Fixed Cross wrote:Peter Kropotkin wrote:
K: it is not our job to "change your mind"... to point out the obvious,
philosophy isn't about changing people's mind, it is about how one arrives
at the "truth".. whatever that truth may be....
But what is it you are doing here now if not trying to change my mind? Of course philosophy is about changing peoples minds; but slowly, and not the small tendentious mind of opinions but the deep, oceanic mind of a priori assumptions.
Changing the inner images.
Plato certainly did such a thing but not all change has to be lauded just for being prominent.
when I was younger, many people offered me up their "truths"
but the interesting thing was, I wasn't ready to hear their "truth"...
but many years later, I was in the right place and mind to "hear" what
they said and actually have it make sense....the "truth" often must
wait for ears to hear it.. that was Nietzsche problem, his "truths",
people weren't ready to hear his "truths"... he was ahead of his time....
he quite often commented about this fact... how his audience was "yet
to be born" and he was right.....
Yes. He said he would be first understood by my generation.
it isn't about what Plato wrote that is the problem,
do you have ears to hear it? are you ready to hear it?
maybe, maybe not..... as I am older then you, my "hearing
truths" is different then your "hearing truths"....
Or perhaps I am one of the few to ares to see the folly in his words. There is no shortage of people who deeply admire him and they come in all ages. But why? Surely not because he plays a real role in peoples lives. It is a thing of renown and fame, he is being judged in a very favourable light, people don't really dare to criticize him.
The cave allegory is sort of creative, but doesn't illuminate. And what else has he accomplished?
Would someone who speaks in the way of the Apology, be capable of speaking honest thoughts?
Be honest. Would you trust someone who talks like that now?
Of course I would. This whole deep business appears to undermine itself , meaning the millennia of created knowledge by a parallel mode, that uses the hypothetical depth of measurement to gradually unfold its true depth.
Coming up too fast, does create insurmountable problems, but had these been not laid out totally, can not be invalidate either, the core, or the periphery of a necessary relation.
Contingency has to meet necessity, even in the most abstract formulation.
Fixed wrote;
"What of the Apology, derleydoo, if you would - is it not a pompous address, aimed clearly at the not so bright?
Who in his right mind would not laugh at Socrates for assuming to not be a rhetoric genius but rather a simple man telling such a simple thing as "the truth "
This comment not only disclaims the relevance of Platonic thought , but disqualifies the idea that the simplest things are substantial in the history of thought, which after all gave rise to the complexities that were built upon it.
If there ever was an insubstantial argument, this is it.
If the sort of argument like this is disqualified, then may as well dismiss any reason to claim any value to academic lead ing based on essential learning from intuitive-a priori sources.
William James could be eliminated, Husserl, most of the great Jewish minor and major prophets, the Catholic mystics, core oriented psychologists, the list is long and in my opinion corresponding a shadow world that has mostly been ignored and neglected, and in many cases suppressed.
Thinkers of all sorts map the array of the science of philosophy, many has built upon the universal principles that built application on hypothesis.
The wisdom of the general supposition of universal principles augment wisdom in particular ways.
To wit;
"So Meno has defined the general concept of virtue by identifying it with one specific kind of virtue. Socrates then clarifies what he wants with an analogy. ... Socrates' response: Everyone desires what they think is good (an idea one encounters in many of Plato's dialogues)
Mr. Derley strikes again....
