Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Harumi · 10-18-2002, 01:01 PM

...for being an idiot.

We're reading the Republic in class right now, and I have serious issues with the guy, and all his contradictions.

Is there any way to counter his idea of the "Forms"? And his idea of perfection? I'm dying to do so, but my philosophy teacher keeps on defending him (probably for the sake of discussion).

Plato claimed that through Reason, he discovered these unchangeable "Forms". I through reason discovered that there was no God.

So who's logic is flawed?

Plump-DJ · 10-18-2002, 01:12 PM

Well my 2 cents worth...

As far as i'm aware Plato was simply trying to ground our sharerd values in something more objective and permenant, given the fleeting (or ever changing) nature of mankind and the material world. Personaly I don't have a problem with that.

BTW I'm not so sure the non-existence of God comes preattached with reason. Atheists should be so lucky.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]

Kent Stevens · 10-18-2002, 03:45 PM

I thought Aristotle was supposed to strongly object to the Platonic theory of forms. There is no empirical evidence for forms existing in a separate part of reality as Plato seems to claim. You might be better off thinking as the Republic as thought provoking fiction like 1984, Animal Farm, or Brave New World. The twist is that The Republic actually encourages the creation of totalitarian regimes while the other novels listed here discourage the existence of dictatorships.

Plato could be accused of creating propaganda that encourages a totalitarian state. As such he could be accused of being a fascist or perhaps a communist. His philosopher kings have the truth and anyone that disagrees with them are just wrong.

His idea of there being philosophers who have total access to reality seems to go against what is usually experienced in science. No scientists seem to claim that they have access to perfect truth.

I find it amusing how there are yes men and brown nosers in the later parts of the Republic. The reply to anything that Socrates seems to say is yes, why but of course, it is so, or certainly. There does not seem to be so much a socratic dialogue, but a socratic monologue with another person acting as a cheer leader.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Stevens ]

Feather · 10-18-2002, 03:55 PM

You have discovered the primary shortcoming of pure rationalist philosophy, Harumi: the inability to describe observable reality.

Given two completely sound incompatible logical arguments, the matter of which is actually true is entirely dependent on which set of axioms one deems to be more valid. And that's purely arbitrary.

The rationalists are blow hardy gas bags, in other words. Lots of talk and little substance.

AtlanticCitySlave · 10-18-2002, 05:33 PM

"Plato claimed that through Reason, he discovered these unchangeable "Forms". I through reason discovered that there was no God.

So who's logic is flawed?"

-These don't contradict each other. Why do you presume one has to be logically flawed? Plato is also one of the main figures in all of philosophy, particularly ancient philosophy, who set the car rolling down the path of history. Whether he contradicts himself, is inconsistent, etc., doesn't make him an idiot. Rather, it makes him someone who took great strides to understand the nature of, well, just about everything.

10-18-2002, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Harumi:
[QBIs there any way to counter his idea of the "Forms"? And his idea of perfection? I'm dying to do so, but my philosophy teacher keeps on defending him (probably for the sake of discussion).

Plato claimed that through Reason, he discovered these unchangeable "Forms". I through reason discovered that there was no God.

So who's logic is flawed?[/QB]

A Form is an eidetic image, and the Ultimate Form is the eidetic image of the whole.

Through reason you should discover that you are God, which of course you cannot do on your own.

galiel · 10-18-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather:
You have discovered the primary shortcoming of pure rationalist philosophy, Harumi: the inability to describe observable reality.

Given two completely sound incompatible logical arguments, the matter of which is actually true is entirely dependent on which set of axioms one deems to be more valid. And that's purely arbitrary.

The rationalists are blow hardy gas bags, in other words. Lots of talk and little substance.

Ironic, then, that you attempt to make a rational argument, isn't it.

tronvillain · 10-18-2002, 09:10 PM

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."

-Ethan Allen

Still, I do not think much of Plato either Harumi.

Feather · 10-19-2002, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:


Ironic, then, that you attempt to make a rational argument, isn't it.

Wow, nice little straw man and ad hominem all wrapped up in one. You must be proud.

Vogelfrei · 10-19-2002, 06:07 AM

Are things other than the Forms - such as, say, reason - mind-independent?

What does it mean to say that reason is mind-independent?

What would it mean to say that the Forms are mind-independent?

Surely nothing too shocking, I hope....

10-18-2002, 01:01 PM	#1
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	Someone needs to slap Plato across the face... ...for being an idiot. We're reading the Republic in class right now, and I have serious issues with the guy, and all his contradictions. Is there any way to counter his idea of the "Forms"? And his idea of perfection? I'm dying to do so, but my philosophy teacher keeps on defending him (probably for the sake of discussion). Plato claimed that through Reason, he discovered these unchangeable "Forms". I through reason discovered that there was no God. So who's logic is flawed?

10-18-2002, 01:12 PM	#2
Plump-DJ Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Oztralia (Aussie Aussie Aussie) Posts: 153	Well my 2 cents worth... As far as i'm aware Plato was simply trying to ground our sharerd values in something more objective and permenant, given the fleeting (or ever changing) nature of mankind and the material world. Personaly I don't have a problem with that. BTW I'm not so sure the non-existence of God comes preattached with reason. Atheists should be so lucky. [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

10-18-2002, 03:45 PM	#3
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	I thought Aristotle was supposed to strongly object to the Platonic theory of forms. There is no empirical evidence for forms existing in a separate part of reality as Plato seems to claim. You might be better off thinking as the Republic as thought provoking fiction like 1984, Animal Farm, or Brave New World. The twist is that The Republic actually encourages the creation of totalitarian regimes while the other novels listed here discourage the existence of dictatorships. Plato could be accused of creating propaganda that encourages a totalitarian state. As such he could be accused of being a fascist or perhaps a communist. His philosopher kings have the truth and anyone that disagrees with them are just wrong. His idea of there being philosophers who have total access to reality seems to go against what is usually experienced in science. No scientists seem to claim that they have access to perfect truth. I find it amusing how there are yes men and brown nosers in the later parts of the Republic. The reply to anything that Socrates seems to say is yes, why but of course, it is so, or certainly. There does not seem to be so much a socratic dialogue, but a socratic monologue with another person acting as a cheer leader. [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Stevens ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 03:55 PM	#4
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	You have discovered the primary shortcoming of pure rationalist philosophy, Harumi: the inability to describe observable reality. Given two completely sound incompatible logical arguments, the matter of which is actually true is entirely dependent on which set of axioms one deems to be more valid. And that's purely arbitrary. The rationalists are blow hardy gas bags, in other words. Lots of talk and little substance.

10-18-2002, 05:33 PM	#5
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	"Plato claimed that through Reason, he discovered these unchangeable "Forms". I through reason discovered that there was no God. So who's logic is flawed?" -These don't contradict each other. Why do you presume one has to be logically flawed? Plato is also one of the main figures in all of philosophy, particularly ancient philosophy, who set the car rolling down the path of history. Whether he contradicts himself, is inconsistent, etc., doesn't make him an idiot. Rather, it makes him someone who took great strides to understand the nature of, well, just about everything.

10-18-2002, 09:10 PM	#8
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." -Ethan Allen Still, I do not think much of Plato either Harumi.

10-19-2002, 06:07 AM	#10
Vogelfrei Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: NY Posts: 37	Are things other than the Forms - such as, say, reason - mind-independent? What does it mean to say that reason is mind-independent? What would it mean to say that the Forms are mind-independent? Surely nothing too shocking, I hope....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.