No, why do you think I am? In the Republic Plato is quite clear that flourishing requires harmony between all of the souls elements, and this can only be achieved via reason becoming the ruling faculty. This isn't a denial of the body, but rather placing the body in its proper place so that it can attain its own fulfilment.Are you kidding me regarding Plato's view of the physical? — Beebert
I don't think Plato makes this kind of ontological separation :P But rather he distinguishes there are different parts of oneself, which includes the body and its appetites. To satisfy the entire person means that there is harmony between these parts. To bring this into N.'s language, we ourselves are formed of multiple and contradictory "wills-to-power" - so we have to bring those wills to power in harmony, otherwise we're conflicted people, and we don't even have a self as Kierkegaard would say. This is effectively what Plato is saying - he identifies three different faculties of the soul/body and he investigates how they can be brought in harmony. His conclusion is that this only happens when the rational faculty rules over the others. But this rational faculty includes much more than what we consider reason today. It also includes intuition - for example. This is absolutely essential - Dostoyevsky's and N's critique of reason isn't a critique of Plato's reason, it's a critique of scientific reason. Intuition plays a fundamental role in Plato - it is through intuition that one has access to anamnesis - remembrance. That's why Plato thought that only those who have the mystical vision of Agathon can be philosopher kings.Body and soul are one. There is no seperation as in Plato. — Beebert
>:O >:O Funnily enough this is very very Platonic :P1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that called Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age." — Beebert
This is more controversial. BUT! "Progression" is only a temporal matter belonging to this world, and this life."Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,
Reason and Energy, Love and Hate are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil.
Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing
from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell." — Beebert
I'm not quite sure. So long as we have a physical body we're trapped in time. After death we will be, as you say, in eternity, completely. Much more than we are in eternity by living in the present now."If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present." — Beebert
N. misunderstood Plato's view of rationality, so he was criticising a strawman. What N. called the Dionysian element was always a part of Plato's view of rationality.I am against Plato's view here about rationality for the same reason Nietzsche praises Dionysos over Apollo — Beebert
Suffering is more negative than pleasure is positive. — dukkha
I'm not so sure about this. There's accumulating scientific evidence that traumatic events shape one much more than ecstatic moments do - the brain also seems to remember pain much more than pleasure. There seems to be an evolutionary reason for this, since avoiding pain ends up being more important than pleasure in terms of survival. Pain implies death and death is final, whereas pleasure has no finality. There is an asymmetry between pleasure and pain...This is not true in m experience... — VagabondSpectre
For example, reason for Plato includes, and in fact is based on noetic truths and intuition, and the intellect is active, and not just a passive recipient of ideas as it is for Bacon. The passive, life-killing intellect that is based on pure logic that Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche criticise isn't the intellect of Plato.Could you explain this more in detail? — Beebert
But yes, I'm talking about the negative of pain being greater than the positive of pleasure.Severe trauma ~might~ have longer lasting effects on us than say, marriage or procreation, but that doesn't mean "the negative of pain is greater than the positive of pleasure". — VagabondSpectre
But yes, I'm talking about the negative of pain being greater than the positive of pleasure.Severe trauma ~might~ have longer lasting effects on us than say, marriage or procreation, but that doesn't mean "the negative of pain is greater than the positive of pleasure". — VagabondSpectre
But yes, I'm talking about the negative of pain being greater than the positive of pleasure. — Agustino
So why not just suicide? Suicide will free you from all suffering, ever. — dukkha
Who told you that "the negative of pain is greater than the positive of pleasure"? — VagabondSpectre
It could be true that for people enduring lives of hardship and pain, the rare moments of comfort and happiness they are able to find become more defining or longer lasting as you suggest trauma is for westerners. — VagabondSpectre
I think the vast majority of people value life for its own sake, not just for the sake of experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain. It's hard to put your finger on precisely, but it's just good to be alive, is the position.
Because we value our lives, we're willing to put up with a significant amount of pain before we generally consider giving it up. So suicide is generally not an attractive option until the horribleness of the pain outweights the good of any continuation of being alive. — Brian
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.