Philosoft

A material thing.

<strong> If these are material, I'd say it would be OK to call them "things."

<strong> I think calling beauty a 'thing' is an attempt to ascribe material characteristics to it that it does not possess by associating it with other things which do possess material characteristics. I think words like 'idea' are much better suited for these "things" which are clearly nothing like most other "things."

Tristan Scott

Philosoft,

What are you doing? You appear to be arguing with yourself. I never argued that beauty or god or ideas were corporeal. To the contrary, I pointedly said they were not.

You appear to be fixated on the trivial here.

Philosoft

Well, all I was really trying to do was show that your comparison of the 'thing' God with the 'thing' beauty was unwarranted. I guess I ran it right past you. I'm really curious, though, whether you think 'God' and 'beauty' are things in the same sense, and are directly comparable. It always seemed exceedingly silly to me to assert that they were the same kind of 'thing.'

Tristan Scott

Oh yes, that's got to be it. You ran it right past me alright.

I don't doubt that for a minute.

Philosoft

Tristan,

It wasn't my intention to insult your intelligence. I was just using a figure of speech, with the mindset that I was the one who was being unclear. That said, I hope you will endeavor to answer my existing questions honestly.

Tristan Scott

Philosoft,

I wasn't aware that I left any of your questions unanswered. If you are referring to your last question as to my assertation that the concepts of beauty and god are similar, I have answered that already. Several times. You don't see the similarity and I understand that.

But for others who are interested in philosophy and 'things' like that, allow Diotima, Socrates' tutor in the arts of love explain:

"He who has been instructed thus far in the things of love, and who has learned to see the beautiful in due order and succession, when he comes toward the end will suddenly perceive a nature of wondrous beauty (and this, Socrates, is the final cause of all our former toils)-a nature which in the first place is everlasting, not growing and decaying, or waxing and waning; secondly, not fair in one point of view and foul in another, or at one time or in one relation or at one place fair, at another time or in another relation or at another place foul, as if fair to some and-foul to others, or in the likeness of a face or hands or any other part of the bodily frame, or in any form of speech or knowledge, or existing in any other being, as for example, in an animal, or in heaven or in earth, or in any other place; but beauty absolute, separate, simple, and everlasting, which without diminution and without increase, or any change, is imparted to the ever-growing and perishing beauties of all other things. He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to perceive that beauty, is not far from the end. And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is."

This, of course is just an exerpt and the effect of the dialogue (as with all Plato's dialogues) is better when read in the entirety.

Philosoft

Tristan,

With all due respect, all I have actually seen are assertions that 'God' is a non-corporeal thing in the same way that 'beauty' is a non-corporeal thing. In fact, I see no similarities in those concepts at all, save that they are both asserted to be non-corporeal things. God is often said to have created the universe, to be the source of objective morality, to have had physical effects on the material world. To my knowledge, beauty has not been said to have done any of these things, or any action whatsoever.

I am well aware of the ancient Greek philosophers' contributions to modern thought, but I simply cannot conceive of a basis for objective beauty. It is very clearly a judgement and it very clearly would not exist without an agent who can judge and a thing which can be judged. I know of no universal standard of beauty and, frankly, I can't imagine such a thing could exist.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

G B Mayes

Parkdalian said:
The miracles of the Old Testament were God the Father establishing his relationship with the world, particularly the Israelites. They were not subtle and were possibly dramatic to get the attention of this "stiff-necked" people. The miracles of Christ and the apostles were to get the attention of both jews and gentiles directed to the person of Christ. Then the real message followed. I believe dramatic miracles ceased after the early church was established. Such miracles were no longer needed. The gospel was well-established, and over a relatively short period of time the books and letters later to be codified into the New Testament were written. The record was clear. Christ was the Son of God, he died and was resurrected. People could accept that fact or reject it. Any miracles would detract from the message and focus attention on the miracle or the one who purported to perform the miracle. And, if a person did not believe in spite of the established record, then a miracle would not make him believe.

-Brent

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: G B Mayes ]</p>

Tristan Scott

Philosoft,

If you don't see it, you don't see it. If you do not understand what Plato is saying in describing absolute beauty then I guess you just don't get it. Understanding that Plato has contributed is not the same as understanding the contribution.

As I have said three times now it is tangental and probably moot to the debate over the existence of gods anyway.