Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

"Philosophyis a series of footnotes to Plato"

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 5:41:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The statement by Whitehead was used to mean that most of philosophy is just what Plato, and more generally Socrates' students, said. Thoughts?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:41:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The statement by Whitehead was used to mean that most of philosophy is just what Plato, and more generally Socrates' students, said. Thoughts?

Sounds like something that might be said of someone helping to create a subject of thought.

Paraconsistent logic? HEhe, we were just talking about that in another thread.

Hey, have you guys noticed that? I've suddenly noticed that once you become very involved in the more popular threads, the same subjects will be brought up by several people that seem to have no interaction and oblivious to the other conversation. It's almost as though a thought will spring up collectively, and several threads will be made from the various subjective interpretations of that thought.

Curious, that.

That would be something awesome to study, if we found more rigorous evidence.

Can anyone here apply an ANOVA? Lol.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 6:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Human civilization peaked at Plato, and we've been on the downside of the curve ever since. Technology is causing two problems for every one it solves. It would seem the more power we receive, the more corruption we sustain. In all facets.
Rob
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 7:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 6:34:55 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Human civilization peaked at Plato, and we've been on the downside of the curve ever since.

lolwut? I'm interested to see how you will defend this.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 7:41:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Idk how falsifiable this claim is. Even if its true it's not saying very much since obviously philosophical thought does not stop at Plato.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 7:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 6:34:55 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Human civilization peaked at Plato

Plato was insane.

and.. as to the topic.. Philosophy was before plato in greece... and was independent of plato completely in asia...

Now.. lots of ideas can find similarities in things plato, or his students, commented on... but it would be silly to give plato the credit for them... Especially the good ideas.. because plato's a nut ;)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 9:53:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pssht. The greek philosophers are overrated for the most part.

Buddha was ahead of all those dudes by thousands of years, and he lived around the same time. Chinese philosophy commonly attributed to Lao Tzu was also way ahead.

Socrates wasn't that bad, but the two I just mentioned make a lot of modern philosophers look like children.

Unfortunately, most who study philosophy are going to miss out on a lot of buddha philosophy because they can't separate it from religion.

The guy was a genius philosopher.

People have been rediscovering the same philosophies independently since people first had time to sit down to think.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 12:14:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 5:41:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The statement by Whitehead was used to mean that most of philosophy is just what Plato, and more generally Socrates' students, said. Thoughts?

The Fool: Honestly I started answer this question, I realized its must to complex to give a full answer on here. You really need to know you history, to understand the statement. But here is the short end of it.

This was a strong, assertion within the logical positive framework. And there is good reason behind the statement. Its mean to reflect a generality, which is has a lot of truth behind it. Because Socrates/Plato is the first Great Philosophers, in the sense that there any many good science but we say a great would somebody like Einstein, is one of the great. So being the first great in the original sense of philosophy. And so at his time so many questions are there for him to answer. Thus he ends up forming the foundation of philosophy.

Another important piece of information is that it the positivists most particularly Wittgenstein recognizes that many the problems in philosophy are illusions caused simply by inconsistencies language itself. (Wittgenstein thought all )That is where a push for a formal language, aka Logic language, becomes important. It's to get rid of linguistically problems when reasoning. You also have to take in account the "other guys", Continental/post-modernism which relies heavily on manipulating language rather than demonstration or logical argumentation. So it's that kind of philosophy they have in mind.

Another reason to make this reference is because many times by inconsistencies in language in history, questions re-emerge, that have already been asked and answered by Plato. That is, they appear as new but they are just different formulations of the same arguments.

The Fool in your cool.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 1:52:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with that is that even logic isn't a FOOLproof language. There is no such a thing.

Probably the closest we've come to that on an interpersonal level is mathematics.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 3:19:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 1:52:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Buddha was ahead of all those dudes by thousands of years, and he lived around the same time. Chinese philosophy commonly attributed to Lao Tzu was also way ahead.

Socrates wasn't that bad, but the two I just mentioned make a lot of modern philosophers look like children.

Unfortunately, most who study philosophy are going to miss out on a lot of buddha philosophy because they can't separate it from religion.

The guy was a genius philosopher.

People have been rediscovering the same philosophies independently since people first had time to sit down to think.

You have to taken into account BACK labeled of philosophy on non-western thinkers. That is the Greeks are the ones who put forward the concept of philosophy. And when we discover other forms of philosophy, it tends to be in the broadened sense of what the concept referred too., Over time the meaning of concept or word gets distorted over inconsistencies of use through the population and translations of language. The meanings get broadened until they become vague, and then they mean nothing in particular. That is why etymology is so important.

So what the Greeks meant by philosophy is to inquire critically, with precision too understand the world without appealing to supernatural. Socrates was told by an oracle (religiously person) that he was the wises man in Greece, but he didn't think he knew much at all. So he visited the people who were popular for wisdom and claimed to be the most wises in Greece. They were so proud to tell him about all the things that they know. What he noticed is that nobody ever mentioned what they didn't know. And thus becoming sceptical he became challenging people's extreme claims about knowledge. One of his techniques of course the Socratic Method, by getting people clearly accept a claim, and thus demonstrate that there other claim of knowledge leads to a contradiction, making it impossible for them to deny, because the openly accepted the original claim. This form of reasoning pushes civilization forward, and they hold now as they did then. They give and educateted society a protection from bullshi!t. That is, he cements the necessity of justification of knowledge. He is the one to put forward the standard of knowledge. JTB. That is not merely believes but justified True beliefs. And this still stands today, the quibbles in contemporary epistemology is more over the cut off line of when they beliefs are justified or not. And we all know who and for what reasons this quibbling is over.

That is I judge a good philosopher by their ability to justify their claim. One bold assertion is as good as the next. Buddha and others are very wise and genius, but they don't justify many of their own claims. They tend to be dictating there claims. Most of the justification comes from others in the future arguing in favour of their claims.

But Buddha's philosophy becomes religious, when it makes extreme claims of knowledge. It would be better called a theology rather than a philosophy but there is no god.(so we just don't have a name to separate it) Things like reincarnation, or that we don't really exist but rather we are illusion caused by our ego, and that should live a life in a Buddhist way so that this time when we die we do it permanently to rid us the suffering of desires of life is quite a claim. Enough to be called supernatural.

The technological advancement in western history stem from greek reasoning, most modern technology of the east owes credit to platonic mind set, including all modern science. it is just an expansion of natural philosophy, The term science is Jacked from philosophy, it is just and old term for knowledge, all studies in philsophy were called sciences. Its really important to understand how things get titled. You have to remember the general population is alway behind the what is going on at the time. In the age of modern science the difference in education was extreme. Only the rich could afford education. So most the population is really ignorant worst then any of todays, standard because they know even less. So its only when natural science(the philospohy) made progress that even the general population can see. Literally with thier "eyes". It is this way it became popular as The Science. Mind you only in ignorance of Philosophy. That is, the general population which causes warping of definitions. e.g. If define a concept right now, and send it in the population(if it becomes populare) it will over time come back distorted and people will it have thier personal subjective meanings of my concept.

That dictionary are not an a real authority but rather they are just reporting the common uses of the word. That is why there are many forms or meaning for the same word. Its not logical to have a word, mean more then one thing. It only causes confusion and hurts communication which is the purpose of language in the first place.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 4:21:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 1:52:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Cosmo: The problem with that is that even logic isn't a FOOLproof language.(why is that?) There is no such a thing. (why is that?)

The Fool: I will assume what I said was over your, head, because this wasn't' arguing for but giving a report of an argument. Look up the difference if you don't know.
To make your claim worth being considered to anyone else you need to demarcate why your claim is better than the claims my 80 year old Grandma makes now.

Cosmo: Probably the closest we've come to that on an interpersonal level is mathematics. (why is that?)

The Fool: This are simple to refute, but that's not the point I most interesting in making. One bold assertion is as good as good as the next.

Oh yeah. and she lived till she was 70.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 9:56:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Buddhism is a religion, but Buddha was a philosopher.

Even then, Buddha wasn't the first to discover the things he did. Anyone could come to the same conclusions by knowing themselves.

I don't worship the guy or hold his words as gospel, I just think that on a philosophical level, he was in a league above pretty much all of those greek dudes. They are overrated.

They had indigestion, you know. Can't be trusted with such matters of importance.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 6:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 3:19:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
the Greeks are the ones who put forward the concept of philosophy. And when we discover other forms of philosophy, it tends to be in the broadened sense of what the concept referred

False. The Buddha used the term "philosophy" and "philosopher" multiple times throughout Buddhist texts. He knew what philosophy was before the Greeks became popular for philosophy or at least in the same time period. The Buddha even came in contact with other philosophers and debated them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 12:01:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 6:01:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/29/2012 3:19:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
the Greeks are the ones who put forward the concept of philosophy. And when we discover other forms of philosophy, it tends to be in the broadened sense of what the concept referred

False. The Buddha used the term "philosophy" and "philosopher" multiple times throughout Buddhist texts. He knew what philosophy was before the Greeks became popular for philosophy or at least in the same time period. The Buddha even came in contact with other philosophers and debated them.

Its a translation of what they used it not necessarly the same thing. To call something the same name is irrelevent of it being the same things. The transation of buddha into English was way later after the greeks. Probably at least 16OO's When the orginal term loosened from its origical greek meaning. That is why I said BACK Labeling. Because things get label biasly based on the understanding of a later time and different cultures But it may not be the same thing. because the words get distorted. .you have to remember its already passed through greek, culture and language Then to Latin, we get the darkages(barbarian invasion) all knowlegde get lost but is maintaned in the to Muslims north africa, then Then in the renasance back to euroup to italians during the renassance and then then throgh french and german to english. right? then from english BACK LABELED through 3000 years of different indian langauges to buddah. From 1600's english to what changes on what is philsophy now. its not all the same. Kiergard through continental through post-modernism have absolutly nothing do with wisdom, it jsut a bunch opinions. there is not longer arguements or supports there is hardly and different then just plan literature. It just the way they name philosophy(Then name) got spread out, its the philsohpy of science and analytic philosphy that are part of quest for knowledge tradition.

Back labeling tends to distort our history in favour of the curture retelling the story.
They tend stick thier values where they didnt' exist, and make things in their favour, most of our history is completly distorted.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:06:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
While you are correct technically, Buddha does fit the contemporary definition of a philosopher.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 6:53:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:06:12 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
While you are correct technically, Buddha does fit the contemporary definition of a philosopher.

The Fool: yes.. that is exacly what I am saying. Out of all people I didn't you would get is. Yes he does fit the contemporay definitinon
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:07:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 6:53:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/5/2012 10:06:12 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
While you are correct technically, Buddha does fit the contemporary definition of a philosopher.


The Fool: yes.. that is exacly what I am saying. Out of all people I didn't you would get is. Yes he does fit the contemporay definitinon

So what I was getting at to you, is that to compare them as better or worse in such a way in to compare apple and oranges, where they are both fruits but not he same types or fruits. Its just that there is not, but should be, a catagorical system in the style of philosohpy. Not having one causes us to see them as speaking within the same dialogue when they are not.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL