Yes, I did understand that it was the basic assumption and condition of the argument not the conclusion — Amity
I meant I can't grant him that basic assumption on which the argument relies or stands.
Shaky ground. — Amity
I think any conclusion or belief that the soul is immortal can't be deduced by argument.
Rather it is a matter of faith. — Amity
Perhaps it was necessary to convince his students of the divine, and ideal Form - an afterlife - so that they would be protected from danger. — Amity
With Socrates as their mentor, they would have come under suspicion... — Amity
Like this ? — Amity
And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit after its kind;
And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind
`Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:'
And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind (Genesis 1)
The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. (Darwin, The Descent of Man)
1.Why would you say that is the kind of things Mind as Form does ? — Amity
2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity
It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing?
— Valentinus
I skipped over this earlier - not paying attention to the second part.
What did you mean by 'this sort of thing' ?
Stories within a story showing different perspectives ? With the motives of the author(s) in question ? — Amity
'Kind' is another English term for 'Form'. — Fooloso4
And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit after its kind;
And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind
`Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:'
And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind (Genesis 1)
This structure is also found in classic religious and philosophical texts. The structure of The Symposium and Phaedo, attributed to Plato, is of a story within a story within a story. In the Christian Bible, the gospels are retellings of stories from the life and ministry of Jesus. However, they also include within them the stories (parables) that Jesus told.
In more modern philosophical work, Jostein Gaarder's books often feature this device. Examples are The Solitaire Mystery, where the protagonist receives a small book from a baker, in which the baker tells the story of a sailor who tells the story of another sailor, and Sophie's World about a girl who is actually a character in a book that is being read by Hilde, a girl in another dimension. Later on in the book Sophie questions this idea, and realizes that Hilde too could be a character in a story that in turn is being read by another. — Wiki: Story within a story
Socrates says that Mind arranges or orders things. (97c) Is this 'Mind' a particular mind? — Fooloso4
2. How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ?
— Amity
Soul is that which brings life. Here again the distinction is blurred as it was with Snow and snow. — Fooloso4
The structure of The Symposium and Phaedo, attributed to Plato, is of a story within a story within a story. In the Christian Bible, the gospels are retellings of stories from the life and ministry of Jesus. However, they also include within them the stories (parables) that Jesus told. — Wiki: Story within a story
So I take it that Plato's literary tricks in the Phaedo and elsewhere, as dutifully imitated — magritte
the authors of the gospels were intended to make all the tales as a cumulative package more life-like, — magritte
The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[17] Modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[18][19] — Wiki: Gospel
more convincing to naive un-philosophical people who listen to such stories? — magritte
How are you defining both 'soul' and 'Soul' ? — Amity
Then, my friend, we were talking of things that have opposite qualities and naming these after them, but now we say that these opposites themselves, from the presence of which in them things get their name, never can tolerate the coming to be from one another.(103b-c)
Answer me then, what is it that, present in a body, makes it living?
Cebes: A soul. (105c)
"Concepts such as 'Beauty' don't exist by themselves, do they ?
They arise from the real world - we create such - why ? "
This is a viewpoint that Plato is dedicated to challenge. Man is not the measure of all things — Cuthbert
Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the “worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)” and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not...
Historically, it was in response to Protagoras and his fellow sophists that Plato began the search for transcendent forms or knowledge which could somehow anchor moral judgment. Along with the other Older Sophists and Socrates, Protagoras was part of a shift in philosophical focus from the earlier Presocratic tradition of natural philosophy to an interest in human philosophy...
Plato (427-347 B.C.E.): Protagoras is a leading character in Plato’s dialogue Protagoras and Protagoras’ doctrines are discussed extensively in Plato’s Theaetetus. Plato’s dialogues, however, are a mixture of historical account and artistic license, much in the manner of the comic plays of the period...
Of Protagoras’ ipsissima verba (actual words, as opposed to paraphrases), the most famous is the homo-mensura (man-measure) statement (DK80b1): “Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or “how”] they are, and of things that are not, that [or “how”] they are not.” This precise meaning of this statement, like that of any short extract taken out of context, is far from obvious, although the long discussion of it in Plato’s Theaetetus gives us some sense of how ancient Greek audiences interpreted it. — IEP article: Protagorus
Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.
The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses. — Fooloso4
Man is the measure does not mean that what any man says is thereby true, but it is, after all, man who measures the arguments made by man. A transcendent standard by which to measure is not available to us. — Fooloso4
Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death — Cuthbert
In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust? — Cuthbert
The Theory of Forms was not (merely) abstract speculation: it came from the gut. — Cuthbert
Amity Ha ha! I think you've caught me out speculating now. (Remembering an earlier reminder to stick to the text....). — Cuthbert
It is a difficult matter to explore because who else did/does this sort of thing? — Valentinus
I skipped over this earlier - not paying attention to the second part.
What did you mean by 'this sort of thing' ?
Stories within a story showing different perspectives ? With the motives of the author(s) in question ? — Amity
I was referring to Plato. He is unique in gathering a record of dialogues with different "schools" of thought as actual discussions — Valentinus
Yes, I was thinking about Protagoras, for example. I was also thinking about the Athenian culture that Plato was unhappy about: the society that put Socrates to death — Cuthbert
But I think it's worth thinking about what questions of his time Plato was answering when he wrote the dialogues. For example: in politics, democracy vs tyranny or aristocracy; in metaphysics, how can things both be and not be at the same time (Parmenides, Zeno); in art, irrational violence vs sublime contemplation (Euripides, the Parthenon) — Cuthbert
I'm saying this in the hope of pointing out the emotional force of Plato's writing which can seem abstract, obscure, dry, outmoded and false out of context. — Cuthbert
Plato's criticism of Protagoras must be carefully read in context in order to see what he is and is not rejecting.
The Forms are presented as if they are transcendent truths, but they are hypotheses. — Fooloso4
The Theory of Forms stands or falls on its own merits or demerits - probably falls - but from a point of view of biography, psychology (see another thread about that) I *speculate* that this is a person who has lost a great friend to political violence and ignorance and is saying "We can't just make up justice, truth, right and wrong, is and is-not; we need to apply some wisdom and thought." — Cuthbert
It is directly related to the text. Perhaps not what you had in mind but one meaning of from the gut is something known without being taught, inborn knowledge or recollection. — Fooloso4
In such a world, what are the values and truths that we can trust? — Cuthbert
Are you suggesting that [the gut] is where our values and truths come from ? — Amity
The approach of Aristotle of formulating different arguments and comparing them is more like what we are used to. — Valentinus
According to a conventional view, Plato’s philosophy is abstract and utopian, whereas Aristotle’s is empirical, practical, and commonsensical — Britannica: How Plato and Aristotle differ
“You have spoken up like a man,” he said, “but you do not observe the difference between the present doctrine and what we said before. We said before that in the case of concrete things opposites are generated from opposites; whereas now we say that the abstract concept of an opposite can never become its own opposite, either in us or in the world about us. Then we were talking about things which possess opposite qualities and are called after them, but now about those very opposites the immanence of which gives the things their names. We say that these latter can never be generated from each other.”
At the same time he looked at Cebes and said: “And you—are you troubled by any of our friends' objections?”
“No,” said Cebes, “not this time; though I confess that objections often do trouble me.”
“Well, we are quite agreed,” said Socrates, “upon this, that an opposite can never be its own opposite.”
“Entirely agreed,” said Cebes.
“Now,” said he, “see if you agree with me in what follows: Is there something that you call heat and something you call cold?”
“Yes.”
“Are they the same as snow and fire?”
[103d] “No, not at all.”
“But heat is a different thing from fire and cold differs from snow?”
“Yes.”
“Yet I fancy you believe that snow, if (to employ the form of phrase we used before) it admits heat, will no longer be what it was, namely snow, and also warm, but will either withdraw when heat approaches it or will cease to exist.”
“Certainly.”
“And similarly fire, when cold approaches it, will either withdraw or perish. It will never succeed in admitting cold and being still fire, [103e] as it was before, and also cold.”
“That is true,” said he.
“The fact is,” said he, “in some such cases, that not only the abstract idea itself has a right to the same name through all time, but also something else, which is not the idea, but which always, whenever it exists, has the form of the idea." — Phaedo 103b-103e
I can’t see how the reading supports that. The body perishes or is destroyed but I simply don’t see how this passage admits this of the soul, also. — Wayfarer
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.