i mean i'm pretty sure i get it at this point
am i still missing something crucial, or is the theory of forms just fundamentally retarded?
posted by anne @ 8:36 PM
aleatory contract
my own personal Waterloo
Previous Posts
- well, they're blasting Wagner over the PA speakers...
- fe pranks suck.i have an opportunity to last-minut...
- little boris just can't help himself
- well, damn.
- "perversion of the birth process" averted!
- i want to see a marshmallow peeps version
- the discussion below reminds me of the very first ...
- red buttercream with sprinkles
- DAH dah dah dah dah DAH dah dah DAH
- and a little bit of tender mercy
12 Comments:
Platonic forms?
those are the ones.
You're still missing something crucial.
Or metaphysics simply don't interest you. Particularly metaphysical conceptions that lead easily to theological constructs. I bet you don't dig that snap.
Like the unicorn, Uncle
Sam is what is called a myth.
Plato wrote a book which is
An occult conspiracy
Of gentlemen pederasts.
In it he said ideas
Are more nobly real than
Reality, and that myths
Help keep people in their place.
Since you will never become,
Under any circumstances,
Gentlemen pederasts, you’d
Best leave their blood-soaked notions
To those who find them useful.
--Kenneth Rexroth
Hee! Moss for the win!
it's a good thing i was planning a deeper explanation of my frustrations with plato, since moss already went and won the thread.
A WINNAR IS ME!
Not to take away from Moss's win. But the weird thing for me is, why is he motivated to come up with this strange theory? Why is it only given two serious criticisms in all the dialogues, and then only in passing? It's not at all a common-sense view, as presented (some people, including a former self of me, do some contortions to try and say it's the same thing that common-sense Aristotle means by form, but if that's so, Plato's not a very effective communicator for such a good write), and common-sense is so often given such articulate representation elsewhere, why not here?
nate: care to tell me what it is, skippy?
patrick: i'm reading a very good book of reeve's right now. philosopher-kings: the argument of plato's republic. he addresses what he believes to be plato's intent in his formation of the argument, why certain things are explored in such depth and why others or not. i am finding it quite helpful, particularly for questions like those you describe. (and: are you trixie? i forget.)
unfortunately, all the commentary in the world cannot un-post-modernify me. so that's problematic.
Hm. Did I get spam-filtered, or did I just forget to hit post last night?
i haven't got a spam filter, so probably your comments got eated by blogger somehow. it does that occasionally, i'm afraid.
Post a Comment
<< Home