transcendental characteristics of phenomenal objects — charles ferraro

My brain froze when I was told I can't bring up the noumenon.

I would like to see a moratorium where both Fooloso4 and Apollodorus do not respond to each other for a good while. They have both explained their points of view well enough in regards to the other. There are other discussions of the texts that are being crowded out by the repetition.

I had one teacher of martial arts who put it this way:

"We have many ways to compare our different experiences. Methods of learning a new skill don't mean an adequate explanation can be given for it. I try to make those explanations as well as I can. We all do. But accepting that one is a warehouse of many minds without being able to catalog everything lets you concentrate on particular relationships until you are aware of it and respond appropriately. The connection is still there when attention is focused elsewhere. I would like to know how this is possible. But for our present purposes, it is more important to take advantage of the quality."

Well, you are still the one who claims Foolso4 is advocating for "atheism". But he keeps saying he is not doing that. You do not deal with that. What is the point of your constant repetition if you do not address his point of view?
It seems pointless.

My son says virtuous rulers will work toward the good while others will not. The question is what the good thing is. So the instrument of power is no guarantee of the the good result. It has to be actually good.

I am not going to look at the answer. I am in High School again. The information won't help me.

Power and meaning are interrelated. Being able to influence an exchange requires giving and demanding at the same time. One might not know where the negotiation will lead. We make a lot of mistakes.

They don't need to be Gods. They exist within the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover, just like thoughts or ideas exist in the human mind. — Apollodorus

Therefore, the point of view is not inherently atheist as you keep arguing it is. You keep forgetting that it is your argument that the position is atheistic. It is not being claimed by Fooloso4.

quote="Apollodorus;564365"]From accounts about Socrates it may be inferred that he was a kind of mystic or contemplative, who had little interest in mainstream religion or politics.[/quote]

The Republic, Gorgias, Phaedo, and The Statesman suggest otherwise. Or the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate otherwise since those topics are discussed in those dialogues.

I tend to believe that he wrote for educated intellectuals, i.e., a relatively small social and economic class who, as stated above, included philosophers with an interest in religion and religious people with an interest in philosophy. — Apollodorus

That is a more "Straussian" perspective than I take. The esoteric versus exoteric argument relates to political arguments about an "intellectual" aristocracy. Strauss also is not a "secularist" that in your other writings are identified as "Marxist."

The particulars of the various topics being discussed aside, I don't understand your passion to have the last word on the subject. If the meaning has been completely worked out, there is no need to read texts themselves. It is like an Hegelian synthesis that puts the pin into the last butterfly of a species. When you see an argument, the first thing you do is google who is against it. It is all dead for you.

What does it indicate? — Olivier5

That we have all been returned to High School.
Dammit, I have acne again.

Spinoza is not obscure. The part about God not being involved in your personal business comes early and fast.
It seems that any Ethics has to be a response to what one thinks is happening, some kind of generalized expectation of the future.

A being that necessarily exists cannot coherently be thought not to exist. And so God, as the unsurpassably perfect being, must have necessary existence—and therefore must exist. — Tom Storm

Many "proofs" are not presented this way. Anselm, for instance, presents the matter of what one could come up with on their own. The idea that there is a power beyond what we can imagine is said to be a factor. The argument has drawn many objections but the role of "necessity" is more of a question than an answer.

Good observations. They connect to Nietzsche as the philologist, a student of how we came to talk in various ways.

There is a mess.

So, Straussianism is not only controversial but positively biased and, as can be seen, can easily lead to unsubstantiated conclusions. — Apollodorus

I would be interested in seeing you demonstrate how Strauss came to unsubstantiated conclusions. I don't agree with him on many points but he has read the text carefully. Let us see you do as well.

Is the "unfortunate fact" something that is a problem for all discussions of morality?
If so, Nietzsche's approach either brings that factor into view or made a mess of the issue.
Nobody likes a mess.

Nietzsche's psychology is flawed in many aspects as if I'm not mistaken, it's not based on empirical observation or evidence and it's unfortunate that his ideas have acquired almost cult like status and great influence since his death, not least amongst the Nazis and other right wing value systems who shared his contempt for the virtues of pity and compassion regarding them as weaknesses which inhibit the "strong" individual, — Ross Campbell

The empirical observation is parallel to the method of La Rochefoucauld, who noticed that many expressions of selflessness were actually outbreaks of self-love.

Whatever Nietzsche considered the best political system, it was not based upon the nationalistic sense of identity displayed by the forerunners to the Nazis. In later works, the criticism of all things "German" became more pronounced.

So he laughed at the notion of the "good European" in some places and appealed to the idea in other places. He was either nuts or had a sense of humor that delighted in his inconsistencies. Maybe both things were true. I am not writing this as an apology.

A forensic attitude is always helpful.
Why is the situation the way it is now?
When did the thing I am looking at happen?
Intuition is better at response to a crisis than answering questions.

Pardon me. I am cryptic by nature and my efforts to improve are in a rudimentary stage.

I meant that there is a sequence of causes that all experience but we understand them from different points of view. Some look at that difference as a departure for skepticism and others see methods of acceptance to what must be. As a matter of daily life, both elements are essential.

So, it is an approach of sufficiency. We must provide in real time what our plans do not.

All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

I work in an industry where the causes for events remember themselves better than I do. Bracketing that unfolding of the world as determinist or not doesn't capture our distance from it or closeness to it.

We need to perceive as well as we can and that requires analysis and intuition. Whatever proportion is correct for one moment may not be right for another. It is a performance art.

And as Stanislavsky says, An Actor Prepares.

However one conceives the difference between the environment inside and outside of the cave, the experience of turning around is what is desired.
The images on the wall are shadows thrown by a light from behind me. The illusion has a navigational clue regarding orientation.

So, I'd be wary of saying, or rather projecting, that Plato 'believed in God', any more than did the Buddha (who explicitly did not). But I also agree that this doesn't make him an 'atheist' in the modern sense, either. I think what it requires us to do, is considerably broaden our understanding of what constitutes the religious or spiritual life. — Wayfarer

One way to approach the matter is to look for what is the matter of human agency versus the influence of gods, fate, or what have you. The Cratylus dialogue finds Socrates arguing against a "natural" language given to us by default. That point of view is not a rejection of many elements being given to us. Identifying which is what is tricky.

The centrality of the trades-person in the Republic gives a particular topology of possible experience. There are conditions that need to be recognized before changing them can be an option.

Admit it. Consensus is your enemy. Smugness is your friend. — schopenhauer1

Smugness is definitely my friend. I am not sure about the consensus part. Agreement can be conditional to factors one is not able to experience directly.
Communicating what is simple to oneself to others immediately runs into these other ways of ordering experience. We have a great body of common knowledge but keep talking about it in a way that requires a mind blowing amount of effort to not be misunderstood by others.

It was a recognition of the general reluctance to affirm statements as you noted but also exactly what is expressed in Book III, chapter 5.
Whatever is causing things to happen is directly related to my ability to notice them.

There is this exuberance for the anti-christian which is similar to the point of view being criticized.
The text reads differently if one assumes the author is aware of that or not.

In De Anima, the means for perceiving the other are the work of the senses. Touch notices touch. Hearing hears. Sight sees. The mind "minds". It is an instrumental point of view. What we experience is bounded by our ability to perceive.

So, the question what is being experienced seems central to the discussion.

The matters are not resolved.
I think Aristotle was trying to establish a basis for being an organic being in De Anima that is quite different from being a skeptic. But the activity of the "intellect" there brings up all the questions Plato asked.

The Einstein factor shows how one has to be as capable as he was to argue on his level. Using him as a reference may be valid as a point of reference but the argument is no longer about what one can present as one's own.

When arguing with someone who is less capable than oneself, nothing is to be gained by making much of it. It does not increase the strength of an argument to do so. Socrates is a good example to follow. He casted ridicule without reference to his interrogators' deficiencies. That is how it is done.

The premise is that although Aristotle's work is not stylistically in the form of a dialogue it is diological. — Fooloso4

That makes sense when looking at the way Aristotle described what other people thought before he giving his response. He is engaged with past and future partners in conversation.

He certainly provides more background of some of the people and ideas that are assumed as common knowledge in Plato's Dialogues.

Agreed, but there are times when credentials are relevant. — T Clark

There are such times. By saying that using such references are not cancellations of an argument, it is meant that deferring to others can become necessary when the matter involves ideas or theories beyond one's personal competence.

But framing an argument as invalid because someone is less competent than oneself can only be gratuitous to any point established to support the view.

I resemble the remark, being someone who uses that "jargon" on occasion.

The references to arguments based upon authority, as noted in the Wiki page, are germane because arguing upon the basis of authority is also considered a fallacy in many situations. It is not a matter of using a rhetorical device canceling the merit of what is said. Once a matter is deferred to other people and their credentials or lack of them, the argument is weaker than one made by not relying upon those references.

Once a conversation is centered upon contempt for the participants, it reminds me of why I dropped out of high school.

Perhaps it would help to further define the word troll? — Foghorn

I like the old timey meaning of a troll as a creature who hung out at bridges and hit people up for cash or goods if they wished to pass. It captures the fixity of purpose and the demand for an exchange at the same time.

Well, I don't want to make a judgment of intentions. I see that you are struggling to decide what to respond to.
I showed my son this thread and he laughed at how your challengers don't actually respond to your comments as given. That is what is funny.

You said it is a waste of time and space. So why are you still here? — Fooloso4

This is what I don't get. If something is not worthy of consideration, silence is the best response.

it's just a category. — frank

That suggests that it is self evident. Such a notion is contrary to the proposal in the Republic that a special effort has to be made to see what things are as themselves. Our experience taken by itself without such an effort only shows us shadows thrown by a light behind us.

Anyway, as already indicated, the issue seems to be that Fooloso4 insists that the Euthyphro has no metaphysical content — Apollodorus

That is your judgment of what has been claimed, not a reference to the argument made.

But what is "idealism"? Is it a self evident quality or a way to distinguish it from something that it is not?

Yes, you did not appear from nowhere.

I am all for disagreement for how to read a text. Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind. On the other hand, when you live with someone for a long time, the words remind one of other words.

The conversation changes.

I will try it another way.

You claimed that Foolso4 was an outlier by eschewing labels such "idealist", "materialist" or what have you as adequate descriptors of the intent of the Platonic Dialogues. The reluctance to apply those labels is a well established method of current and recently past scholarship. The reason for that reluctance is that the body of work is not like Aristotle who did try to state what the best argument was as he saw it on each topic. When Aristotle could not determine what the best argument was, he said he was at an impasse. An aporia, if you will.

Breaking everything down into doctrines simplifies matters if the purpose is the taxonomy of writing a dictionary. But no one ever meets anything new by that method.

It does.