3 ms·

I read Plato's Gorgias, I believed Callicles over the Conventionalists. I got my mind opened. Philosophy is words by old people in control, Science is the real

I read Plato's Gorgias, I believed Callicles over the Conventionalists. I got my mind opened. Philosophy is words by old people in control, Science is the reality of things. Thousands of years later Niztsche says something similar. 200 years later, we are back to teaching Stoicism. So what is going to happen, people who read philosophy learn a religion of virtue, find out another set of truths, and go through an existential crisis that causes anti-social behavior?

hilbert42 3y ago
"Philosophy is words by old people in control, Science is the reality of things." Why do you say 'old people'? I don't see that as being prerequisite, nor from history is there indication that philosophers have been in control. Science is the study of reality but why should that conflict with philosophical ideas? Perhaps you should read my reply to mykowebhn. Perhaps Gorgias is a bad example, perhaps Plato was making a point about rhetoric and problems with sophistry generally. In my opinion a much better example of the philosophical tradition is Book One of Republic, here Plato sets out a clear distinction between the shallowness of sophistry and solid philosophical reasoning. The dialogue between the sophist Thrasymachus and philosopher Socrates where Socrates systematically demolishes Thrasymachus's proposition that justice is every man for himself by reasoned argument is one of the most wonderful documents to be handed down from ancient times.
- resource_waste 3y ago
  You didn't read Gorgias, you read a wikipedia/summary. I don't want to hear that "REPUBLIC is better". It isnt. "The Republic" was easier to get people's hands on. The logic isnt sound, the character in-favor of might based justice was a comedic relief. Callicles has genuine arguments in favor of reality. Anyway, that was funny how you didn't read Gorgias, but you read a summary, and told me that I was wrong with a point that is a mere blip in the dialog.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    "You didn't read Gorgias, you read a wikipedia/summary." Sorry, it was part of our work dealing with logic, argument, and rhetoric in the Greek tradition in the late 1970s well before Wiki and the Web even existed. (I wish I'd had the Web back then, it would have made study much easier). Unfortunately, it's this kind of negative discussion that those who criticize Philosophy latch onto to discredit the subject. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Why are you so upset that someone could actually disagree with you? Incidentally, why did you say that I said you were wrong when I never said any such thing? I could proceed to debate that you are deliberately taking the sophist's line to buy an argument but I've said enough already.
    - resource_waste 3y ago
      You read it 40 years ago? You didn't remember anything or have any takeaways, so you read the wikipedia article, was dismissive then got defensive. Idk, it seems faux-intellectual when you read a wikipedia page and copypaste a minor point of contention irrelevant to the topic and declare it 'no big deal'. The fact that you mention sophists, mean you are way out of your element. OH! You read some plato as a college kid! I'm talking to someone who is pretending they read plato under their own free will. Heck, you never even read Gorgias! Wow detective work huh
      - hilbert42 3y ago
        1. With respect, you haven't answered my questions. 2. I have a personal library of over two hundred physical books on philosophy including most of my original textbooks. I'm unsure of the number of ebooks but it would much fewer than that. 3. Unfortunately, my Greek is limited to only a few words so my copies of Gorgias, Phaedrus and others are in English—translation Jowett. You seem so knowledgeable about the subject presumably you read your copy untranslated. 4. Tell me about yourself. Presumably you lecture at some university in philosophy.
        resource_waste 2y ago
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Think you are misinterpreting Nietzsche, and others, some. He was often critical of the 'academic' philosophers, that they are just playing with words and wondering what is for lunch. When 'true philosophers' are grappling with life and creating something new. But that is true in every branch of science. How many 'academic' scientist are breaking new ground, or are they just churning out safe low-risk proposals. Everyone in every generation can't be a Socrates or a Nietzsche, but that there are a lot of people that call themselves scientist or philosophers that maybe don't deserve the title, doesn't mean the entire field should be cast away.
- resource_waste 3y ago
  Sorry, I mean Nietzsche promotes a somewhat Darwin-like approach, where virtue based philosophies have little for promoting your own well being. Scientifically, the former seems more like it reflects reality. It doesnt have to do with cutting edge stuff. It has to do with the debate between Realism and Idealism.
  - justin66 3y ago
    Nietzsche advocated what we would today call Social Darwinism, but his ethics was a virtue ethics.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Nietzsche advocated what we would today call Social Darwinism Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, yet Nietzsche's principles did not concur with Darwinian theories of natural selection. Nietzsche's point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological adaptation as forged by Spencer's "fitness". Nietzsche criticized Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner by maintaining that in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful. In fact, Nietzsche experienced a number of health problems himself.

hilbert42 3y ago

"Philosophy is words by old people in control, Science is the reality of things." Why do you say 'old people'? I don't see that as being prerequisite, nor from history is there indication that philosophers have been in control. Science is the study of reality but why should that conflict with philosophical ideas? Perhaps you should read my reply to mykowebhn. Perhaps Gorgias is a bad example, perhaps Plato was making a point about rhetoric and problems with sophistry generally. In my opinion a much better example of the philosophical tradition is Book One of Republic, here Plato sets out a clear distinction between the shallowness of sophistry and solid philosophical reasoning. The dialogue between the sophist Thrasymachus and philosopher Socrates where Socrates systematically demolishes Thrasymachus's proposition that justice is every man for himself by reasoned argument is one of the most wonderful documents to be handed down from ancient times.

resource_waste 3y ago
You didn't read Gorgias, you read a wikipedia/summary. I don't want to hear that "REPUBLIC is better". It isnt. "The Republic" was easier to get people's hands on. The logic isnt sound, the character in-favor of might based justice was a comedic relief. Callicles has genuine arguments in favor of reality. Anyway, that was funny how you didn't read Gorgias, but you read a summary, and told me that I was wrong with a point that is a mere blip in the dialog.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "You didn't read Gorgias, you read a wikipedia/summary." Sorry, it was part of our work dealing with logic, argument, and rhetoric in the Greek tradition in the late 1970s well before Wiki and the Web even existed. (I wish I'd had the Web back then, it would have made study much easier). Unfortunately, it's this kind of negative discussion that those who criticize Philosophy latch onto to discredit the subject. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Why are you so upset that someone could actually disagree with you? Incidentally, why did you say that I said you were wrong when I never said any such thing? I could proceed to debate that you are deliberately taking the sophist's line to buy an argument but I've said enough already.
  - resource_waste 3y ago
    You read it 40 years ago? You didn't remember anything or have any takeaways, so you read the wikipedia article, was dismissive then got defensive. Idk, it seems faux-intellectual when you read a wikipedia page and copypaste a minor point of contention irrelevant to the topic and declare it 'no big deal'. The fact that you mention sophists, mean you are way out of your element. OH! You read some plato as a college kid! I'm talking to someone who is pretending they read plato under their own free will. Heck, you never even read Gorgias! Wow detective work huh
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      1. With respect, you haven't answered my questions. 2. I have a personal library of over two hundred physical books on philosophy including most of my original textbooks. I'm unsure of the number of ebooks but it would much fewer than that. 3. Unfortunately, my Greek is limited to only a few words so my copies of Gorgias, Phaedrus and others are in English—translation Jowett. You seem so knowledgeable about the subject presumably you read your copy untranslated. 4. Tell me about yourself. Presumably you lecture at some university in philosophy.
      - resource_waste 2y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Think you are misinterpreting Nietzsche, and others, some. He was often critical of the 'academic' philosophers, that they are just playing with words and wondering what is for lunch. When 'true philosophers' are grappling with life and creating something new. But that is true in every branch of science. How many 'academic' scientist are breaking new ground, or are they just churning out safe low-risk proposals. Everyone in every generation can't be a Socrates or a Nietzsche, but that there are a lot of people that call themselves scientist or philosophers that maybe don't deserve the title, doesn't mean the entire field should be cast away.

resource_waste 3y ago
Sorry, I mean Nietzsche promotes a somewhat Darwin-like approach, where virtue based philosophies have little for promoting your own well being. Scientifically, the former seems more like it reflects reality. It doesnt have to do with cutting edge stuff. It has to do with the debate between Realism and Idealism.
- justin66 3y ago
  Nietzsche advocated what we would today call Social Darwinism, but his ethics was a virtue ethics.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Nietzsche advocated what we would today call Social Darwinism Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, yet Nietzsche's principles did not concur with Darwinian theories of natural selection. Nietzsche's point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological adaptation as forged by Spencer's "fitness". Nietzsche criticized Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner by maintaining that in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful. In fact, Nietzsche experienced a number of health problems himself.