides, a man he revered, it is said.

The text tells us that he listened to Zeno to the end "and then asked". But this was not 'glasshoppah' talking to master Po. He was really questioning someone he didn't particularly seem to revere, putting his doctrine under severe stress.

The passage where he allows himself to be questioned is brief and atypical. Perhaps Plato wanted to give his own theory of Forms a workout.

However this is all by the by. Do you want to commence - my preferred choice - or shall I put up a subject that is at least approachable though in which I find a genuine perplexity?

_______________________________________________________
Pencils are sharpened, then sharpened again
But still the story does not begin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A man never will allow the august form of the “para-” doxa to become a mere commonplace and uncrowned matter, though he feign earnestly to seek its answer, he secretly wears the sign “cave canem”, for he has the scent of something remote. Since that is so, I bid that you question me on that score, when you are soon satisfied that I can not help there even somewhat, I will ask some questions of my own.

At first, however, maybe you would tell me, in passing, what designs you have on this subject matter?: Parmenides says: νοεῖν (nous) and εἶναι (being) are αὐτὸ (the same). Socrates, at the end of 131b, says the “φάναι (bringing to light), οἷον εἰ (of the sort we call) ἡμέρα (day)” in a physical sense, is like the eidos. But is Zeno’s metaphor quite in keeping: that of the sail? For one thing, a sail is of the same stuff as the bodies, it is a pragma, and it is phenomena. For another, it is of a definite size.

_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1120
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ἓν ἄρα ὂν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς καὶ χωρὶς οὖσιν ὅλον ἅμα ἐνέσται, καὶ οὕτως αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ χωρὶς ἂν εἴη.

“Then while it is one and the same, the whole of it would be in many separate individuals at once, and thus it would itself be separate from itself.” The Parmenides 131c

Can this be true?

Perhaps this shows Parmenides (not Zeno) to be near his sail by date, or perhaps he is throwing Socrates a curved ball. We do not know. Socrates' previous argument (following the above quote) "If it were like one and the same day, which is in many places at the same time" and paying the same onto Form, is a perfectly good answer. The sail, to be sure, has the defects you prescribe. But the dog ever remote is here Plato himself - a dog who conducts the chamber orchestra from the shadows. Why does he allow such an analogy O third man?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Tang



Joined: 20 Sep 2018
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

οὐκ ἄν, εἴ γε, φάναι, οἷον εἰ ἡμέρα εἴη μία καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ οὖσα πολλαχοῦ ἅμα ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον αὐτὴ αὑτῆς χωρίς ἐστιν, εἰ οὕτω καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν εἰδῶν ἓν ἐν πᾶσιν ἅμα ταὐτὸν εἴη.

“No,” he replied, “for it might be like day, which is one and the same, is in many places at once, and yet is not separated from itself; so each idea, though one and the same, might be in all its participants at once.”

He renders “φάναι οἷον εἰ ἡμέρα” “one and the same day”. φάναι means ‘bringing to light’. The bringing to light which is the kind [of thing] called day. “φάναι οἷον εἰ ἡμέρα” says: being is. It is active, coming or bringing to light.

I can understand Zeno/Parmenides when he/they uphold that the day is not on the whole, here, where each one stands. It is spread over all of us, and not whole in any place. But, the ‘coming to light’ is on the whole, here. If the whole coming to light weren't at each place, how could there be, for each of us, day? The translator misses the activity named. It is being. Zeno/Parmenides: the day. The translator says: one and the same day. Socrates says: Coming to light of day. That is: the day is. The “is”, in each place, is fully active.

Zeno does not grasp his teacher's discovery. Or, Plato denies it to them. There are further errors in the translation that follow. Or, do you say, translations of long standing must not be questioned so lightly? I see no "auto" (same) in "φάναι οἷον εἰ ἡμέρα".

---

ἓν ἄρα ὂν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς καὶ χωρὶς οὖσιν ὅλον ἅμα ἐνέσται, καὶ οὕτως αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ χωρὶς ἂν εἴη.

[131b] “Then while it is one and the same, the whole of it would be in many separate individuals at once, and thus it would itself be separate from itself.”


The translator lazily treats Socrates' statement as if it were the same, to auto, as the statements of his interlocutor, Parmenides, who may be exercising a certain irony.

_________________
Philosophy sees outside the hoop levitated by common sense; there it anxiously attacks itself recoiling in repugnance from rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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