4 ms·

So reading Phaedrus is supposed to automatically turn you into a complete Platonist? I and many others give broad credence to Platonism in the realm of mathemat

So reading Phaedrus is supposed to automatically turn you into a complete Platonist? I and many others give broad credence to Platonism in the realm of mathematics, but the students question is in the realm of ethics, and Dr. Skrbina (as summarized in the article) brushes this question off all too easily.

Alex3917 14y ago
I was referring to the fact that the mean character in the book is Socrates, who was put to death for being a 'societal criminal.' This doesn't really have anything to do with Platonic ethics. edit: Especially since Socrates was put to death for 'corrupting the youth' and 'teaching new gods', which is more or less the usual argument against teaching Kaczynski. "And there's the chance that a serious consideration of the Unabomber's ideas could encourage others to send bombs to get attention." --> corrupting the youth "The primary concern of Kaczynski's writings is freedom, and he argues that the complex systems required by modern technology necessarily force individuals to give up too much liberty in the bargain" --> teaching new gods (In this case 'the bargain' is literally straight out of the Adam and Eve story in the bible, and a direct challenge to western religion/civilization.)
- jackfoxy 14y ago
  That was actually the first thing that came into my mind upon your reference to Phaedrus, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were referring to something deeper. Socrates crime in his time was defying the state's moral code. For which he was put to death. He was a soldier in Athens' army, and possibly killed other men in that role (for which most societies forgive to this day), but he never murdered. Kaczynski murdered in cold blood. Comparing him to Socrates in any way is vacuous. This is called ethics.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Oy. He's not teaching new gods. He's fetishizing the old ones. Western thought of the 20th and 21st centuries is bloody obsessed with "freedom", often (nowadays usually) to its own active detriment.
saraid216 14y ago
I agree with Skrbina there, though. If the questions are being dismissed solely because of their source, that doesn't make the question go away and actually seeds the ground for someone else to ask the same question and conclude the same answer. Refute it, however, and you make it more likely you can stand your ground against the next person who asks the question to push them aside from the same path. Plus, it increases intellectual rigor as a bonus.

Alex3917 14y ago

I was referring to the fact that the mean character in the book is Socrates, who was put to death for being a 'societal criminal.' This doesn't really have anything to do with Platonic ethics. edit: Especially since Socrates was put to death for 'corrupting the youth' and 'teaching new gods', which is more or less the usual argument against teaching Kaczynski. "And there's the chance that a serious consideration of the Unabomber's ideas could encourage others to send bombs to get attention." --> corrupting the youth "The primary concern of Kaczynski's writings is freedom, and he argues that the complex systems required by modern technology necessarily force individuals to give up too much liberty in the bargain" --> teaching new gods (In this case 'the bargain' is literally straight out of the Adam and Eve story in the bible, and a direct challenge to western religion/civilization.)

jackfoxy 14y ago
That was actually the first thing that came into my mind upon your reference to Phaedrus, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were referring to something deeper. Socrates crime in his time was defying the state's moral code. For which he was put to death. He was a soldier in Athens' army, and possibly killed other men in that role (for which most societies forgive to this day), but he never murdered. Kaczynski murdered in cold blood. Comparing him to Socrates in any way is vacuous. This is called ethics.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Oy. He's not teaching new gods. He's fetishizing the old ones. Western thought of the 20th and 21st centuries is bloody obsessed with "freedom", often (nowadays usually) to its own active detriment.

saraid216 14y ago

I agree with Skrbina there, though. If the questions are being dismissed solely because of their source, that doesn't make the question go away and actually seeds the ground for someone else to ask the same question and conclude the same answer. Refute it, however, and you make it more likely you can stand your ground against the next person who asks the question to push them aside from the same path. Plus, it increases intellectual rigor as a bonus.