Careers In Philosophy -Please read/ help

[trix]

gentelman, please don't mind as dive into a debate over plato!

Crafedog wrote:

whitelotus wrote:
first of all he doesn't get freed


he becomes free of the chains so therefore he must be 'freed'.

but he must return to the cave after seeing the light. what kind of freedom is it if he is still under obligations? futher, it's possible to be 'freed' at one moment in the sense that you don't have any chains, and still be under obligations. thus, freedom is hapered. for instance, just because you tie someone up, then undo the chains, and declare them free (which you can reasonably make such claims) this does not = free spirit.

i find that you other analysis of plato's esteem for knowledge is rather dubious. first, knowledge is the understanding of forms. however, this means that knowledge is a state, not really a form itself. moreover, the first four books of the republic emphasize at alarming length the importance of a harmonic soul. because, alas, we are not composed of a single form. this can achieve some form of knowledge, but even still, i personally believe that it was unachievable for man. true opinion was possible, however.

my mention of it being a "social commentary" correlates with what he says in the dialogue (515a) "'This is a strange picture you are painting', he said, 'with strange prisoners'. 'They're no different from us,' I said."

ah. that seems more like a passage on form copies than anything else. especially in light of the meno.

is an obvious reference to Socrates fate

plato is a puppet master. you'd get a different set of 'facts' if you read that other bloke (i forgot his name now) and his version of the apology -- which is also probably closer to the true events that occured. in any event, it's important to recognize that this is plato's character of socrates, which is not historically accurate. so i think the point of the sun-line-cave passage shouldn't be made with the idea that they parellel actual events, especailly if these events are those ones given to us by plato (as they aren't really 'actual').

further, there's no reason to suppose the shadows are just the material world. i suppose you could say they are the physical world. but i wouldn't use it to draw the same conclusions. i simply don't think the sun-line-cave passage has much social commentary in it, but rather metaphysical and epistemological.

in my interpretation of Plato's words, i have tried to look beyond what he says and instead what he implies

well, props for that.

whitelotus wrote:

Second wealth and position is not something plato was against nor do you see much of it coming back in the myth of the cave.

position wasn't something plato was against, but he probably wasn't a fan of wealth. why else would the imaginary city dissolve private property? and why are philosophers naturally inclined not to needing/wanting such material possessions. crafedog has a point.

[Crafedog]

well first of all it says nowhere here that one should not have a daily life, in fact reading books like theaetetus will tell you that Socrates did in fact work.

so? he had to. i never said he didn't, i just said he would pursue higher things in the process of working as this would only be a means to an end

Nor did Plato care about what you call "the masses" he wasn't a democrat like you. Only a few people were right for it (one of the things you need is to be beautiful, which would also not fit in your interpretation).

the free and the sun would be the beautiful. in this case Socrates and Philosophy/the good. Plato thinks less of the workers and money holders in athens at the time evident in his work on the sashes (gold to determine the philosophers of society) and how he held gold (philosophy) higher then the others and attribute "the masses" accordingly. and not only democrats refer to the people as "the masses" by the way, in case you didn't know.

As for the rest again they do not get freed, they get kidnapped, abused etc.

where does it say they get kidnapped, abused etc? i know they don't get freed or helped but i dont remember reading that they get abused

Another passage you didn't understand. First of all idea =/ form, that is a bad translation. Second if you ever read Plato on the eros and theaetetus yet again you'd see that Plato does not disconnect philosophy from emotions like pleasure and pains...And again you discern between practise and theory, a division plato did not have.

could you give me some quotes on this, as i have not read eros or theaetetus?

Actually the one that gets dragged up is socrates. That's why he gets killed at the end. And Plato did not differ between philosophy and politics.

he doesn't get killed. Plato claims that "if they could" they would kill him. don't forget they're still imprisoned so it wasn't Socrates in the example (as you claim) because obviously he died. Plato on this point is a reflection/justification of what happened to Socrates and how the people reacted to his way of teaching/life while he was still alive. evident in the later comment on how the imprisoned would ridicule him (as the poet's did in Ancient Greece)

First of all this is nonsense. You don't get into the real world in the world of the idea without doing philosophy. Philosophy and this pain are one and the same thing. Second Plato makes all too clear that these people do not want to be freed, philosophy is creating a problem that wasn't there (a recurring theme in his work)

yeh, because they are the 'imprisoned masses' and they don't want to be freed from their 'prisons' because they do not know anything better and a new way of thinking/life would scare them and therefore it would be a problem. also how does you're first point disprove what i said about adjusting to the sun and the pain it would bring?

oh so the rest is just nonsense...I should just scratch it from my book? Since of course those phases don't matter.

no, i never said they didn't matter, you are being irrational here, but the sentence here is a fairly strong one in backing my point/angle that's why i chose to mention it to you. my argument for the "Social Commentary" angle is not based on only that point and is instead based on historical fact and how Plato might have been feeling at the time and how it reflected in his work and philosophy.

Yes socrates got killed, and yes the people of Athens are blind, but no he didn't want to teach them all, he was very selective. Nor did he detach his teaching from work.

so? the Republic is a primary piece of Plato's political work, how is that relevant in disproving my point? i'm not denying it isn't, i'm just saying that the Social Commentary angle is a fair way of looking at the Cave and understanding Plato's thinking at the time.

A rather odd interpretation when you say "lets ignore what Plato says, lets ignore the phases the prisoner goes through, lets ignore what philosophy is for Plato and take one sentence and say see it is a social commentary"

i used numerous sentences to back up my thinking and how Plato would have been thinking at the time when comtemplating athens society so that claim/accusation of yours is unjustified.

btw, i'am not a democrat or christian and i have never read Nietzsche's Greek philosophical thinking

on a personal note, the Allegory of the Cave is the only part of the Republic i like. i find the rest of the book to be filled with hypocrisy and absurdity (the poet's, the training of the military, the sashes) as well as not being an interesting read. An aspect of the Republic i hate is the person "Socrates" is arguing with who just says "Yes, you're right" and "Yes, that makes sense" etc all the time which is a shame because I enjoy the other Socratic Dialogues for the arguments that take place and the logic which "Socrates" takes on in them.

[hermes the thrice great]

Plato is a lying bastard. Socrates was a drunk Vietnam Vet. The Allegory of the Cave is freakin' worthless shoe gazing philosophy. It no longer has Power.
Go look in the Zhuangzi. Go look amongst the Deleuzians. Go look amongst those who would do violence in the name of history. Find Jesus in Marx and Braudel.
Sr Platon es un hack

[Crafedog]

whitelotus;

can you read ancient greek? my translations are from numerous books including Oxford World's Classics which has translated a lot of ancient greek classics. it is a very well known translation and my university lecturers also advise these translations.

i don't know what translations you are reading but to be frank, i'm going to trust a well known book company's translation over your translations/interpretations anyday.

[trix]

whitelotus, don't get so uppity up. i go to school w/ppl who are simulatenously studing the languages as well as reading the ancient texts, but you know it doesn't make a great difference in interpertation. this is usually b/c the profs are excellent lectures and explain such differences, such as why pysche is translated to soul, agathon is good, etc etc etc. don't be such a fucking snob.

Only when they have been dragged against their wishes to see the sun do they have a problem. Neither those living in the sun as the ones in the cave has a problem. He who gets dragged up has a problem

rather, since book IV plato has adopted paramenides' arguement and allowed what is and what is not as the dictomony of being. so, the ppl do not have a problem b/c they are not awear of it...put in complete ignorance, they c/n fathom an existence of knowledge (or light). your interpertation gets to hung up on sematic poitns rather than, wait for it, the philosophy. which is what this forum is about, b.t.w

private property leads to conflict and pettyness. as fro the material possessions they are of the same low stature as artists and poets, worth nothing.

And again point out where it says this in the piece on the cave. At the end Plato explains what this myth was all about. It is absurd to then say "no it was about something else, that considering the time it was written in and the way this myth was written is highly dubious"

i'm not sure what you're refering to here. is enlgish your first language? let's put the cave in perspective; it's in a book that seeks to justify the need to be just for its own sake. the sun-line-cave is met ultimately to prove that the rewards possessed by such a pursuit are simply unattainable for those who are not just.

[Crafedog]

whitelotus, don't get so uppity up. i go to school w/ppl who are simulatenously studing the languages as well as reading the ancient texts, but you know it doesn't make a great difference in interpertation. this is usually b/c the profs are excellent lectures and explain such differences, such as why pysche is translated to soul, agathon is good, etc etc etc. don't be such a fucking snob.

glad to see i'm not the only one who thinks this

[trix]

aside from that philosophy is semantics...as to why these people have no problem, what do I care? the point is the only one with the problem is he who gets dragged up. Philosophy creates problems noone has. These people are perfectly fine, no problem at all. In fact no doubt a more fullfilling life than the philosopher.

that's not what i wrote -- that's not what i was saying. is english your native language? i think that you can only debate on a translation level b/c that seems to be the only thing that you say...

the cave myth is exactly that, a myth, even plato said that you shouldn't use myths to prove something

plato never stipulates its a myth. scholars are divided if it is a myth, or an analogy, or a story. either position depends on a justification.

So it is highly questionable that is trying to prove anything, let alone this justice you speak of.

no, it's not highly questionable considering that the purpose of the entire fucking work was to prove justice is necessary for it's own sake. if you're going to disagree, you'll need to support it.

It is a myth intended to clarify something, what does it clarify? how philosophy is related to seeing that which is the same

okay, that's self-refuting.

really, are you a native english speaker? b/c i find your comprehension rather weak

[hermes the thrice great]

hey whitelotus, I didn't realize you're not a shoe gazer hack. awesome. Got a question that's right up your ally. IN heidegger's intro to metaphysics, he says the logos comes from legein, which is originally an agricultural verb meaning "to cut wheat and gather it into a bundle". heidegger then goes onto say that this gathering is how we come to understand Dasein, become better Nazis, have Jewish mistresses, and wear dark sweaters and round funny glasses, all the usual heideggeriana.
I've heard in multiple places that the Big H was making that shit up. Do you know anything about this?

by the way I totally agree with you, the only way to understand any text is to bring a fully armed and operational Hermeneutic Death Star with you to contextualize those rebellious words. The problem is that is SOOOO much work. I'm mired in Deleuze studies trying to figure stuff out and work through that impenetrable franco over-writing. I don't speak french, but I'm fluent in spanish, so I don't tend to have much trouble reading frank-speak. but damn tracking down references is mofo work. anyway....

[trix]

I already did. The cave myth doesn't prove anything. Nor is it about justice. The whole justice thing doesn't even come up once in the whole story of the cave. And it would be a rather odd way of obtaining justice don't you think?

not how plato defines justice. justice, my dear, is the proper ordering of the soul, with the philosophy (or logos) part ruling above everything else -- it is a tripartie soul. the sun-line-cave passage illustrates how the logos part is suppose to reason. but to say that it stops at that is a rather superficial reading that does nothing to acknowledge the profound philosophical ideas that are being advanced. hhmmm...how do i know this with only a basic understanding of ancient greek? well, here's a tip, i can think. and here's the interpertation that you can dispute if you want.

the republic was a work written by plato circulated in the ancient world under the title "on justice" so named because plato establishes early on (at the end of book 1) exactly what the dialogue is to be about. such a practice is common in the early platonic works, which are mainly socratic dialogues.

i mentioned book 1 for a reason. it can be regarded as a sort of 'table of contents' for the rest of the work. so much so, that scholars at the beginning of the 20th century thought that it wasn't actually written by plato. contemporary scholars largely reject this, and to paraphrase guthrie, to believe otherwise is to demonstate exactly how perverse the human mind can warp facts.

but i digressed. the point with book 1 and the point with the rest of the dialogues that there are 4 seperate arguements advanced by plato as to the role on justice, and why justice is good for its own sake. the end of book 4 presents the arguement that the internal harmonization of the soul allows one to be most of what they are meant to be -- justice allows one to be the most human. this state, not a techne (which is all the other definitions of justice that others introduced) is desirable for itself. plato builds on this in book 5, where the philosophical man -- who achieves this justice in the soul -- is demonstrated to be the most desireable position than any other states. in book 6, plato introduces a line of arguement that attempts to argue that justice brings rewards that are more desirable than any other things/acts/etc. this is similarily continued in book 10 with the myth.

it is a myth, he is quite clearly telling a story. Or do you wish to maintain that Plato actually kept people in a cave to see if it really happened? It is a myth. An analogy would be stupid. So lets face it, this doesn't prove anything.

now on to the myth idea. for myths to earn their title in platonic dialogues, they are usually presented at the end of the dialogue and contain several elements. while i could explain these to you in rather excruciating detail, i perfer not to. needless to say, the formula of the cave passage is not similar to the myth at the end of book 10, or any other socratic dialogues. for you, whitelotus, to simply pronounce something a myth because you believe it is, is to make a statement out of complete ignorance. this is particularly rich coming from you, who has previously berated crafedog for having the wrong translations. yet you now arbitarily use the wrong terms when describing a highly specific work. which leads me to believe that you simply do not practice what you preach, or your english is rather weak.
if it was stronger, you might have been able to understand that an analogy does not only mean a comparision with what something happened, but how something is like. to say i have hair the colour of a pheonix, for instance, is an analogy and certainly not a myth.

oh, and logos is taken from the verbal noun of lego, which, if we follow one of the roots, leg, it means "to gather," "to collect," "to pick up," "to put together," and later "to speak or say." its translation varies with the thinker, for instance heraclitus probably means an account, but often plato means reason when envoking the term. but of course, if you really knew ancient greek, you would know this, wouldn't you?

[surreptitious75]

What did the philosophy graduate say to the engineering graduate ?

Do you want fries with that ?

[MagsJ]

Sorry about that last post. I've been reading too much Chinese stuff.


Philosophical counciling could work. I've used philosophy to help my friends. Basically, most people get into a funk, when they find themselves faced with "hard truth" of life. And as we all know there is no truth that philosophy can't question.

Client- "I always fall into the same relationship pattern. I find some guy who can't really fuffill my needs and then I try to change him- which I know is impossible."

Councilor- "Well why don't you fall in love with someone else?"

Client- "I can't choose who I love."

Councilor- "Hmm, David Hume would agree with you. He thought that our rational capacity was a slave to our desires. In fact, he's probably the reason why many westerners don't belive that you can choose love."

...and on and on...

Once you explain to them that whatever idea is bugging them was thought up by someone who got laid very little and there are other ideas out there, someone spirts will often lift. It's like giveing a prisoner a saw.

Lol

This is one (of many similar) reason(s) why I prefer to read synopses, summaries, and a person's best quotes and quips, rather than an entire book on their banalities and crises.. like I don’t have my own to deal with and resolve, through self-reconciliation.

Give me a dictionary or encyclopaedia on any topic from a-z, rather than a book on someone telling me their own thoughts on those things.. like I don’t have my own, but sure.. the odd talk or podcast or documentary won’t sully my mind, like biography bias often can.