I think my teacher at Steiner (Waldorf) school 1976-1978.. was one of them

#61

How is what I said above not what you say here: “If you “see” Plato as a Fascist you are certainly free to argue that point. Others are also free to “see” Plato differently and counter your argument.” ?

I’m not sure why my use of the word “people” is now describing voters in New York. I was talking about people in this thread. Because I express an opinion here does not mean I’m saying we must cancel Plato although, yes, I suppose I’ve cancelled him in my mind. I’m simply contributing to the conversation.

#62

It would appear that we’re all divided by language, governed by emotion and grist for God’s mill…and maybe even signed up for all of this, an exhausting thought…

3 Likes
#63

This Plato debate is an interesting (if contentious) one . . . Overall, my own opinion is that saying Plato was a fascist is an anachronism – a projecting of contemporary ideas onto the past. That said, I take the point that Plato was probably what we today might call an elitist who mistrusted the judgment of the non-elite.

Yes, it seems to me there’s something to be said for considering the extent to which a given philosopher’s ideas were or were not informed by the specific time and place in which the philosopher lived. For instance, fascism, in the strict historical sense of the term, arose as a means of countering communism in early 20th-century Italy and Germany. I’d say you need that context to fully understand what fascism was or is, with the caveat that countering communism was not all that fascism was or is about.

To me, that is probably the most important – and thorniest – issue. Some, if not all, of the people who came up with the U.S. Constitution had the same concern, and it’s a valid one. That is one of the reasons why the U.S. was not set up as a direct democracy and why there was not originally universal suffrage. This has particular relevance in the present day, the reason being that democracy has at least one presupposition built into it: the presupposition of an educated, informed demos. I don’t know if the majority of citizens were ever well educated or well informed . . . but however bad the situation may have been in the past, I submit that it’s worse than ever today, given the state of contemporary “education” and the unparalleled power of contemporary propaganda techniques. The question thus becomes: Do we hand all the reins of power to today’s would-be philosopher-kings or live with the admitted vagaries of universal suffrage? Which is the lesser potential evil? Or is there some other, better option?

3 Likes
#64

This was not a debate about Plato. This was a series of comments regarding my attempt to “cancel” Plato and applying my comments to the present day, specifically the election in NYC.

1 Like
#65

… to FiatLux … I guess the exchanges could be understood as contentious. I have always tended to view such exchanges as genuinely friendly attempts to resolve doubt. I agree with you that quite often in Philosophy today and in the Social Sciences in general there is quite a bit of projection of certain habits of thinking developed under the direction of our current culture back onto the past.

… and to David … “It would appear that we’re all divided by language, governed by emotion and grist for God’s mill…and maybe even signed up for all of this, an exhausting thought …”

… When you write “that we’re all divided by language” I am guessing that you are referring to the ways in which each individual might interpret the world through language. If not please correct my misunderstanding. Yes, we are all free to interpret the world as best we can via language (or by any other methods one wishes), but some interpretations and methods of interpretation are better than others. I wold prefer my medical diagnosis not be done by the scrying of chicken entrails. :slight_smile:

Would it be best to allow each of us to use language and assign meaning as each of us see fit? Reality would necessarily have to be what it is regardless of any individuals whim, wish, will or desire. I would also hope that God would not choose to view you, me, or anyone as “grist for his mill”. For God to regard us in such a manner would seem to undermine free will, certainty and deem his relationships with human beings as arbitrary.

… we certainly should attempt to be aware of our emotional states and aware of how “the chemistry of situations” may influence our reasoning. This does not mean that our emotions should be ignored, suppressed or excluded. Emotional states are an important part of what Antonio Damasio refers to as “the feeling of what happens”. In one study (I think in this one, could be another with memory being what it is) - Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex - authored by Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Antonio R. Damasio it was shown that folks who had lesions in brain areas related to emotional regulation and evaluation had great difficulty making moral decisions. One of the example questions: A patient is given the following scenario … You find yourself with a large debt. - A set of choices for resolving this problem are presented to the patient. - They are: A) take a second job and sell your possessions to raise the money to pay off the debt. B) try to get a personal loan from a financial institution to pay off the debt. C) attempt to borrow money from friends and family to pay off the debt. D) kill your wife and use the insurance settlement to pay off the debt. It turned out that these patients were just as likely to pick D as any other. When asked to explain their reasoning it was clear that the Husband-Wife relationship played no part in their decision. Their explanations centered around justifications of the expediency connected with their choice. Spock’s brain, where exclusion or suppression of all emotion is the case, it turns out, is not the best brain.

Also see Damasio’s Somatic Marker Hypothesis. Some interesting findings in that line of research related to the decision making process.

… as to “signing up for this”. I tend to fall in with Kierkegaard

“How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn’t it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?”

As always In Fallibilism

1 Like
#66

Dr. Peirce sure left an impression. It’s always cool to find someone with one can agree and who presents thoughtful thoughts that make sense.

1 Like
#67

…Yes, and he (Peirce) continues to do so. I should also not leave out Walker Percy. Although mostly known for his fiction he also wrote quite a bit of non-fiction. For Percy’s non-fiction works see his The Message in the Bottle : How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do with the Other, Signposts in a Strange Land: Essays by Walker Percy (Patrick Samway, Ed.), Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book, and Symbol and Existence: A Study in Meaning : Explorations of Human Nature.

2 Likes