Friday, March 9, 2018. 🦉
But one shouldn’t take Aristotle’s botched interpretations of Plato to be the authoritative source for telling us quite accurately what Plato himself actually thought. That would be like thinking that the Alexandrian conquest was a manifestation of some Greek design, just because an ambitious and ruthless Macedonian decided to use the Greeks and their history as an excuse to invade Persia.
Thursday, March 1, 2018.
This is why I think that I can argue that the numbers can and do matter, despite agreeing with Taurek that in some sense, they also don’t. As it is said in the Euthyphro, there are two parts to justice: the part of justice that is in service to the gods (that which is called “piety”) and the rest of justice that is in service to humanity.
Now, insofar as we are speaking of the part of justice that is in service to the gods, the actual numbers don’t matter. But insofar as we are speaking of the part of justice that is in service to humanity, the numbers do matter. However, the fact that numbers do matter doesn’t always lead to the conclusion that the greater quantity of some “good” is always the best conclusion. Sometimes the lesser quantity (even of a “good”) is what the objective requires. The numbers matter because they are useful in determining the “correct” quantity, rather than because more is always better.
Saturday, February 17, 2018.
Language is not only rules and grammar, but it is also learning the unspeakable meaning of the words so that one can “paint with all the colors of the wind.”
Friday, December 15, 2017 🥇 🏆
It is also distinctly anti-Platonic. According to Plato, the truth can only be known by seeing the world outside of the Mind-cave. Even if one somehow begins inside of the Mind-cave, the goal isn’t to simply remain there. At least, this is what I take to be Plato’s intended message when he makes the analogy of the cave in Republic.
But, Aristotelians like Augustine seem to be content with remaining inside of the Mind-cave. And so, despite the so-called European “enlightenment,” the so-called philosophers like Descartes and Kant did not lead their flock outside of the Mind-cave as all good philosophers were supposed to have been doing (according to Plato’s plan, anyways). And it wasn’t until Nietzsche came along that those who were able and willing to follow him were finally able to be free of Aristotelian metaphysics. (That said, Nietzsche is a gnarly and twisted character, and he speaks in metaphors and he is a master-trickster whose skill over the illusory power of mirrors has caused some of his more naive followers to lose their way; Hitler is one such example of a naive follower. One would do well to remember that Nietzsche’s anti-Semitic or misogynistic comments are mirrors revealing the truth of one’s own painful and “ugly” scars, as a German Christian and as a male. But the übermensch eventually plows himself, his scars, and his pain under — and when he ceases to be “anti” anything, then he finally becomes free to just be his own beautiful self.)
Wednesday, December 13, 2017. ✍️
I think that the most important thing about this space, is that it reminds me of my Uncle’s love for me. It is a real and concrete reminder of his love. In this space, I was able to spend doing what I love doing the most in this life — studying philosophy. And that is love; to let me have the freedom to find and be my truest and best self.
Monday, December 4, 2017.
Well, it’s clear that in this passage Gauthier is here speaking of things like “caste systems” and other such social inventions (eg, slavery) when he uses words like “higher level of artifice.” And it’s also clear that Gauthier doesn’t think that “natural harmony” is a realistic goal.
But, I think that “natural harmony” can be achieved — that is, when everyone actually gets to do, be and have whatever is truly in their hearts. When we stop trying to universalize (ie, Catholicize) values, we can each be free to pursue our truth. And only then can we ever have genuine, true and everlasting justice in this world.
This is what I call ‘Platonic Existentialism’ (or, Socratic Existentialism, take your pick).
Friday, December 1, 2017.
I think that life has pushed me into a corner now, and the only thing that I can do is try to remain true to my self no matter what the cost, because the fact of the matter is that though I hate how life is treating me these days, I think that I like being me and I don’t want to change who I am…
Sunday, November 19, 2017.
“Someone who has the power to do it, however — someone who is truly a man — would not make an agreement with anyone, neither to do injustice nor to suffer it. For him, that would be insanity.” (Republic, 359b)
Friday, November 17, 2017.
But if this were true, then Hobbes himself should not presume how people are in the state of nature, saying that their lives are typically “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Believing this sort of thing to be true is itself to dishonor the self-God (Plato/Socrates’ God, not Aristotle’s mind-God) — for all meaning is something remembered by the individual. Hobbes accuses the so-called “heathen” of making up false stories about the gods, yet he doesn’t seem to be aware that he himself makes up false stories about his God…
Hobbes has the typical Aristotelian elitist attitude of an “up-and-coming” peasant; the “new-money” bourgeoisie are often this way (though, I certainly think that there are also exceptions). Hobbes’ mindset is paradigmatic of that pretentious elitist snobbery, common to ambitious tanners and shoemakers and court physicians especially. And so, now that he is himself a learned “Christian,” the adopted child of “Yahweh,” he thinks himself superior to the so-called “heathens” (the Jews would have called them “gentiles,” and he would have been one of them at some point in time) and raises his nose at them. Thus, he fails to recognize how he dishonors himself by claiming that human nature is so wretched when it is, in fact, not.
Thursday, November 16, 2017.
Now, communication involves sending out an encrypted message (because language is made up of arbitrarily designated symbols) followed by some correct decryption on the other end by the receiver. In truth, however, the decryption is up to each individual’s mind (which is what Augustine, Aristotle, and some others call “God”) since, the meaning is neither in the symbol/label itself nor in the cipher itself. In other words, what is revealed to each person’s individual mind is up to the individual’s mind and the sender of the message cannot determine/control what the receiver will get.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017.
According to this hypothesis, the gnostics didn’t like this attitude of semitic-superiority. And so, the gnostics attempted to assert a strong anti-racist view. Now, if it’s true that Semites were the only ones being racist at that time, then an anti-racism would end up looking very anti-semitic . And so, it’s possible that what began as an anti-racist attitude for the gnostics probably got interpreted into an anti-semitic attitude in expression, because for the gnostics of the time, anti-racism=anti-semitism.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017.
In the Gorgias, Socrates reveals to the [wise] tyrant the method to achieve what she wants. Basically, the advice to the would-be tyrant is that one may attract more flies by means of honey than by vinegar. That is, by offering other people what they want (eg, liberty to do as they please, to eat or drink or smoke as they please, etc), they will give the tyrant what she wants (which, presumably, is money and power).
Thursday, November 2, 2017.
“You call for justice.
But God speaks through me.
Only I, Pallas Athene,
Possess the key
That unlocks the thunderbolt of Zeus.
But the time of brute force
The day of reasoned persuasion,
With its long vision,
With its mercy, its forgiveness,
The world hurled in anger shall be caught
In a net of gentle words,
Words of quiet strength.”
(Aeschylus, The Oresteia, Part 3: “Eumenides”)
Friday, October 20, 2017 ⚖️
[Happy 21st Birthday Julie]
I don’t think that Socrates advocated for an Epicurean asceticism; in this, Nietzsche had a mistakenly Stoic version of Socrates in mind, and the not the Platonic one. I think that what Socrates meant was for us in life to aim to get a certain amount of wealth, comfortable and pleasant homes and foods, enjoyable and satisfying relationships and experiences, and even technological assistance so that we can have the least degree of distractions to our souls and to our goal of attaining self-knowledge.
Thursday, October 12, 2017.
“For surely the gods at least will never neglect anyone who eagerly wishes to become just and, by practicing virtue, to make himself as much like a god as a human being can… It is certainly reasonable to think that a man of that sort won’t be neglected by one who is like him… Those, then, are the sorts of prizes that come from the gods to the just man.” (Republic, 612c-613b)
Tuesday, October 3, 2017.
But I think that there’s an important difference between “origins” and “desired end-results.” Confusingly, both are called “causes.” But, because both “origins” and “desired end-results” are considered to be “causes,” there’s actually two ways that a person can answer the “why” question.
Monday, September 25, 2017.
Now, imagine each individual as a snapshot of the universe at the precise moment of their conception. If this could be imagined, then I can see how what Socrates is suggesting could be pretty amazing. The process of recollection is to gain, through inquiry and elenchus, knowledge of the whole universe. To me, that’s pretty amazing. That means that each individual is like a book that contains information about the entire universe, and one only need examine oneself to discover it all. Aletheia is pretty great, isn’t it?
Wednesday, September 13, 2017 🕯️
[Day of “Civil Disobedience”]
Any roads, this is the Plato that I know and love. If Plato turns out to be another man other than this man that I have come to know, then I love the idea of a man, and not the man himself. But this is okay for me, I think. I don’t feel as though my love is wasted or that I have somehow been deceived. My take on it goes something like this: So long as I reserve a place in my heart for a man such as Plato to exist, then at some point in time, in some place in the world, it is at the very least possible that a man such as Plato had existed, or does now exist, or will exist in the future. If he has not come yet, then I will wait for him. He is worth waiting for, in my opinion.