Augustine2004's review of Plato's Republic up to about the beginning of Book 7

[Augustine2004]

Bertrand Russell said, "The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." If that's so, I've come to the painful conclusion by inescapable logic that I must be stupid. No doubt at all.

I don't understand this part of Glaucon's argument: “Come now,” [358b] he said, “ . . . but I am not yet satisfied with the proof that has been offered about justice and injustice. For what I desire is to hear what each of them is and what potency and effect it has in and of itself dwelling in the soul, but to dismiss their rewards and consequences. . . . " In particular the last seven words. I suspect poor translation.

Glaucon says, 'By nature, they say, to commit injustice is a good and to suffer it is an evil, but that the excess of evil in being wronged is greater than the excess of good in doing wrong.' One needs a way to measure evil and another way to measure good. Then one needs a way to compare the measurement of evil and that of good. As far as I know, such ways are not possible. Hence, Glaucon's theory as he expounds it cannot be verified in any scientific way or scientifically.

'For the height of injustice is to seem just without being so.' I would rather put it this way: 'For the height of vice or evil is to seem virtuous or good without being so.'

'For if he is going to be thought just [361c] he will have honors and gifts because of that esteem.' This seems to be a poor translation. Shouldn't it be something like this: 'If he is thought as just, he will perforce have honors and gifts.'

'We cannot be sure in that case whether he is just for justice' sake or for the sake of the gifts and the honors. So we must strip him bare of everything but justice and make his state the opposite of his imagined counterpart. Though doing no wrong he must have the repute of the greatest injustice, so that he may be put to the test as regards justice through not softening because of ill repute and the consequences thereof. But let him hold on his course unchangeable even unto death, [361d] seeming all his life to be unjust though being just, that so, both men attaining to the limit, the one of injustice, the other of justice, we may pass judgement which of the two is the happier.' I either do not understand or that is illogic. In any case we do esteem people like Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, and Albert Schweitzer. Jefferson died owing much money, but he did live well. Also, what say ye about the William and Melinda Gates Foundation? Warren Buffett's plan to donate the bulk of his wealth to it?

How could a virtous person come to have a reputation of vice? I will have to think of a story.

Plato is said to have lived c. 428-347 B.C.; Buddha, to have died about 53 years before Plato was born. He doesn't seem to have mentioned Buddhism though, did he?

I suspect now that a great merit of The Republic is that it shows that crime does not necessarily pay. What the work does not do, though, is to establish beyond a shadow of doubt that a life of virture or good is better than a life of vice or evil.

'Let a man help a brother.' That's a good example of an ironical retort in this context.

368e Is society, like a city, on one hand merely a collection of individuals; or on the other hand an emergent being, like a human body that is more than a collection of organs (skin, bones, heart, lungs, stomach, etc.)? I think Plato holds the latter view, but I'm not sure.

In any case, the justice of a city can be defined as much as the justice of an individual can be. So, Socrates' proposal to look for "its quality in states" is vain, except that it may help in arriving at a definition that would satisify more people than otherwise.

“The origin of the city, then,” said I, “in my opinion, is to be found in the fact that we do not severally suffice for our own needs, but each of us lacks many things. Do you think any other principle establishes the state?” Insofar as my understanding of what the state is, this is wrong, quite wrong. Plato is naive. However, certainly that's a good explanation of the origin of the city, as I understand that term. Probably the translation could be better. There did use to be what are called city-states, but nowadays there are very few of those. Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao, and Monaco are all I can think of at the moment. I think Macao is now controlled by China.

379a-c Some Christians would argue contra Socrates that God is the creator of all things, including Hitler and Mao.

Ca. 387c I wouldn't want to be friends with Tony Soprano, but he does have a wife and some friends. They seem to value his friendship.

388e Those Greeks! The dour Scotsmen of the ancient times. Me, I never crack a smile. I look with bewilderment at the Colbert Report and frown with puzzlement at the Simpsons.

389b I disagree that the leaders should lie on occasions but not other people. I do not mean that it's always wrong to lie. For one thing, we shouldn't give the entire unvarnished truth to our kiddies the very first moment they can understand it. However, there must be two conditions: (1) One must lie to benefit others, never solely himself. (2) In any case those being lied to must be able to decide ultimately on a good course of action. Are these conditions fulfilled in the case of the Mideast War? I do suspect Bush and Cheney lied mainly to benefit themselves, their clients and their families. Look at Cheney's Haliburtion relationship for example. And isn't the Bush family far more wealthier and powerful in 2007 than in 2001? Anyway, the war itself looks like the worst Federal decision in American history.

[Augustine2004]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

Wow. You wrote a lot. Unfortunately, you didn't seem to notice the other aspect of the Campus Decorum: "The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Please keep your points concise and limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy from both a writer's and a reader's perspective when there are too many points to address. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.)" No ambiguity this time, either.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Augustine2004]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

Wow. You wrote a lot. Unfortunately, you didn't seem to notice the other aspect of the Campus Decorum: "The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Please keep your points concise and limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy from both a writer's and a reader's perspective when there are too many points to address. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.)" No ambiguity this time, either.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

The start of Book 5 to 451c You would scarely be surprised by my assertion that the Bible must be the foundation of everyone's education.
.

You put a lot in a few posts that is hard to respond to, the period of about 600 BC to 300 BC is a significant time in our history, roughly within this time period we have the great intellectual and spiritual minds of Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These I consider essential to the foundation of everyone's education.

You still appear to comfortable with being certain of certain things, which I feel is an allusion. To be full of doubts may be going a little to far, but recognizing the fallible nature of being human is essential in accepting the limits of certainty. I believe in this process of accepting reality as an evolving changing body of human knowledge that the only thing that is like most certain is change. it is important to embrace the universal as Aristotle proposed in Physica.

In a related dialogue with Seer who asserted that 'certainty' was an important issue in his belief system.

[Augustine2004]

400 I can't comment on all these feet, as mine keep tripping up over each other.

402 Is it really true that the one who is most appreciative of beauty is the most moral? There is no logial reason to think so, unless morality is defined in terms of beauty. Moreover, artists are proverbial for licentiousness.

406 A. Phoenix said that reading the Republic would enrich my life. Well, I did learn a word. Wow, I'm a valetudinary. I hope I'm not boring you if I tell you about this ache in my elbow . . .

407d I'm not sure I understand, but Socrates seems to be talking about the dilemma of modern medicine: Whether to prolong a wretched existence or to allow it to end naturally and quickly.

409e Hitler's physicians certainly treated him well - or did they, at the end? Should they have treated him well, always?

410 I would certainly agree that if we had two judges that had equally good natures, but one had much greater experience of evil than the other, then the one would be much more likely to be the better judge.

411 I tried to imagine L. Pavarotti as an epee-wielding brave. I didn't dissolve in laughter - after all, he did wield swords in plays, did he? - but I imagine some of you reading this are dissolving. [written before his death, R.I.P.]

412d But, what ARE the interests of the state? Whatever they are, they ought not necessarily be those of the ruling class. Unfortunately, no part of the world can be found in which the ruling class clearly does not attempt to rule in its own interests. For most practical purposes, the class interprets the interests of the state as its own.

413a That Plato or Socrates believed in witchcraft or sorcery surprised me.

413c If we are to have rulers, they ought to be Christians. King Solomon, in particular, before he got old -- I know, I know, he lived before Jesus, but I'm still using him as an example.

413 A problem here is that the state must be good to begin with. If it is already evil, it would see to that it educates the youth to serve its own interests and not those of the general populace. Thus would evil perpetuate itself.

416 I actually have no objection to people's sharing property, as long as they do so purely voluntarily. It may not always be practical, though.

416e and 417 Would our armed forces be less effective the more wealth they have? Interesting question. Would our armed forces living in Sparatan conditions do a better job than they would in prosperous conditions? True, we do not want our aircraft carriers to have teakwood and silk curtains, if all they do is to make them look pretty, but that's not what I meant. Should the armed forces be much better paid than they are now, if the USA can afford the additional expense?

“Well,” said I, “even that would have a good effect making them more inclined to care for the state and one another. For I think I apprehend your meaning. XXII. And this shall fall out as tradition guides.” What does the number 22 in Roman notation mean? Or did a corral containing Roman numbers break?

The end of book 3 Plato or Socrates does not seem to have thought out how the socieity is to recognize which of us are most suited to be in the armed forces. Maybe one of the latter books will reveal the answer.

420a Why not, if we have to have a President, reduce his family to the level of the median family with the same number of children and their offspring, when his administration ends. So, for example, Bill Gates, if ever he does become President, would have to give away most of his wealth on exiting the White House. On the other hand my neighbor might be paid enough so that *his* family is *raised* to the median level, if his administration is popular enough.

420b Plato does not explain how to measure the overall happiness of any given group of people.

420c to 421a Plato does not really define happiness, and he seems to slight the principle that all the people should have equal rights, property rights in particular.

420d "And so in the present case you must not require us to attach to the guardians a happiness that will make them anything but guardians." I have no idea what Plato has in mind when he wrote that, especially about happiness. But, if he meant what I think happiness is, or at any rate what is close, he is badly mistaken. One cannot "attach" happiness to someone else. Could it be a poor translation? In any case we must have free markets, and virtually no government, for a healthy and vigorous society.

421a The more power we give our government, the more power-hungry people are attracted to government "service;" those who are hungry for material benefits and other privileges (endless sex, for example) are also. The Bush and Kennedy families are good examples.

Clearly Plato is assuming that men are predators - else why "guardians" are necessary? But, why assume there will be men who won't be predators and who will be willing to serve as guardians AND who can be found and "hired" to serve as guardians AND who WILL be found and hired as guardians? Too contradictory.

421b People have noticed that there seems to be a *inverse* correlation between the size of a nation's government and the general prosperity of the nation.

421c-e It's quite clear that for all that he appears to be the first to discover the overwhelming benefits of good division of labor, Plato minimizes free-market economics. However, I do agree that wealth tends to corrupt or soften the people. Are we Americans not going down the tubes? Whooosh! However consider J.K. Rowling. Was she ever more worse as an author the ever more wealthy she got? As I understand, she is now wealthier than her Queen, yet her final Harry Potter novel has been greatly praised and is now #1 best seller.

422b-e I'm not certain I understand what was in Plato's mind. On the *average*, per opponent, it's indeed easier to fight any number of opponents than one, when the number is greater than one, with good strategy. However, if the group of opponents could cooperate sufficiently well, the eventual doom of the solitary athlete of war seems certain anyhow. Plato does make a good point, though, that poor persons or cities are often less likely to be victims than fat, rich entities.

422e-423b is puzzling, in particular this: “What happy innocence,” said I, “to suppose that you can properly use the name city of any other than the one we are constructing.” “Why, what should we say?” he said. “A greater predication,” said I, “must be applied to the others. For they are each one of them many cities, not a city, as it goes in the game. . . ."

425e-426a True statements even now, after more than two millennia. Progress - ha!

428b-c The passage clashes with the individualism of Christianity. Subordinating oneself to some group like a family, a tribe, a political party, a city, a nation, or a government is not necessarily a sin. However, that must never be done in any way contrary to God's commandments. Moreover, God's commandments if interpreted strictly precludes big government. That is not necessarily bigness in terms of the fraction of the world's resources that is put at disposal of the government including the number of government employees, but of the control of the people's lives. Indeed, minimal government is the only kind that can never possibly contradict the commandments insofar as it is done competently and correctly. The minimal government has only two primary tasks: Punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen. If Christianity is the correct religion (for convenience all forms of atheism including agnosticism are here considered to be religions), the world would be good only if everyone was a real Christian.

Also, collectivism, in the sense of treating an individual as a part of a group without any due consideration of his unique characterstics, like Jim Crow (segregation in the U.S.A.) or the caste system in India, is wrong.


Is there anyone who wants to argue against the proposition that any group should be led by its wisest member or members, in general? But, how can the group find which of its members are the wisest? Maybe Plato will discuss this later on.


428d It's certainly true that the world needs wise governance. But what IS it? Minimal government? Or some sort of big government? If so, exactly what? Why not self-governance, that is, everyone follows the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule as best as he can?


428e If a community has a good system for identifying its wisest members, I have no objection if the community seeks and follows their counsel and advice.

' . . . a city established on principles of nature . . . ' What are they?

429 Contrary to popular opinion or conventional wisdom, a free-market defense business is quite feasible. I would be glad to defend this assertion if challenged.

430-436 Man, Plato goes on and on without really arriving at a definition of justice, and I suspect he has a somewhat different idea what it is than mine anyway. In my view, justice is meaningless in the case of a hermit. The relationship one has with another is what has the quality of justice or injustice. (If a reader protests that the relationship of the government or the state has to any one individual ought to be considered also, I would reply that I only view the government as made up of a relatively small number of individuals having particular relationships to one another and to non-government people.) If I say that one is just, I mean that his relationships with other people are on the whole just.

430a I wonder what Plato would say about the idea of deriving our laws from the Bible. In any case, if our laws are bad, then anyone 'dyed' in such laws should be expected to do bad things. Anyone enforcing an unjust tax law by courageously collecting taxes that it mandates is committing injustice.

430e-431a Is soberness what we call self-discipline? Or anyway self-discipline is a large part of soberness, perhaps? But if it's only a part, what is the other part of soberness?

432b A city in which everyone follows the Bible would be better than any city whose inhabitants don't, in my view.

435a and following Suppose I say that Janice is a Christian. She tries to understand and follow the Bible. What would I mean, though, if I say that Nation A is Christian? It is literally absurd if I meant that A is like Janice, unless I meant that every inhabitant of Nation A is like Janice. I either do not understand what Plato is saying here or he is simply wrong.

436c and following Generally speaking, with respect to an observer, a body may be in motion though any one point (i.e. any part of the body that is small compared to the resolution [like that attribute of a photographic camera] of the observer) is at rest relative to the observer. It is exceedingly seldom the case that the body is all perfectly at rest, partly because the observer's head may involutionarily move, because of quantum effects or other effects, such as the beating of the heart. However, I'm quite willing to grant Plato his example of a perfectly-at-rest body. I also grant his desire that we regard a body to be at rest rt an observer, if any part of the body is at rest rt the observer.

437 and following It is indeed expident, convenient, and practical to sort things into rigid categories, black and white fashion. However, now Plato by taking this line of argument loses sight of the logic. A reason is that things can be sorted or classified in innumerable ways, innumerable categories, arbitarily, for no apparently good reason.

438a Plato goes wrong in supposing or posisting that goodness is an quality that exists independently from the human mind or God. On the contrary, the value of a specific object exists only in the mind. Consider the saying that beauty exists only in the beholder's eye. If one has overwhelming thirst, he may willingly drink fetid water that he knows to be laced with poison, if he thinks that no potable water is available nearby and will not be soon. (Plato's error is a fallacy that was old already IIRC.)

'All men desire good' is a truism. It needs to be pointed out that what seems good to one may seem bad to another.

438d-e Is this not hyper refined argument? We all could be dead long before such an argument runs its course.

439b-e Praxeologists of the Austrian School of Economics hold a different view of human life, specifically human action. Every moment everyone has available to himself a set of actions. It is postulated that he can choose one, and only one, of the actions to undertake the next moment. For example, you could choose to continue to read this, or go for a walk instead. It is also postulated that you cannot choose not to act; you must and will choose some (and only one) action to undertake, willy nilly. Even sleeping is an action. In bed you have the unconscious choice of continuing to sleep or of awakening, every moment. Even waiting for "something to happen" is in itself an action.

Now consider thirst. When one feels thirsty, there is usually not just one course of actions one may undertake to satisfy one's thirst. His refrigerator may have milk; soda pops, each of a different flavor; a carafe of water; orange juice; and pineapple juice. Or he may desire hot jasmine tea, which would entail boiling water, seeping the tea in a cup of the hot water, and so on. Or he may choose to continue whatever he was doing when he became aware of his thirst, thereby delaying his slaking his thirst. Contrast that statement with Plato's supposition that there is something in the soul that promotes slaking the thirst and something else also in the soul that opposes that thing. No: it is merely making a choice among several distinct actions, as far as we can know matters. I am not saying Plato is wrong, but how can we possibly verify his theory?

Praxeologists say that the general aim of any purposeful action is the maximal satisifaction of one's wants. Of course each individual is unique; so what maximal satisfaction is and what one's wants are, are unique to that individual. It is up to each freely acting individual to determine what his wants are and to decide how best to satisfy them, or at least aim at minimal dissatisfaction with her world.

439e The Leontius story reminds me of Buridan's ass (google it).

440a-c Plato misapprehends the person's split between the reason and the emotions. In reality everyone is both at once reasonable and emotional. Whoever is considered rational, like Mr. Spock, is also emotional; whoever is considered emotional is also rational (to some degree). A thing that is completely irrational is capable only of completely irrational acts, if it is capable of acting at all. A thing that is completely rational (something like your computer) is incapable of acting on its own or of making decisions on its own. To be sure, we do have robots, but is their behavior really human?

440c-d Is it so that the more noble a person is, the less swayed he is by his base emotions?

440e Plato almost sees something in the person. The person, in order to make a choice of actions, needs more than reason and emotions. At one given time suppose there is a range of actions that he could undertake. However, suppose further he uses his reasoning powers to eliminate all actions but three: (1) continue to use his reasoning powers to eliminate more alternative actions; (2) choose Action A; and (3) choose Action B. Alternative action (1) is now clearly nonsense, so the person must finally choose A or B. How? I have no idea. We just somehow choose, willy nilly. A person in the same situation might choose A; another person, B. Is that really random? If we reject the Calvinist predestination doctrine, I guess the answer is yes. What do we call that part of the person that makes the ultimate or final choice of action? Plato's "high spirit"? No - [mischievous smile] the Decider!

441c Plato does not define "state," so his argument cannot be decisive. Moreover, historically and practically speaking, the state is essentially the ruling class of nearly every nation, including the United States of America (NOT the people, the Constitution's preamble notwithstanding). Furthermore, in any case, unless you approve the paradigm of a small group's rule over the people, the state should be expected to commit as much injustice as it can. (Monoarchies are in reality oligarchies, practically speaking).

The rest of Book 4 I don't think we ever had a community led by a ruling group of saints. Samson was a judge of Israel, but he sometimes went astray - ultimately losing his strength, eyes and life in consequence. Anyhow, consider the case in which the community is all devils but the ruling class is all saints. What would happen? I cannot see that the saints could really keep their rule. They would eventually - perhaps quickly - be replaced by ruthless devils. Idi Amins running riot in the Congo. It would seem to follow, then that for the community to be saintly, its members must be sufficiently saintly also. Say, 99% saintly. As Simon Templar might say, "Be good, you hear!" The reason the Congo is so bad is not its ruling class - if ever it has such an unitary class - but its people is so bad.

The start of Book 5 to 451c You would scarely be surprised by my assertion that the Bible must be the foundation of everyone's education.

451c-454b Whatever men should do and women do, I would like to see good division of labor. Certainly women can bear children; men can only be protectors if they are able to be at all. On another question, what about the custom in some societies of the parents selecting a mate for their child, instead of in the United States of America, of the child selecting her own mate? Will Plato discuss that? Oh well, I will read on and see what he has to say.

454a 'Eristic'! Wow, a word I did not know before, one to impress my friends and enemies, of which the latter are legion. To A.P., I would say, "Thou art eristic!"

456d Plato still doesn't explain in detail how society is to select those among us to be our leaders. I don't mind a Queen Elizabeth, provided she would indeed be our best leader.

459d and 462 But on what principles are the best to be selected for breeding? Who are those who chooses to select the 'best' for breeding? How is the society to select those who are to choose the 'best' for breeding? And so on.

460a Plato does not appear to have considered the possibility that the human mind is such a great resource that in a setting of due regard for the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All we need as many minds as we can create. 20 billion people may be better than 7 billion.

461c So that the number of people may be well regulated by available resources, we need the world to be in a setting of the IoLoJfA.

461d I don't understand this phrase: "born in the tenth and in the seventh month . . ." Maybe it means between the start of the seventh month and the end of the tenth month. Of course the phrase is in the context of communal marriage, something I don't approve of.

462c It would indeed be great for us to agree on everything. Or to act the same way every time. Or would it indeed be great? Maybe, but that would never happen except after Judgement Day. Everyone will have different opinions and desires, and make different decisions in similar circumstances. What one may regard as uttermost evil, another may regard as the highest good. We may as well as live with that as fact just as we have to live with the fact that if we fall off a high cliff, our bones would shatter on the rocks at the base of the cliff.

462e This is intriguing. If any member of the society suffers, the society should know and act to allevitate or eliminate the suffering, if it can. Unfortunately the United States of America is not really such a society. For years since the War Between the States, the black people suffered tremendously. All those lynchings, discrimination, misprisonings . . . The American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II . . .

463b The state and the ruling class are careful not to publicly call us slaves, but in reality that's what we are.

466 I'm not a woman or child, but I somehow suspect women and children would be less happy in Socrates' ideal city than in a Christian city, however imperfect.

467 Of course we should assume there will always be war somewhere in the world. However, I cannot believe that the world would be better off if every child who ultimately will become a participant in organized armed conflict is forced to observe instances of it. Yes, yes, hope for peace but be prepared for war. Also, if you want peace, be prepared for war. Nonetheless, I cannot help feel there is something wrong with Socrates' thinking that one of the steps that the nation or community must take is to force its children to observe instances and aftermaths of armed conflicts. Why fight for one's life if it becomes horrible, too horrible to live? I do concede that we must gradually acquaint our children with the horrible realities of life, though, or they will live no longer than babes in the wood. Let me add this: War should never be glorified, nor we should allow our children to become calloused.

468a Breaches of contract surely deserve more severe penalty than mere reduction to the artisan or farmer class in many cases.

“And anyone who is taken alive by the enemy140 we will make a present of to his captors, shall we not, to deal with their catch141 [468b] as they please?” What nonsense! What if the capture was the fault of the commander, say because of stupidity or avarice? Or is this some sort of black humor? If so, ugh.

468c I'm not sure what that means, but it does seem that Socrates is suggesting that valor in the field should be rewarded by good marriage. I don't totally agree. If the people of the nation were a good one, and were saved by a valiant band from conquest, then maybe yeah. Otherwise, no. What if the Axis won World War II?

468d '. . . For Homer says that Ajax, who had distinguished himself in the war, was honored with the long chine,144 assuming that the most fitting meed for a brave man in the prime of his youth is that from which both honor and strength will accrue to him.' I'm not sure I understand. What's a long chine? Why should we think that would give anyone strength, never mind honor? Certainly a businessman who gives his customer excellent value should garner greater profits than one who serves his customers less well. So, likewise a solider should have greater responsibility and money, the greater the service he renders on the battlefield.

468e Let's take the War Between the American States. If you believe in the Union, then those who died for it belong to the Golden Race. On the other hand, Southerners believe those are just damn Yankees.

469 Surely Christians would recoil from that as from any other argument for the worship of an idol.

469c In stark and simple terms, the War Between the American States was the North's successful attempt to keep the South enslaved.

469e In extremity of conquest, I would make all use of whatever means I could lay hands on, including things on corposes, consistent with the Christian principles.

[Augustine2004]

You put a lot in a few posts that is hard to respond to, the period of about 600 BC to 300 BC is a significant time in our history, roughly within this time period we have the great intellectual and spiritual minds of Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These I consider essential to the foundation of everyone's education.

You still appear to comfortable with being certain of certain things, which I feel is an allusion. To be full of doubts may be going a little to far, but recognizing the fallible nature of being human is essential in accepting the limits of certainty. I believe in this process of accepting reality as an evolving changing body of human knowledge that the only thing that is like most certain is change. it is important to embrace the universal as Aristotle proposed in Physica.

In a related dialogue with Seer who asserted that 'certainty' was an important issue in his belief system.

I will be posting rarely if ever in TWeb from now on. One reason is the rule against multiple postings to get 'everything' in. I'm not disputing. Just complaining about the inconvenience.

'limits of certainity' = means nothing to me.

I have no idea what you are saying. First you say the most certain thing is change. Then you say to embrace the universal. I may look at Physica someday to see what in the world you're talking about.

Well, you have to start with some assumtions about the world if you are going to take some action. Otherwise the action is no more meaningful than the blazing trajectory of a meteor or the wriggling of a centipede.

Don't expect me to post here again any time soon, except to post the rest of my notes.

[AngelDragon]

Huh. I have Plato's Republic for Intro to Philosophy next semester. Thanks for posting.

[Augustine2004]

Angel Dragon, you're welcome. AND thanks for posting.

The rest of my notes:

469e In extremity of conquest, I would make all use of whatever means I could lay hands on, including things on corposes, consistent with the Christian principles.

473e One problem here is still how to select the best of us to be king. Who is the greatest philosopher in the world today? I! But I don't see how I can convince you that 'tis so. Alas, I shall never rule. Moreover there seems to be some sort of law, as someone has observed: One may be great in a narrow field of endeavor, say the accumulation of political power or of philosophical intelligence, and nevertheless be a klutz in other fields of endeavor. Whoever is great in the accumulation of both political power and philosophical intelligence would be a rare bird indeed. 'Tis not necessarily true that the ability to win political contests more or less matches the ability to lead well.

474c But how are those who are not great philosophers, or at any rate, not great persons, to select those who are the great persons so that they may lead us? We may search history in vain for any example of a community who with great thought and deliberation selected a great leader. Was Jesus Christ selected? Was Alexander the Great selected?

474e-475e I cannot believe that there ever existed an individual so fortunate that he found no fault in anything substantial. Furthermore, were there such an case, I would still contend that it were extremely exceptional.

476b Either I do not know what Plato means by 'beauty' here or he has yet to realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is, beauty is only something inside one's mind or purely a state of mind. What one may regard as beautiful, another may regard as hideous.


No idea when I'll finish - maybe years from now.

[shunyadragon]

I will be posting rarely if ever in TWeb from now on. One reason is the rule against multiple postings to get 'everything' in. I'm not disputing. Just complaining about the inconvenience.

'limits of certainity' = means nothing to me.

I have no idea what you are saying. First you say the most certain thing is change. Then you say to embrace the universal. I may look at Physica someday to see what in the world you're talking about.



Don't expect me to post here again any time soon, except to post the rest of my notes.

Sorry to here you plan to stop. I would hope that you could set the goal of a thread and add information in segments as the thread progresses.

The concept of the 'limits of certainty' is not a difficult concept to grasp. Information changes and increases over time and varies from culture to cultural. Cultural exchange is a way information increases. I consider revelation to be information, which increases, changes and evolves over time. I believe the Bible is a good example of this concept.

Aristotle concidered it necessary to consider the universal or the general (all available information) when evaluating the evidence in all different disciplines.

Well, you have to start with some assumptions about the world if you are going to take some action. Otherwise the action is no more meaningful than the blazing trajectory of a meteor or the wriggling of a centipede.

No problem with making assumptions, but and taking actions based on these assumptions. The question is how certain these assumptions should be.

The trajectory of meteorites and wriggling of the centipede have a high degree of certainty.

[Augustine2004]

Shunyadragon, can you take meaningful action if you never make assumptions?

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon, can you take meaningful action if you never make assumptions?

I make many assumptions and take meaningful action. Do assumptions have to be absolutely certain?