Why did Ancient Greek philosophy die?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:33 am
@nameless,
nameless;69555 wrote:
In the history of western 'thought', perhaps...


You obviously have no experience in any 'mystical practice'.
What gives you the notion that ignorance is a sufficient foundation for such an exclamation?
I consider the most fruitful and beautiful manifestation of ignorance might be a well considered question or two... the least so, declarative statements.

Greek philosophy is obsolete through lack of correlation with revealed reality.
It 'suffocated' (lack of 'truth') after (unfortunately) screwing western civilization.
After a couple of millennia, I say good riddance!

Amen... And if it comes back we'll shoot it...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:46 am
@Theages,
Theages;68042 wrote:
Plato was not interested in free and independent thought. He was a known consort of tyrants. He, like all of us, wanted to rule over all men and to be a god, but he lacked the courage to admit it.
I wonder if that's really true. The Republic would make you think so, but I've always wondered if he wrote it with some irony -- in other words, the irony that a morally perfect system would be absolutely repulsive.

What do academics think about it? Did he really believe that that would be an ideal society?
 
Extra Gravy
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:53 am
@nameless,
nameless;69555 wrote:
You obviously have no experience in any 'mystical practice'...


--
Yanhui, a pupil of Confucius, said "I have made some gain." Confucius asked, "What do you mean?" Yanhui replied, "I forgot virtue and justice." Confucius commented, "Good, but not enough." After some time, he said to Confucius again, "I made further gain." "What is it?" "I forgot civility and music." "Good, but still not enough." Several days later, he said to Confucius once more, "I have made an even greater gain." Confucius asked, "What is it?" Yanhui replied, "I reached 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Amazed Confucius asked, "What is 'Sitting in Oblivion'?" Yanhui answered, "It is forgetting hands, feet and body, forgetting the action of ears and eyes, leaving the distinction of form to discard wisdom and becoming one with Tao. This is 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Confucius praised, "When someone becomes one with Tao, there is no good nor evil. After undergoing transformation into becoming one with Tao, there is no attachment. Wise indeed. Now it is I who should be your follower instead."
--

The term "Oblivion" can be used in a meaningful, knowledgeable and respectful way. Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion and related eastern practices as he applied them to his Christian faith, and many other mystical practicioners have as well, for example the mystical work "The Cloud of Unknowning". There is no good reason to assume ignorance on Eudaimon's part. There is every reason to give each other the benefit of the doubt.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 09:00 am
@jgweed,
Quote:

jgweed;69467 wrote:
"Yet he stood with the rich who dailly buy and sell the poor... I must wonder..."

Everyone knows how much Plato (and others who actually new him) idolized Socrates. One finds it hard to believe that he would side with the kinds of people who found him guilty.

Well let's see... Maybe Socrates was like a mirror, and everyone who looked at him saw themselves... They all found justification for their own particular desires in life, so what good was he???If you stop at what they can pin on him, that knowledge is virtue, then there is no justification for doing anything, because no one will ever know enough to act knowing they do good.... As far as siding with those who killed Socrates; it was the democrats who did that, and he in his contempt for democracy lost ground in the penalty phase, and he knew it...He gave them the opportunity to act like essholes by being stiff necked, so it is difficult to say which side was the greater esses...Personally, in his own behavior he did little that was beyond reproach, but in his teaching he aimed contumely at the democracy...Okay; what if there was a better way of picking leaders than by a colored bean... Wasn't the correct approach to attack the power of fate in men's live's rather than attacking people???.The evidence for fate is so overwhelming that people are inclined to abandon themselves to it... It was certainly powerful among the Greeks... The Jews who have no faith in fate picked up the Greek blessing Mazzeltov: May your stars be favorable...People of Socrates' time could well see that traditional rights were their only protection from the avarice of the rich, and Socrates was by no means the worst of the anti democrats... The fact is, that while the Greeks were very aware of surrounding peoples, they could not see the remnants of gentile social organization in their own democracy... Since it did not protect people from extremes of wealth or poverty, nor bring forth the best rulers, it had from the perspective of both sides much to be desired...Instead of attacking the form they attacked each other...
Quote:
In some respects, all philosophers are creature of their own times. It seems difficult to condemn Plato for not having read Locke just as it seems difficult to condemn Jesus for not speaking out for gay rights or cruelty to animals.
You can read almost anything into Jesus, and that was one of his successes... Read as a philosopher, he is the equal of Socrates... The difference is that he could see through the form to the relationship, between people, and between man and God... And his remark about an ass in a well does illustrate a certain concern for life as well as property..It may well be that an ass alive is better help than an ass dead, and it could be that he was seeing through the form, that the law was made for man, and not man made for law.. The law and Jewish tradition shows a lot of respect for the life of animals, and they will be judged upon their treatment of animals...Socrates gave comfort to the rich and the oligarchs...They were kept from making war on each other by the form, but the rich held the form is nearly complete contempt, and the rich continued to feed on the poor until they sucked the vitality out of their society along with their ability to defend themselves...

Quote:
One of the fundamental, and untimely, positions of Plato is that Truth can be obtained by reason, even by a slave. That reason is common to all men and that anyone can arrive at the truth surely opened the way for subsequent doctrines of equality....


I do not know if this statement can be justified...The example of a slave having knowledge was a metaphysical argument as I understand it... It was St. Paul and the Christians who first brought forth the idea of all men equal in the eyes of God... It was the Roman Law of Nations, the beginning of natural law, through the agency of a man who was himself a slave -as I understand it, who put forth the idea that all Nations are equal...All people are more or less reasonable...It was said of the Iroquois that they never went on the war path without a plan...It was their America express, and I have found them to be an intelligent people, good humored and witty...Yet all people, even today think their lives are guided by fate... I marvel at my self wishing my wife good luck going on some adventure... My last daughter's middle name is Tychi, the Greek Goddess, fortune, since she was not planned...Yet the grip of fortune on us is not nearly that as on the peoples of the past, because they had that much less control over their circumstances...Well, our control is only slightly more given the vagaries of fate and human failings... WE have more control over our environment, and consequently less need for self control...Human freedom as we conceive of it is damaging and dangerous, and even, likely to be suicidal for our society... Knowledge is not good... People are good because it is natural to society, but goodness is not the result of reason...Look at the Republic...Can we imagine good coming out of such a society...Did good ever come out of the catholic church whose hierarchy mirrors in some respect the republic's hierarchy???We cannot reproduce natural relaionships with relationships created by reason....We can tell that our families, a natural relationship is not static as reason would make it, and at times is held together only by affection. It is this affection between people, the relationship, that is the good in any form...

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

Extra Gravy;69588 wrote:
--
Yanhui, a pupil of Confucius, said "I have made some gain." Confucius asked, "What do you mean?" Yanhui replied, "I forgot virtue and justice." Confucius commented, "Good, but not enough." After some time, he said to Confucius again, "I made further gain." "What is it?" "I forgot civility and music." "Good, but still not enough." Several days later, he said to Confucius once more, "I have made an even greater gain." Confucius asked, "What is it?" Yanhui replied, "I reached 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Amazed Confucius asked, "What is 'Sitting in Oblivion'?" Yanhui answered, "It is forgetting hands, feet and body, forgetting the action of ears and eyes, leaving the distinction of form to discard wisdom and becoming one with Tao. This is 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Confucius praised, "When someone becomes one with Tao, there is no good nor evil. After undergoing transformation into becoming one with Tao, there is no attachment. Wise indeed. Now it is I who should be your follower instead."
--

The term "Oblivion" can be used in a meaningful, knowledgeable and respectful way. Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion and related eastern practices as he applied them to his Christian faith, and many other mystical practicioners have as well, for example the mystical work "The Cloud of Unknowning". There is no good reason to assume ignorance on Eudaimon's part. There is every reason to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

You know; I think Ho chi Minh commented that we were fighting in vietnam for essentially spiriitual values while they were fighting for traditionally western materialist values...

I do not think the object of life is the denial of life, of sense and of experience, of emotion, or of dream...We may have the luxury of turning away from our own existence, but if we look we may see others are slaving for our purely spiritual experience...What we should desire is that all people can enjoy their lives, and can turn on their senses without sensing so much of pain... People retreat into spirituality...It is because the forms of our lives are so painful, unrewarding, and unforgiving...I will be the last to tell you primitive peoples in the small communities did not know much jealousy, anger, or avarice... None of our forms have been perfect... But primitve forms were more supportive, and gave to people the means to vent and reconcile as ours does not..
.None of us lives a second longer denying life for a death before death...No one can prove a spiritual existence even though we universally accept it... Most of our values are spiritual values, which we know as moral forms: Peace, Justice, Love, Freedom, and etc. if these were not essential to life they would have no objective proof what so ever...
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 03:30 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;69586 wrote:
I wonder if that's really true. The Republic would make you think so, but I've always wondered if he wrote it with some irony -- in other words, the irony that a morally perfect system would be absolutely repulsive.

What do academics think about it? Did he really believe that that would be an ideal society?

He actually did associate with a Syracusan tyrant. This is not an inference from any dialogue, it is biographical information.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 05:44 pm
@Extra Gravy,
Extra Gravy;69588 wrote:
--
Yanhui, a pupil of Confucius, said "I have made some gain." Confucius asked, "What do you mean?" Yanhui replied, "I forgot virtue and justice." Confucius commented, "Good, but not enough." After some time, he said to Confucius again, "I made further gain." "What is it?" "I forgot civility and music." "Good, but still not enough." Several days later, he said to Confucius once more, "I have made an even greater gain." Confucius asked, "What is it?" Yanhui replied, "I reached 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Amazed Confucius asked, "What is 'Sitting in Oblivion'?" Yanhui answered, "It is forgetting hands, feet and body, forgetting the action of ears and eyes, leaving the distinction of form to discard wisdom and becoming one with Tao. This is 'Sitting in Oblivion.'" Confucius praised, "When someone becomes one with Tao, there is no good nor evil. After undergoing transformation into becoming one with Tao, there is no attachment. Wise indeed. Now it is I who should be your follower instead."
--

Yes, I understand the meaning. 'Oblivion' can be understood 'differently'.

Quote:
The term "Oblivion" can be used in a meaningful, knowledgeable and respectful way. Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion and related eastern practices as he applied them to his Christian faith, and many other mystical practicioners have as well, for example the mystical work "The Cloud of Unknowning". There is no good reason to assume ignorance on Eudaimon's part. There is every reason to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

It was the context of his usage of the term that supported my assessment of his inexperience. My 'doubt' was sufficiently negligible that i posted as I did.
I would be very surprised if I am incorrect in my assumption.
Who engages in mystical practices, with 'oblivion' as a goal? None in 'my' experience.
'Oblivion', as in the above quote, is not 'nothingness', it is Consciousness, far from the common notion of 'oblivion'.
But you do make a point.
Thanx.

Quote:
Meister Eckhart found his way to understand Oblivion

If 'oblivion' is nothingness, there is no 'understanding' of 'nothingness'.
But I do not care to get into a semantical tangent, and he is not here to 'elucidate'.

I do like his quote;
"God cannot know himself without me."
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 05:50 pm
@Theages,
Theages;69715 wrote:
He actually did associate with a Syracusan tyrant. This is not an inference from any dialogue, it is biographical information.

And an elitist philosopher over thrower of tyrants who quickly ended at the point of a sword.....You got to walk on one side of the street or the other... When the world is divided into haves and not haves, you better pick sides, and stick with your own... Being the second tyrant in a row is a risky business... They say the second liar never has a chance... The conditions that allow one man to come to power seldom hold for another... But; if it were me being the giant killer, I get him safely buried and depart a hero... Sticking around while people sort out their grievances leaves a guy all hung out... Better good sense then, than the best philosophy...It is hard to get hung when no one can get a hold on your neck... That'd be me...
 
Extra Gravy
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:20 pm
@Theages,
Theages;68042 wrote:
Don't generalize -- Plato was not interested in free and independent thought. He was a known consort of tyrants. He, like all of us, wanted to rule over all men and to be a god, but he lacked the courage to admit it.


Plato did not wish to rule, he turned down invitations to participate in governance extended by his friends and family (reference). He was disgusted by self serving and divisive politics.

Plato grew up with the terror and waste of civil war, and it seems most likely that his desire for harmony and order, stability, are expressed in The Republic not his desire for godhood but instead his desire to thrive and for his fellow citizens to thrive.
 
Theages
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 11:02 pm
@Extra Gravy,
Extra Gravy;69772 wrote:
Plato did not wish to rule, he turned down invitations to participate in governance extended by his friends and family (reference). He was disgusted by self serving and divisive politics.

Plato grew up with the terror and waste of civil war, and it seems most likely that his desire for harmony and order, stability, are expressed in The Republic not his desire for godhood but instead his desire to thrive and for his fellow citizens to thrive.

"self serving and divisive politics" = democracy

He was disgusted by democracy and preferred rule by the few. This can be seen both theoretically in the rigid theocratic caste system proposed in the Republic and practically in his cozying up to tyranny.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:52 am
@nameless,
nameless;69732 wrote:
It was the context of his usage of the term that supported my assessment of his inexperience. My 'doubt' was sufficiently negligible that i posted as I did.
I would be very surprised if I am incorrect in my assumption.
Who engages in mystical practices, with 'oblivion' as a goal? None in 'my' experience.
'Oblivion', as in the above quote, is not 'nothingness', it is Consciousness, far from the common notion of 'oblivion'.
But you do make a point.
Thanx.


First of all, I did not express any personal opinion on mystical practice and that was said only to express the position of Soviet scientists.
I doubt that this thread is appropriate for discussion of mysticism, but I can say a few words on this. I shall not tell thee whether or not I have mystical experiences, and let us stop using them as an argument. Paraphrasing Nietzsche I should say: There are no mystical phenomena, there is mystical interpretation of phenomena.
Why do we need new experiences at all, hast thou never thought of it? Why do we need new sexual experience, mystical experience, transcendental experience, why are we going overseas to have new experiences? Is it not because our life has become so disgusting and miserable that we cannot be satisfied with common to every human being reason which Greek philosophy represented? So we start seeking whom to believe (because generally we don't have this "experiences" from birth). Yet our choice of guru, our belief in him are always conditioned, predetermined by our past...
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 06:01 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;69828 wrote:
First of all, I did not express any personal opinion on mystical practice and that was said only to express the position of Soviet scientists.

I was under the impression that you were speaking your own mind. I saw no atribution. My criticism of such a fascile dismissal remains valid even if it cannot be taken personally. It was you who offered their(?) words, obviously you were not disagreeing with them.
And do they all dismiss it so easily? Are you truly expressing the "position of [all] Soviet scientists" as you claim?
But, moving on...

Quote:
I doubt that this thread is appropriate for discussion of mysticism, but I can say a few words on this. I shall not tell thee whether or not I have mystical experiences, and let us stop using them as an argument.

Okey dokey.

Quote:
Why do we need new experiences at all, hast thou never thought of it?

What's with the "hast thou"? Have we gone all medieval now?
I wouldst respondomondo that we have new experiences as every moment presents a unique view (Perspective) of the Universe, and we Conscious Perspectives are all unique, every moment/percept.
Some feel that they 'need' this, but, psychological processes aside, it happens anyway, like it or no.

Quote:
Why do we need new sexual experience, mystical experience, transcendental experience, why are we going overseas to have new experiences? Is it not because our life has become so disgusting and miserable that we cannot be satisfied with common to every human being reason which Greek philosophy represented?

As I said.
And I'd rather not get into the ignorance and damage that Greek 'philosophy' has inculcated in the west. Finally we can hear it's death gurgle, brought about by QM and other modern sciences. Good riddance.

Quote:
So we start seeking whom to believe (because generally we don't have this "experiences" from birth). Yet our choice of guru, our belief in him are always conditioned, predetermined by our past...

I disagree that 'we' intentionally seek that which to 'believe'. It is not a logical matter but a psychological one, an 'egoic' matter.
And 'we' all do not harbor 'beliefs'; I, for one, do not.
(and no, I do not 'believe' that, just in case you cannot refrain from stating the obvious)
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 06:10 am
@Extra Gravy,
Extra Gravy;69772 wrote:
Plato did not wish to rule, he turned down invitations to participate in governance extended by his friends and family (reference). He was disgusted by self serving and divisive politics.

Plato grew up with the terror and waste of civil war, and it seems most likely that his desire for harmony and order, stability, are expressed in The Republic not his desire for godhood but instead his desire to thrive and for his fellow citizens to thrive.

If he had wanted his society to survive he would have bought more stock in Justice which no society can long survive without...Instead he took the side of the rich against the poor, and saw his society divided along that axis until they were ruined by war and invasion...People do it all the time...They want to be king of the crap hill, which is what kings are always, by being kings...If they chose to be good among good, or great among great, or honorable among honorable; where would be the problem???.. To have they must deny, and when they deny they add to the indignity of life until the poor will not make common cause with the rich even when they should... How are we being divide???..Have we learned a single lesson from the Greeks or Romans???
 
Extra Gravy
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 06:50 am
@Theages,
Theages;69816 wrote:
"self serving and divisive politics" = democracy

He was disgusted by democracy and preferred rule by the few. This can be seen both theoretically in the rigid theocratic caste system proposed in the Republic and practically in his cozying up to tyranny.


1.) I did not assert that he was a fan of democracy
2.) I do not disagree that his system was caste based
3.) I do not dispute that he was friendly with tyrants

None of these points address or impact the assertions in my post so I do not see how this is a response to something I said.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

Fido;69862 wrote:
If he had wanted his society to survive he would have bought more stock in Justice which no society can long survive without...Instead he took the side of the rich against the poor, and saw his society divided along that axis until they were ruined by war and invasion...People do it all the time...They want to be king of the crap hill, which is what kings are always, by being kings...If they chose to be good among good, or great among great, or honorable among honorable; where would be the problem???.. To have they must deny, and when they deny they add to the indignity of life until the poor will not make common cause with the rich even when they should... How are we being divide???..Have we learned a single lesson from the Greeks or Romans???


Do you assert that Plato did not want his own society to survive?

Do you assert that Plato wanted to be King?

Is this a disagreement with my post or about something else? If its a disagreement could you be more specific about where you felt I have gone wrong?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 06:58 am
@Theages,
Theages;69816 wrote:
"self serving and divisive politics" = democracy

He was disgusted by democracy and preferred rule by the few. This can be seen both theoretically in the rigid theocratic caste system proposed in the Republic and practically in his cozying up to tyranny.


Democracy is self government... There, the self is governed as much as governs, and the people know as much self control as control of government... There is a reason primitives are as communistic as democratic... When all risk all they should enjoy tegether what they gain... Engles was right in the Origens of the Family that chiefs and raiding led to divided societies and states, my paraphrase...The led to inequality of wealth; and inquality of rewards thet when once are made heriditary ruin the whole economy of honor, the democracy, and the equality upon which it depends... Now; Plato was not saying that the rich were the better, but it is implied, I think...He was looking for a philosopher king...What Napoleon said in labeling those who study ideas, Ideologues, would have been useful... There are men of thought and men of action, and seldom enough are they the same...He also thought as Socrates that virtue could be taught... The reason primitives are so virtuous among their own is that virtue grows out of gentile relationships...It is learned before anything else, and without being specifically taught...The fact is that ineqaulity and injustice in a land unteaches what gentile society teaches... Inequality teaches that justice and each man's welfare is his own lookout, and that he cannot count on society to provide relief...
You cannot expect vice in any measure to lead to virtue...

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

Extra Gravy;69867 wrote:
1.) I did not assert that he was a fan of democracy
2.) I do not disagree that his system was caste based
3.) I do not dispute that he was friendly with tyrants

None of these points address or impact the assertions in my post so I do not see how this is a response to something I said.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------



Quote:
Do you assert that Plato did not want his own society to survive?

You cannot both want to change society and want it to survive unchanged...There are a lot of people who wave the flag and think America is the greatest who do not like what we are, what we stand for, their rights, or their next door neighbors... What does it matter what such people say since they do not tell the truth... The think patriotism is a virtue, so they play the part... Was Socrates, as Plato gives him to us pro Atherns, or pro Spartan....Did he respect the rights of the citizens??? i don't think so...Like so many; he held the common man in contempt... Why should the uneducated hold power in their lives...In our own land two hundred years after our revolution the poor are denied power because they are uneducated, and denied education because they have no power to demand it...
Quote:
Do you assert that Plato wanted to be King?


Yes; he advanced the idea of a meritocracy, thinking the intelligent should rule... But look at our meritocracies: The Catholic Church, and eighteenth and nineteenth century England....Could the intelligent really change the course of any form, or do they only get caught up in it??? It did not matter how many intelligent people the church added to their roles because the control the church had over them made them conform...The failure is in the idea of rule, that anyone can better decide for you what is in your interest...And as bad is the notion that only the individual should have control over his own affairs... Sure... Have all the freedom you want until it begins to affect others negatively, and then they have a say...

Quote:
Is this a disagreement with my post or about something else? If its a disagreement could you be more specific about where you felt I have gone wrong?

I don't feel it was exactly a disagreement... Something like an addition..
 
Extra Gravy
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 08:30 am
@Fido,
Fido;69862 wrote:
If he had wanted his society to survive...


Fido;69870 wrote:
You cannot both want to change society and want it to survive unchanged...


When you talked about the survival of his society in the first quote which is a more accurate way of reading your meaning:
1.) Survival vs. Ruin
2.) Survival vs. Change
 
Theages
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:03 am
@Extra Gravy,
Extra Gravy;69867 wrote:
1.) I did not assert that he was a fan of democracy
2.) I do not disagree that his system was caste based
3.) I do not dispute that he was friendly with tyrants

None of these points address or impact the assertions in my post so I do not see how this is a response to something I said.

You said that Plato did not wish to rule. This is not true. He did wish to rule. He wanted to set forth a system in which a few people command and control most people and he tried to make friends with the kind of people who presumably would have been at the top. The fact that he didn't try to make it to the top himself is irrelevant, as he was a sniveling coward who obviously wouldn't have had the courage to attain his own desires.

He had visions of totalitarian grandeur and he was a friend of tyrants. What else would it take to prove that he wanted to rule?
 
Jay phil
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:31 am
@Theages,


I am unaware of this aspect of Plato/Socrates life.
Can you please show what "tyrants" you are talking about and in what context you feel Plato/Socrates supported them and befriended them. I would like to get clear on this.

Thanks
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:43 am
@Theages,
Theages;69894 wrote:
You said that Plato did not wish to rule. This is not true. He did wish to rule. He wanted to set forth a system in which a few people command and control most people and he tried to make friends with the kind of people who presumably would have been at the top. The fact that he didn't try to make it to the top himself is irrelevant, as he was a sniveling coward who obviously wouldn't have had the courage to attain his own desires.

He visions of totalitarian grandeur and he was a friend of tyrants. What else would it take to prove that he wanted to rule?

I would say he was for aristocracy, and wanted rule of the best... Was he a coward??? I doubt it...He tried to get reason to rule people and those people with the best reason to rule...Dionysius the great did not only send him packing, but into slavery... He did not do that for money but to teach the punk a lesson, and it is possible that Plato drew a correlation between the tyranny of tyrants and the tyranny of a vicious people, as Aristippus seems to describe them....I don't think he wanted to rule...As I understand it; He justly discouraged Dion in his adventure in Syracuse...I do think he wanted to govern, and to mold the people to his will...He saw the people as imperfect stuff... From my perspective you have to build it with the crew you've got... Imperfection is the reality, and as such, it is the forms in our lives that we must change, and it is the forms in life that fail because of human imperfection, and so the form must again be changed...
Plato was not an anthroplogist, a sociologist, a psychologist, or an historian; or any of the disciplines which grew out of philosophy...He did not know enough about his own world, or about humanity... He questioned the forms of the past without understanding their significance... He was not a bad man... He was little more than a blind man, but his intent was never bad, and it is unlikely that good would have come out of his plan, knowing what we now know...

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

Jay;69895 wrote:


I am unaware of this aspect of Plato/Socrates life.
Can you please show what "tyrants" you are talking about and in what context you feel Plato/Socrates supported them and befriended them. I would like to get clear on this.

Thanks

I just read a double biography called Plato and Dionysius, by a Ludwig Marcus...Plato spent a short time with Donysius the Great, and a much longer time trying to reform his Dionysius the lttle, when he took power after his father...It was the threat, and the promise of these two tyrants which dominated the world after Socrates, and in effect bent the whole world view and social philosophy of Plato... Consider the words of Nietzsche as quoted in this Book: "We ought to regard him not as the author of a philosophical system in vita umbratica, but rather as a political agitator determined to turn the whole world upside down."... If you want for a latin dictionary, I think that is latin for a protected life, life in the shade...
Another good book is The Trial of Socrates... I don't know the author off hand...
 
Theages
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:25 pm
@Fido,
Jay;69895 wrote:
I am unaware of this aspect of Plato/Socrates life.
Can you please show what "tyrants" you are talking about and in what context you feel Plato/Socrates supported them and befriended them. I would like to get clear on this.

You can read an account of it in the Diogenes Laertius biography of Plato. I don't have a copy on hand, so I can't give specific citations, sorry.


Fido;69896 wrote:
He was not a bad man... He was little more than a blind man, but his intent was never bad, and it is unlikely that good would have come out of his plan, knowing what we now know...

He was a terrible man, a monster among the Athenians. He attempted to subvert every noble instinct in Hellas and he succeeded. Do you think it was a coincidence that he was educated by Egyptian mystics?
 
Jay phil
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:18 pm
@Theages,
Thanks for the references to my questions; I will look in to them.

Are there any hints or references to this like-mindedness to tyrants in any of Plato/Socrates 35 dialogues or letters?

Thanks
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 03:25:16