Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that Plato was full of shit?

91 replies

ooojimaflip · 05/05/2010 10:06

The idea of Paltonic Forms as he formulated it - that they are the base of reality - is patent nonsense. In the informal sense that is is often used it just means 'idealised abstract'. I don't like his semi-fascist political ideology either. Some of his epistomology is not bad though.

OP posts:
smallishsheep · 05/05/2010 10:07

Quite.
It's shit like this that keeps me up at night.

runnybottom · 05/05/2010 10:11

Well, yes, yabu. You can apply the notion of Platonic Ideal Forms via a Kantian Schema into a modern psychological theory of cognitive schemata and heuristics.

If you wanted.

runnybottom · 05/05/2010 10:12

Plato was a twat though. Much prefer Aristotle.

trixie123 · 05/05/2010 10:13

but the epistomology is based on the idea that we "remember" things from when our souls were in the world of forms so you can't separate the two. Idea itself is ok but the Cave analogy doesn't work. Stick to Aristotle unless you're keen on an afterlife cos his theory doesn't let you have one (though he won't admit it!)

lal123 · 05/05/2010 10:16

Oh this is going to kick of big style!! ((sits back and waits for the fireworks))

ooojimaflip · 05/05/2010 10:16

Yes, but many have interpreted Plato as stating that knowledge is justified true belief, an influential view which informed future developments in modern analytic epistemology. This interpretation is based on a reading of the Theaetetus wherein Plato argues that belief is to be distinguished from knowledge on account of justification.

wiki warrior

OP posts:
epithet · 05/05/2010 10:20

I don't think many mumsnetters would be very happy with his ideal City State, in which children and their parents are never allowed to meet. Think HWBU about that.

pedrothellama · 05/05/2010 10:23

As Descarte said

"For how would it be possible that I should know . . . that something is lacking in me, and that I am not quite perfect, unless I had within me some idea of a Being more perfect than myself, in comparison with which I should recognize the deficiencies of my nature?"

Was Descarte thinking "Hmmm I may actually be a bit of a twat"

PatriciaHolm · 05/05/2010 10:23

Ah, but they say, he could stick it away. Half a crate of whiskey every day. And Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle...

ooojimaflip · 05/05/2010 10:25

Who'd have thought philosophers could be so unreliable?

OP posts:
pedrothellama · 05/05/2010 10:26

And Hobbs was fond of his dram.....

OrmRenewed · 05/05/2010 10:27

Oh yes he was such an old bugger. Honestly! You just can't get the philosophers these (those) days.....

FiveOrangePips · 05/05/2010 10:28

So I need to drink more whisky to become a better philosopher?

pedrothellama · 05/05/2010 10:28

I once wanted to be a philosopher but cheerfulness kept breaking through

Thediaryofanobody · 05/05/2010 10:29

Funny I always needed a crate of vodka to get through Aristotle now I know why.

gingercat12 · 05/05/2010 10:37

This is the best thread

cupcakesandbunting · 05/05/2010 10:37

This thread is way over my head.

pedrothellama · 05/05/2010 10:42

To quote Plato (Descarte filched the idea)

"I judge myself to be imperfect.
That is, I judge myself to lack perfection.
Hence, I have the idea of perfection.
Hence, there is a being that this idea is an idea of."

This is the bloke's equivalent of 'Does my bum look big in this?"

ooojimaflip · 05/05/2010 10:45

There is NO way out of Cartesian doubt is there? That means none of you exist

OP posts:
RunawayWife · 05/05/2010 10:49
Grin
pedrothellama · 05/05/2010 10:51

Please explain the difference between solipsism and Cartesian doubt - is Cartesian doubt the philosophical view and solipsism the psychological/psychiactric prognosis of Cartesian doubt or do they radically differ and I am just confusing myself?

ooojimaflip · 05/05/2010 10:58

That would be an ecumenical matter.

OP posts:
sarah293 · 05/05/2010 11:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

pedrothellama · 05/05/2010 11:02

Thanks Ooojimaflip - that has been bugging me for years

ooojimaflip · 05/05/2010 11:04

Riven - you question presupposes the existence of sensible beards and is therefore a category mistake.

OP posts: