01-26-2004, 02:59 AM | #1 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
Philo.
So this may or may sound stupid but whatever
So i'm taking my first philosophy course in unisersity this semester. I'm currently reading Plato's "The Republic". It's interesting and all.. the arguements i've never thought of.. but does anyone else find it a big, long, long, long puzzle. Any hints on what I should really be focusing on throughout the book? Thank yas |
01-26-2004, 09:17 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
I think philosophy generally amounts to an intellectually masturbatory exercise where no one really learns anything useful because everybody is too busy patting themselves on the back. I think most philosophical arguments can be ended with a simple "So what?" It is a good way to develop abstract reasoning skills though.
|
01-26-2004, 02:11 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: Somewhere between Arborea and Bytopia
|
I seriously disagree with filtherton but in a way he's got a point. There's a difference between philosophy and speculation, and Plato sometimes crosses it. I find it helps to always ask yourself "Can this be logically proven?" and "If this were true, how would it affect how I live my life?" Don't give Plato's writing more credit than it deserves just because it's Plato.... everything can be analyzed on its intrinsic merits alone.
__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson |
01-27-2004, 11:35 AM | #4 (permalink) |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
The Republic can either be understood as primarily political or primarily ethical -- that is, mostly concerned with the ideal state or mostly concerned with the ideal person. Personally, I tend to read it in the second way, because it's more interesting that way. For this, the discussion of the different personalities is important.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
01-27-2004, 11:34 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Guest
|
I was in your position. I took 2 philo courses- western and religion and I sure did take it seriously and pondered every theory. I felt more lost than I did before, but I loved it, because then I reflected on everything I learned and found what my Truth was from that. It's all in the heart what feels true to you.
My suggestion to you is this: Listen to/read and ponder everything. Be open to it all. Listen. Ask questions if you have them, don't be afraid to. Oh, and...........listen. Seriously- "a wise person asks & listens / the fool who constantly speaks never learns." |
01-31-2004, 11:23 AM | #9 (permalink) | |
Still fighting it.
|
Quote:
Maybe there's another board that caters for your interests better? |
|
01-31-2004, 11:37 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Upright
|
Quote:
__________________
The unexamined life is not worth living. |
|
01-31-2004, 05:39 PM | #11 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
1. they'll never be ably to conclusively prove, 2. they'll probably never be able to get someone from the oposing viewpoint to agree with them, if they didnt enjoy it? I also mentioned the value of philosophical disussion for developing abstract reasoning skills. Quote:
So let me change my above statement. Quote:
|
|||
01-31-2004, 06:10 PM | #12 (permalink) | |
Illusionary
|
Quote:
oh well......so what.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
|
02-01-2004, 07:36 AM | #15 (permalink) |
Still fighting it.
|
I have to agree with my man Parkhurst here, there's nothing in the world you can prove conclusively. As Karl Popper puts it, all knowledge is conjecture and refutation.
I personally believe that philosophy is the primary discipline. It is the bedrock on which all other sciences and arts are built. And not only that, it gives you the ability to turn back on those sciences and arts and deconstruct them. To say philosophical arguments don't have any meaning is ridiculous. In terms of changing the way you live your life, perhaps not, but I have never felt my mind so stretched as it was the day I tried to grapple with Immanuel Kant's theory of time. It was the mental equivalent of Marine Corps boot camp. I certainly think I'm a better person for having studied philosophy, and despite the apparent futility of the questions that can't be answered, I think it has an awful lot to tell us about ourselves and the world we've built. |
02-01-2004, 10:39 AM | #16 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Okay, does anyone remember where i said "most"?
I don't know, it seems like you folks are coming at me like i said that all philosophy is useless and a waste of time. If you read what i posted you would see that that is not at all what i said. I said most philosophical discussions are a waste of time because both sides are more concerned with being right than they are with devining any kind of knowledge. Are you trying to claim that that isn't the case? What is going on in this thread right now? Quote:
Second, doesn't calling out me out for the use of "so what" as a "typical" cop-out argument and then shortly thereafeter using the "well, you can't really conclusively prove anything" seem a little ironic to you? One says an argument isn't valuable because it is irrelevant, the other says an argument is invalid because, you know, we'll never really know. Both sound like "typical criticisms of philosophy that people bring up, usually when they can't think of a worthwhile argument." Last edited by filtherton; 02-01-2004 at 06:20 PM.. |
|
02-02-2004, 09:32 AM | #19 (permalink) | ||||
Upright
|
Quote:
Quote:
Even however, were it an argument, then at no point does it fall into the pitch of the ‘typical’ that I chose to label the phrase ‘so what?’ with. The phrase ‘so what?’ is stated to be the appropriate answer to most philosophical arguments, where as the question ‘what can you conclusively prove?’ is in keeping with, and relevant to, the discussion at hand. I also don’t feel that there is anything vaguely ironic contained in its use. Quote:
With the first outlined premise 'they'll never be able to conclusively prove,' I would question what is 'conclusive proof,' and is it necessary to deem a discussion valued beyond enjoyment? The second premise of 'they'll probably never be able to get someone from the oposing (sic) viewpoint to agree with them,' leaves me again asking why this is a measure that validates an argument beyond enjoyment? If these are the two required points that bring relevance over mere enjoyment then is it reasonable to aim them solely at philosophy? Isn’t every argument and discussion, in every form of learning, susceptible to this very standard? A point that tecoyah made in an earlier post. To answer the question that you seem to be posing of 'why to argue if they didn't enjoy?' I think that the first reason is that it is required for passing the course. Perhaps the best reason of all to argue is so that you can gain insight into your own ideas. Rather than seeing arguing as worthwhile if it changes someone else’s view, maybe the greatest reward is that you can change your own. Certainly in the very least to have to amend an argument to make it stronger is surely worthwhile beyond enjoyment. Quote:
Of all the philosophical arguments that I have come across I am not sure that any of them could be ended with a 'so what?' simple or otherwise. The only thing that is ended in a philosophical argument with the words 'so what?' is the part you take in it, and the illusion that you understood it in the first place. The fact that you seem to find no value, or take no value from philosophy other than abstract reasoning skills, may be a measure of your inability to find such value. It is not however reasonable to assume that they are not present. As an aside while I find this discussion truly fascinating I am not sure how Unga may feel about this post being hijacked? Might I suggest that we continue our discussions on a new thread? However while I am totally able to argue and discuss philosophical points I will have to leave the technical duty of such in the hands of others. Btw Unga do you have a question that you are writing your paper on? I personally have only touched on Plato in Aesthetic philosophy and would love to hear any of the ideas that you are looking at. I am also sure that others on this board will have studied Plato and could give deeper insight to the discussion.
__________________
The unexamined life is not worth living. Last edited by Parkhurst; 02-02-2004 at 09:37 AM.. |
||||
02-05-2004, 11:02 AM | #20 (permalink) |
Upright
|
Anyone who wants to further discuss the merits of philosophy can do so on the thread that is now titled ‘Is most philosophy useless speculation.’ Remain here for more relevant topic on Plato’s republic.
__________________
The unexamined life is not worth living. |
02-08-2004, 12:36 PM | #21 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
Thanks for making a new thread Parkhurst.
Ok, back to the republic. In book I, at the end of Plato's debate with Polemarchus, Plato says that the definition of justice being helping one's friends and hurting one's enemies must come from "someone else of wealth and arrogance". Does anyone know why this is? For no reason at all I'm wondering if it relates back to the conversation Plato had earlier with Cephalus about money helping him be just (telling the trust and paying one's debts).. soo how he has the money to buy things for sacrifices. Thoughts anyone? Thank you |
02-09-2004, 02:16 AM | #22 (permalink) |
don't ignore this-->
Location: CA
|
to be fair, the Republic was dictated by Socrates, and written by Plato. Giving Plato credit for the Republic is like giving a stenographer credit for an attorney's clothing statements, or more appropriately, giving all the credit to a student who took notes on his professor's lecture.
The Republic is a thick read, the best way to attack it is to take it step by step, and thoroughly analyze what you're reading. take notes!
__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman. |
02-10-2004, 10:37 AM | #23 (permalink) |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
That's not quite right, bermuda. It was based on the philosophy of Socrates, though not nearly as much as the early dialogues (it belongs to Plato's 'middle period'), but it's final form owes at least as much, if not more, to Plato than to Socrates.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
02-11-2004, 11:13 AM | #26 (permalink) |
Americow, the Beautiful
Location: Washington, D.C.
|
I read this for my freshman seminar that was taught using a new pedagogy a professor at my college came up with. We played Ancient Greece as a game and were assigned roles with objectives that, if achieved, would mean winning the game (and a half grade bonus ). The roles were divided into factions (Socratics, Radical Democrats, Moderate Democrats and Oligarchs) each with their own special interests, and a faction-sized group of independents who had random specific goals for themselves (a rich athlete, a woman disguised as a man, and so on). Anyway, we used the Republic as the text to inform our behavior in class and we would vote on issues everyday after making our respective arguments. It was a helpful way to think about Socrates' idea of the ideal republic (1) in the context of the political opposition he met, which coincidentally led to his execution in the end, (2) in the context of having to put it together as an argument against pure democracy, and (3) as an ideal that I (as a member of the Socratic faction) would have to learn enough about and understand in a way that I could apply it to my behavior in class every week.
I realize that telling you about my class isn't directly answering your questions about the text, but maybe looking at it in this light will help you fish out the more important information in your reading. If it would help, I could even give you the basic structural outline of Socrates' ideal socio-political structure that we used to frame our game. I love to talk about what I learned in that class, and I'm just a PM away. Good luck!
__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." (Michael Jordan) Last edited by Supple Cow; 02-11-2004 at 11:15 AM.. |
11-29-2010, 08:49 PM | #27 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
However, you should know that the most esteemed physicists are aware of the epistemological problems involved in claiming that they have (or would have) a Theory of Everything. Steven Weinberg recently admitted that there are some constants in nature that are so arbitrary, that he is led to believe that they only take on those values in a local pocket of our universe. After all, how could any physicists know for sure that the laws of physics do not look different in a very far-away place? Try looking up the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on google. It is run off itm.edu server. I'd link but I can't post links yet under this account. Check out the entry there on epistemology. It's good stuff. |
|
11-29-2010, 10:30 PM | #28 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for theoretical physicists, they're actually mathematicians and not physical scientists. Quote:
Epistemology is the high dude sitting in the corner, staring at his hand repeating in a long, drawn out, nasal voice "Dude, how do we even know that we know stuff?" I resolved my personal epistemological questions a long time ago and have yet to feel compelled to revisit them. |
|||
11-30-2010, 05:12 AM | #29 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
that's because most of the conceptual problems that attend ordinary science are ontological. epistemology is concerned with the relations between categories and phenomena in the world. ontology is concerned with the arrangements of categories, their definitions and the frameworks that enable them. epistemology is like a proof---simple procedures, straightforward rules. ontology enables some access to axioms---you know, the statements that are arbitrary with respect to a proof because you can't prove an axiom from inside a proof that presupposes them.
but hey, that'd be a recursive way of thinking. which is where philo as an activity starts. philo as an academic institution tends to start from commentary on other texts. i enjoy some of it, find some of it useful even. but commentary as an exclusive m.o. is a problem. plus Scientists think they Know Shit because the world they operate with is carved up to fit the assumptions that orient experiment and have no Need for stuff like commentary on plotinus where they'd find exactly the same kind of activity, written about in the 3rd century, in language (an ontology) they wouldn't recognize. so they wouldn't bother trying to figure it out in the main. so the maybe questions about the interpretive circle wouldn't come up. but it'd be alot more interesting if it did come up. unless science is supposed to just repeat the same procedures again and again.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
12-01-2010, 07:34 PM | #30 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Consider, "Why are the fundamental particles different?" That question is an explosive, hotly-debated, contentious issue among theoretical physicists as well as those working in "applied" physics at CERN. The question strikes right at the heart of why our minds perceive differences (or create them -- be that as it may). Quote:
There is nothing wrong with taking an epistemological stance. And pointing out that you are taking one is not an underhanded attack to "prove you wrong". Everyone carries a holster around their waist with an Intellectual Gun ready to be drawn at any time to defend their epistemology. I think it would be preferable if people could maturely and calmly declare their epistemic stance. There is no danger in doing so, because there is no way to "prove" an epistemic stance. Coming back to enrichment. Without an ability to recognize their own epistemology, people exhibit a kind of "nervous defensiveness" in conversation. When you are aware of how your own knowledge is being derived, you gain a calmer, clearer attitude; a type of inner peace that then shows on the outside. But if you prefer to act like a cat that has been cornered, and is hissing and fluffing its fur, that's your prerogative. |
||
12-09-2010, 04:20 PM | #31 (permalink) | |
Upright
|
Quote:
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk |
|
01-03-2011, 10:42 AM | #32 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: The Cosmos
|
What you're really learning with a philosophy book or course is a new way to think. Not the principles themselves but how they came to their conclusions. The more ways you can look at something and think of it at a different angle the wiser you will become. Take it seriously.
|
Tags |
philo |
Thread Tools | |
|
|