What kind of Buddhism did you study? — MysticMonist
The concept of a will divided against itself was not available in the ancient Hellenic culture. — Cavacava
The resolution is to recognize that Plato posits a tripartite person. — Metaphysician Undercover
So Plotinus says something simmilar. We have our souls that illumine our animal nature and we choose to turn our face towards higher things or baser things. I love how he says it's not the soul's fault if we sinned. She did her job of illumination and it is us who decided to turn away. — MysticMonist
As Augustine argues, the will must be free from the material influences of the physical body in order to follow the immaterial principles of the intellect. — Metaphysician Undercover
the will must be free from the material influences of the physical body in order to follow the immaterial principles of the intellect. — Metaphysician Undercover
This third aspect of the person, spirit (I don't know the Greek word used, but it is translated in different ways), is necessary to explain the interaction between body and mind.
the will is always divided against itself until death, but that is well off topic. — Cavacava
Aristotle called it proairesis, the faculty of choice. It is how we deliberate about the means, not the ends. Both means and ends are given, for Plato & Aristotle, freedom of choice is a selection process for them. If our selections are moral then our soul is in tune (Georgias). The parts of the soul are friends, when they work together. — Cavacava
For Paul the only way for man to mend this inner wretchedness through grace. — Cavacava
laws are given by men, then it is necessary that the human mind works to learn and create laws so they are not really "given". But if laws are given by God, then we must simply take them as they are given to us. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think it is correct to say that means and ends are given for Plato and Aristotle.
Desire is for something, no? So ends are given. — Cavacava
And means vary, they must be deliberated upon but they are known, and must be subject to a selection process. — Cavacava
Dialects for Plato is in the give and take of the dialogue, this is what dialects entails for Plato. The Socratic ignorance is largely ironic, it is his way of putting himself on the same level as his interlocutor, but it is clear from all the dialogues that he knows more than those he questions. — Cavacava
Perhaps you are using "given" in a way that I am not familiar with. Desire begins as an indefinite feeling. It is a sort of uneasiness within a person. The feeling must be interpreted then directed towards an object. The object of desire is chosen, not given, and the object of desire is the end.
You would think that the means must be determined after the end is determined, because how could you ever properly fulfil your desire until after you've determined the object which the desire is for. But there is something very odd which happens with means, and this odd thing is demonstrated by the reality of habituation.
This is the issue which Socrates addressed when he went around asking skilled people, do you "know" what you are doing. The crafts people are carrying out a procedure, and the end is "given", meaning that the product which is produced will have a form which is determined by this habitual procedure. But Plato suggests that there is something inherently wrong with this procedure. He says that the people who are using the product ought to have some say in the production of the product, such that the product is tailored to the user's satisfaction.
So the perspective is one of determining what is wanted (knowledge in this case), and asking for what is desired, the end, rather than just taking what is given.
Just look at the subjects of his dialogues, he may not have the answers but he certainly know the topics, the ends are rarely questioned. — Cavacava
The end is generally the purpose of the dialogue, its topic, such as: can virtue be taught, what is justice, what is piety....and so on and Plato has a general methodology that he uses to approach these topics. The methodology is to question his interlocutors to come up with general ideas that may pertain to the topic and then investigate each idea, see what might be right or wrong with it and go on and on until they can't go any further. It is a selection process. — Cavacava
Poppycock, what is that MU, the Marxian interpretation — Cavacava
I disagree. The topic is never in question, he may not know exactly what is entailed by the his topic, such as knowledge in his Theaetetus, or Piety in his Euthyphro but there is never a question about the topic itself it is given as the subject of the dialogue. — Cavacava
Actually I think the opposite of this is true, the ends are what are questioned by Plato. Pleasure, the different virtues, and virtue itself, are presented as the ends, and the nature of these things is questioned. So he takes words like "pleasure", "courage", "just", "pious", etc., and questions what is meant by these terms, what is referred toby them. So these ends are clearly questioned.
It is not a selection process. It is a process of understanding. Choice, or selection is withheld, suspended in the manner of a skepticism, such that the subject may be understood before selection is made. Each of Plato's dialogues ends without a clear and conclusive understanding of the subject presented, so no selection is actually possible.
It is a selection process.my art is in thoroughly examining whether the thought which the mind of the young man brings forth is a false idol or a noble and true birth.
Have you not read Plato? Clearly he stated that those using the product ought to have some say in the production of the product. It is produced for their purposes, not for the purpose of the producer. Plato was communist, he proposed communal living, so he lends himself well to a Marxist interpretation.
The word "knowledge", or "piety", is not what is at question. What is at question is the thing signified by the word. That is why Plato's method is called "dialectics". It is incorrect to say the there is no question as to what the subject is, just because there is no question as to what the word being investigated is. The word is not the subject. The subject is what is referred to by the word, and this is exactly what is at question.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.