on Nietzsche

[Nostromo]

Not sure if this off-topic or not. Its not about Nietzsche, but its still about philosophy. Oh, and a big to Agathon, who's trying to convince us, yet again, that the old crap he's working on is still relevant.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

But if your defense is completely incomprehensible, it's not much of a defense. None of your objections make any sense to me.

Then you're just dumb, which not a lot can be done about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Nostromo
Not sure if this off-topic or not. Its not about Nietzsche, but its still about philosophy. Oh, and a big to Agathon, who's trying to convince us, yet again, that the old crap he's working on is still relevant.

Saul Kripke would like a word.

[Nostromo]

I repeat:

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Nostromo
I repeat:

Aristotle will not be mocked!!!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Then you're just dumb, which not a lot can be done about.

I suspect a lot of people around here are "dumb" like me then...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

I suspect a lot of people around here are "dumb" like me then...

That's insulting to the rest of Poly.

[Elok]

Make a poll thread, why doncha? I bet very few people understand how the existence of more than one circle necessitates the existence of a Form of Circularity.

[Impaler[WrG]]

A thing that is numerically identical with itself and which is a substance. That is to say something like a man, and not his height or his colour.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, you said Plato's Forms are a 'substantial unity' and that means they are a 'substance'? Did something get mixed up here? Also the term 'numerically identical with itself' is also flying over my head, are you doing that on purpose?

Then in what sense are we thinking about the same thing? What is the object of our thought? Thoughts have objects? Are you saying that the object is another thought? If that was true, everything would be a concept.

We frequently aren't talking about the same thing and generally assume the words we use mean the same thing. But can only really tell were talking about the same thing by detailed comparison and contrasting between our concepts. Two people with different concepts must either reconcile their concepts until one person alters their concept to match the other or one absorbs a copy of the others concept. Our education provides a library of common concepts that most of us can converse with and language serves as a labeling system.

By object of thought I think you mean what the thought is about and in reference too. In that case then of course anything can be the object of a thought. I distinguish between a concept which is a connection between experienced memories and abstract knowledge, it is durable in the sense that one retains a concept even when it is not at the forefront of the mind. Thoughts are transient and involve the reasoning with ones established bank of concepts, the results may alter an existing concept for add new ones to the mind. So yes everything is a concept in a sense even simple raw experience memory which is ultimately what all the other concepts are derived from in combination with very low level instincts for example our brains have an instinctive recognition of the passage of time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok
Make a poll thread, why doncha? I bet very few people understand how the existence of more than one circle necessitates the existence of a Form of Circularity.

Nice try, but I'm sure most of Poly is capable of following the IDD argument. It is a pretty simple argument after all. But being able to follow it is of course different from endorsing it as a sound argument.

No-one is asking you to become a Platonist or believe in the Forms. But you've repeatedly said you find what is a very simple set of arguments to be incomprehensible.

What you seem incapable of accepting is that a theory that turns out to be incorrect may well have many plausible arguments and assumptions that supports it. Sometimes things aren't wrong in a simple way, but in a deep and interesting way. That's why philosophy is said to be a series of footnotes to Plato.

If you think the Theory of Forms can simply be dismissed without any real reason, then you just haven't thought the issue through very well. There are smart people and dumb people in this world. The dumb people are those who immediately dismiss anything that doesn't seem like common sense without really thinking about it. The smart people are those who wonder what is really going on behind a seemingly absurd belief.

[Fake Boris]

I have nothing in particular against Plato.

But face it Aggie, it's Christianism that saved your boy. Without it, we might have a lot of ancient texts left that would be way more cool.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I have nothing in particular against Plato.

But face it Aggie, it's Christianism that saved your boy. Without it, we might have a lot of ancient texts left that would be way more cool.

Point taken.

[Nostromo]

The reference to Kripke reminds me of a funny book review by Fodor. Yes, yes, the book is about Kripke.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n20/fodo01_.html

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Nostromo
The reference to Kripke reminds me of a funny book review by Fodor. Yes, yes, the book is about Kripke.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n20/fodo01_.html

I'd read that before. It has a nice summary of the Quine/Kripke debate. If you do what I do, it's pretty funny to read Kripke basically re-establishing Aristotelianism.

For the record, I am on the Quine side (I wrote my MA dissertation about "Two Dogmas").

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nice try, but I'm sure most of Poly is capable of following the IDD argument. It is a pretty simple argument after all. But being able to follow it is of course different from endorsing it as a sound argument.

No-one is asking you to become a Platonist or believe in the Forms. But you've repeatedly said you find what is a very simple set of arguments to be incomprehensible.

I suppose it's not the arguments themselves that are incomprehensible to me, but rather your insistence that those arguments are valid. I find them baffling in the same way I would find the argument "the world can't be round, since if it were the people on the bottom would all fall off" baffling. Strictly speaking, I can understand the sense of them, but they rely on a set of assumptions that are blatantly silly. Well, that's not a good example, since in the case of your "circle" argument the assumptions aren't obviously false so much as comically unwarranted. But I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.

What you seem incapable of accepting is that a theory that turns out to be incorrect may well have many plausible arguments and assumptions that supports it. Sometimes things aren't wrong in a simple way, but in a deep and interesting way. That's why philosophy is said to be a series of footnotes to Plato.

Back up. Weren't you just saying that Forms are more strongly supported than the type of empiricism most people endorse? What's this about "incorrect?" Or are you just saying "even if it WERE incorrect?" But I do agree that you can learn a good deal from other people's mistakes.

If you think the Theory of Forms can simply be dismissed without any real reason, then you just haven't thought the issue through very well. There are smart people and dumb people in this world. The dumb people are those who immediately dismiss anything that doesn't seem like common sense without really thinking about it. The smart people are those who wonder what is really going on behind a seemingly absurd belief.

But I DID think about it. I asked for your arguments in favor of the idea. You gave me the arguments, and they turned out to be rubbish. I therefore concluded that I have no particular reason to believe in the idea itself at this time. I remain open to the possibility that there are Forms, and will re-evaluate my stance just as soon as I hear a compelling argument. From you or anyone else.