|
Philosophy Thread: Socratic Virtue Theory! (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
and an example of which would be?
i know the perfect chair of a model 'ABCDEFG12345' at points in time and space XYZ.
i know the perfect song by Depeche Mode named Enjoy The Silence playing on a pair of Sonab speakers of a model ABC, powered by a Sansui R-5 amplifier at this particular point in time and space. |
This is Plato's theory not mine. He never states what is perfect, only that it should be our goal to find it and understand it. I believe that this is an impossible goal. I also believe that Plato knew it was an impossible goal but the rewards of such an undertaking would be sufficient to warrent the quest.
BTW, if your perfect chair is only perfect at a specific point is time and space then it is not perfect. Object truth remember.... it is always true regardless of time or space, therefore, if your chair is only perfect at a given moment and location then it is not perfect at all (although you may perceive it to be). |
|
|
| RJT |
Wow - Some great responses in here now! Here are some of my thoughts on what you all have had to say:
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Something to consider since we are talking about plato here is that when he refers to knowledge he is refering to an understanding of the ideal rather then the perception. In the platonic sense knowledge is the understanding of the object truth. Continuing with this truth is the only virtue. I would argue that knowledge of object truth is beyond our ability as our perception will always cloud our logic, therefore humans cannot have virtue.
I reject your question regarding Hitler as nonsensical, evil is a question of morality and morality is unrelated to knowledge.
Given my position that humans are incapable of understanding object truth and therefore incapable of virtue I must conclude there is no such thing as a knowledgeable person (in the platonic concept of knowledge).
All events are, in fact, lacking in knowledge therefore without virtue if one accepts that knowledge is the only virtue.
In as much as knowledge is the understanding of an object truth and object truths have no moral connotation knowledge is neither "good" nor "bad" (if you accept such things even exist). |
I appreciate your description of knowledge in the platonic sense, it's something that is perhaps not the easiest or most obvious concept to grasp and I failed miserably to clarify this in my initial post.
Your rejection of the question regarding Hitler is understood, however would you agree with someone like Jason in that his pursuit wasn't knowledge, and was therefor not virtuous by Socratic/Platonic standards?
Beyond that, your position regarding human beings as unable to understand object truth and incapable of virtue is understandable, but then I ask, what is capable of virtue or understanding object truth? Is there some kind of dualist line dividing what we know as sense experience as humans and "something else" (a soul, mind, whatever - What I'm getting at is Platonic dualism)?
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
i take this to mean that seeking knowledge is a pursuit worth engaging in. it betters you as a person.
i take this to mean that virtue is the primary goal of life. to be virtuous.
Therefore the pursuit of knowledge is one of life's most important endeavours. to better ourselves and our lives we must seek out knowledge and understanding. |
I think this is indeed a favorable definition, though perhaps not without its faults; Yet would you agree with Socrates/Plato if either took the position that knowledge was the only virtue?
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
i would say that knowledgable people are more capable of making virtuous decisions than those without knowledge. whether or not they choose to use that knowledge to make virtuous decisions is another thing (i.e. hitler). |
Does this mean that you equate virtues with morality?
i would say that knowledgable people are more capable of making virtuous decisions than those without knowledge. whether or not they choose to use that knowledge to make virtuous decisions is another thing (i.e. hitler).
| quote: | Originally posted by Ygrene
I think knowledge is the recollection of information. Ignorance could be the absence of it. Complete knowledge: No. Remove ignorance: No. |
Hmmm... This definitely seems to jive with a lot of what Plato speaks about in the Phaedo, that knowledge is somehow permanent and is only recollected when "that which is the other than the physical" rejoins the physical world, which perhaps leads to yet another theory on dualism. It just raises questions in me as to whether or not complete knowledge and the removal of ignorance is only possible in the physical world.
You guys have some great ideas here - I'm really, really impressed! :)
To those of you bringing up the idea of "will" or "willpower;" If you've never read Plato, there are a few instances where Socrates states that he doesn't believe in willpower - That if you had all the knowledge, you would always make the best decision. Is that a possibility to you all? |
|
|
| RJT |
| w00t! Thank you Craig for bringing up the chair example! We spent almost 2 hours in my Metaphysics couse last monday trying to define "chair." It was an incredibly comical experience :) |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
object truth means absolute truth - something that is always true regardless of context, interpretation, perception, etc. An object truth cannot ever be even the slightest bit inaccurate or incorrect.
Plato makes a difference between knowledge and perception. For Plato it is all about ideals which are objectly true or perfect if you will. What we perceive is what our senses can detect, however, perception does not equal truth. If you look at a chair you perceive it to be a chair, however, you do not know what a chair actually is because what you see is not the perfect/ideal chair but mearly a facsimile of what the perfect/ideal chair is. Until you find the perfect chair you only know the illusion of a chair rather then the true chair. |
How does one come in contact with the object truth/ideal unless one perceives it first ? It would mean that the object truth is something "out there" which can never be comprehended by us. If ever we come across the object truth, it would still be a perception for us and there's no way for us to know whether it's the ideal or just another facsimile of the ideal. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
How does one come in contact with the object truth/ideal unless one perceives it first ? It would mean that the object truth is something "out there" which can never be comprehended by us. If ever we come across the object truth, it would still be a perception for us and there's no way for us to know whether it's the ideal or just another facsimile of the ideal. |
Only as humans ;) |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
This is Plato's theory not mine. He never states what is perfect, only that it should be our goal to find it and understand it. I believe that this is an impossible goal. I also believe that Plato knew it was an impossible goal but the rewards of such an undertaking would be sufficient to warrent the quest.
BTW, if your perfect chair is only perfect at a specific point is time and space then it is not perfect. Object truth remember.... it is always true regardless of time or space, therefore, if your chair is only perfect at a given moment and location then it is not perfect at all (although you may perceive it to be). |
according to our understanding of the universe everything is in specific points in time and space, therefore if we are to trust the collective human knowledge at this point, we are lead to conclude that no physical object has object truth.
however, i think i have an example of my own of a compliant 'thing' of object truth: the principle "everything changes" (which also includes itself).
one more candidate that just came to mind is evolution: i'm pretty sure evolution is a default occurance, but i'm far from being absolutely certain of that fact. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Only as being with the powers of perception ;) |
fixed. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
however, i think i have an example of my own of a compliant 'thing' of object truth: the principle "everything changes" (which also includes itself).
|
I'd tend to agree with you, though I always find myself troubled by the philosophers of change and the philosophers of stability - The presocratics are so intensively divisive and quickly criticized by both Plato and Aristotle that I have trouble really using them as anything other than jumping off points... But I'll readily admit my understanding of Anaxamander, Thales, and the other presocratics is by far the most limited. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
fixed. |
Ah, terrific point! I was limiting the scope of things a bit there ;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Your rejection of the question regarding Hitler is understood, however would you agree with someone like Jason in that his pursuit wasn't knowledge, and was therefor not virtuous by Socratic/Platonic standards? |
I'm not certain I would agree that Hitler's pursuit was not knowledge. It greatly depends on how one intends to pursue knowledge or what knowledge one is in pursuit of. Given that Hitler's philosophy was largely "borrowed" from Nietzsche one could argue that Hitler was on a quest for knowlege. Nietzsche often stresses that the only way to obtain knowlege of the self is through strife and struggle. One of Hitler's primary goals was to create a never ending war in the east. This goal obstensively was to keep the economy going and to test/train the aryans. He wanted to make the aryans as strong as they could be in the hopes that this would lead to the Superman as foretold in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In this way it can be argued he was seeking knowlege of the Superman. What I'm getting at here is that if you use the nebulous definition of knowledge that Plato does then you cannot argue that any action any person undertakes is for a reason other then the advancement of knowledge because further understanding of something will always be a result of action.
| quote: | | Beyond that, your position regarding human beings as unable to understand object truth and incapable of virtue is understandable, but then I ask, what is capable of virtue or understanding object truth? Is there some kind of dualist line dividing what we know as sense experience as humans and "something else" (a soul, mind, whatever - What I'm getting at is Platonic dualism)? |
Plato certainly suggests that humans should seek truth but seems to conceed that we will never succeed. I am in agreement with that position. We simply don't have the capacity to understand perfection because we ourselves are imperfect beings. What is capable of understanding object truth? Great question, I don't know but it would stand to reason that only something that is objectly true could recognize object truth. This would suggest that only a being we (humans) would deem a god could be capable of knowledge. Plato would term this an ideal being (which in Plato's eyes never existed although he states in some text that Socrates was as close as man ever came to perfection.... which is interesting in as much as Socrates is a fictional character of Plato's creation).
| quote: | | To those of you bringing up the idea of "will" or "willpower;" If you've never read Plato, there are a few instances where Socrates states that he doesn't believe in willpower - That if you had all the knowledge, you would always make the best decision. Is that a possibility to you all? |
I reject this idea because it requires humans to have knowledge beyond their capability. "If" we had perfect knowledge we would make perfect decisions... of course, however, since we are incapable of perfect knowledge we make decisions based on will, or more acurately based on which ever will is strongest at the moment in which we are making the decision. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
according to our understanding of the universe everything is in specific points in time and space, therefore if we are to trust the collective human knowledge at this point, we are lead to conclude that no physical object has object truth. |
In keeping with my Platonic positions, humans have no knowledge therefore we have nothing in which to trust. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I'd love to continue this but I must do some work. This has been fun. Please continue. |
|
|
|
|
