Plato for Dummies (I'm the Dummy)

Thomas said:
Yes. So whilst I largely accept, within a Christian contxeyt, the idea of Forms, the idea of some substrate, the materia prima, I'm not too happy with, but then the odds are there's a scientific theory which would account for it!


Again, even with the definitions offered, I think 'abstract' is a slippery term. Plato would say no, Forms are real, they might not be real to you, but that's another issue altogether ... and it rather depends on how you determine what's 'real'. :eek:

I'm with you re minimalism, btw ...

God bless

Thomas
Click to expand...

Scientific papers usually contain an abstract, the noumena portion of the paper, which discusses the conclusions drawn from the information gathered, (Plato's Form?) as well as the data portion of the paper, which discusses the actual measurements of the phenomena being investigated.
 
Hi SG —
I must admit, I'm not sure if we haven't lost ourselves in this discussion.
seattlegal said:
Scientific papers usually contain ...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if by 'understanding', you're not trying to fit Plato into a construct that you're happy with, rather than trying to understand Plato as Plato?

"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality p. 39 [Free Press, 1979]
Click to expand...

The quote in context:
"... So far as concerns philosophy only a selected group can be explicitly mentioned. There is no point in endeavouring to force the interpretations of divergent philosophers into a vague agreement. What is important is that the scheme of interpretation here adopted can claim for each of its main positions the express authority of one, or the other, of some supreme master of thought – Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant. But ultimately nothing rests on authority; the final court of appeal is intrinsic reasonableness.
"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them. His personal endowments, his wide opportunities for experience at a great period of civilization, his inheritance of an intellectual tradition not yet stiffened by excessive systematization, have made his writing an inexhaustible mine of suggestion... "

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Hi SG —
I must admit, I'm not sure if we haven't lost ourselves in this discussion.

I'm not sure if by 'understanding', you're not trying to fit Plato into a construct that you're happy with, rather than trying to understand Plato as Plato?
Click to expand...
Oh I'm absolutely trying to find an interpretation of Plato I can be happy with.



The quote in context:
"... So far as concerns philosophy only a selected group can be explicitly mentioned. There is no point in endeavouring to force the interpretations of divergent philosophers into a vague agreement. What is important is that the scheme of interpretation here adopted can claim for each of its main positions the express authority of one, or the other, of some supreme master of thought – Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant. But ultimately nothing rests on authority; the final court of appeal is intrinsic reasonableness.
Click to expand...
I admit that I am looking for any shred of reasonableness I can find in Plato. :)
"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them. His personal endowments, his wide opportunities for experience at a great period of civilization, his inheritance of an intellectual tradition not yet stiffened by excessive systematization, have made his writing an inexhaustible mine of suggestion... "

God bless,

Thomas
Click to expand...

Unless you read Plato as satire, then one can only conclude that Plato was trying to impose excessive systemization. I'm opting for the satire. ;)
 
SG, probably for the best. I agree, he is guilty of excessive sytemization (reminds me too much of the excesses of modernism and scientism--no soul, just thought). So you can lose him... like Descartes or Einstein (or any other human I have ever heard of) he stepped on his lolly once or twice!

That being said, venture into the source Thomas quoted (PR by Whitehead). Difficult reading, or try some whitehead searches for things like form, plato, process, taoism, etc.

Much more copasetic to my way of thinking (and probably to yours).
 
Or try looking at Eriugena ...

... but I would say, in reflection, if the issue is excessive systematisation, I would suggest you've missed the essence of the thing?

God bless,

Thomas
 
seattlegal said:
Just like the title of this thread, "I'm the Dummy." :eek:
Click to expand...
Mmm... don't think so, SG, never saw you as that! Maybe it's me, who sees it too simplistically?

Anyway ... am about to rebuild my old website (The Veil) to focus on the metaphysics of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (have I mentioned him before? :rolleyes:)

The focus of the site will be meontology — the ology of 'beyond-being', and not primarily ontology, the ology of 'being' — which most Platonism is.

Eriugena advocated the dialectic resolution of problems, but rather than the traditional 'my thesis rubs up against your (anti)thesis and the (hopeful) result is synthesis', Eriugena believed rather that that thesis and that thesis point to a transcending meta-thesis.

In Christian theology, for example, apophatic (negative) theology is considered 'higher' and 'more pure' than cataphatic (positive) theology which can tend to naivety — I think the same views hold in many traditions — but Eriugena would say that the two are equal, they're just different expressions, but no more nor less valid for that. Of course the cataphatic can tend to sentimentalism, but the apophatic can tend to abstruse philosophical abstractions and auto eroticisme (nihilistic self indulgence) ...

Both end up spouting nonsense in extremis.

Anyway ... follow the Veil and in time in will explain Plato, life, the universe and everything!

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
seattlegal said:
Probably. Just like the title of this thread, "I'm the Dummy." :eek:
Click to expand...

Mmm... don't think so, SG, never saw you as that! Maybe it's me, who sees it too simplistically?
Click to expand...
Beginner's mind thing....

Anyway ... am about to rebuild my old website (The Veil) to focus on the metaphysics of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (have I mentioned him before? :rolleyes:)

The focus of the site will be meontology — the ology of 'beyond-being', and not primarily ontology, the ology of 'being' — which most Platonism is.

Eriugena advocated the dialectic resolution of problems, but rather than the traditional 'my thesis rubs up against your (anti)thesis and the (hopeful) result is synthesis', Eriugena believed rather that that thesis and that thesis point to a transcending meta-thesis.

In Christian theology, for example, apophatic (negative) theology is considered 'higher' and 'more pure' than cataphatic (positive) theology which can tend to naivety — I think the same views hold in many traditions — but Eriugena would say that the two are equal, they're just different expressions, but no more nor less valid for that. Of course the cataphatic can tend to sentimentalism, but the apophatic can tend to abstruse philosophical abstractions and auto eroticisme (nihilistic self indulgence) ...

Both end up spouting nonsense in extremis.

Anyway ... follow the Veil and in time in will explain Plato, life, the universe and everything!

God bless,

Thomas
Click to expand...
Will check it out as this digests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top