|
Philosophy Thread: Socratic Virtue Theory! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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. |
and so, 'proving' that humans can know object truth. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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).
|
So at the end of the day, do you feel Plato is a then a true dualist? Or that there are more than 2 types of things that make up the universe? Wouldn't the very existence of these types of "ideal" beings would seem to suggest more than just two types of things in the universe?
Also, you bring up an interesting philosphical footnote that many people pay no mind to: That we will never know to what degree Socrates was, if at all, real. In contrast to your position that Socrates was purely fictional, I'd say (in rather simplistic terms) that Socrates is about 1/3 unique individual, 2/3 Plato. The early dialogues are often recognized by Philosphers as reflecting Socrates the individual and teacher, and the middle and late dialogues as almost purely Plato speaking through the mouthpiece of the character, Socrates. It's also interesting because Plato did reference, in a fair amount of his writings, what we'd call "mythological" stories and individuals, though it seems he is able to avoid writing about anything purely religious. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| 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).
|
If you believe in religious thought, people talk about God as being Omnipresent (Being present everywhere at once), Omnipotent (Having unlimited power) and Ominiscent (having infinite knowlegable)
By definition, God imples an Infinity. And hence it cannot be perceived by human mind, because perception means an attempt to express infinity by finitude which is not possible.
God may be the principle/energy which is makes this universe happen. Everything in this Universe is in a state of flux as you say. But there is this substrate over which all the changes occurs. And that can be a candidate for an "object truth".
As a matter of fact, it is the "object truth" of many religions. And I believe it's the same "Brahman" of Hindus, "Allah" for Muslims, "God" for Christians. |
|
|
| RJT |
| Religious thought and rational thought are often very, very different things. I'm not discounting the argument you offer because it's religious, however I'm weary to accept any argument that has it's roots in blind faith over one of rational thought. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
So at the end of the day, do you feel Plato is a then a true dualist? Or that there are more than 2 types of things that make up the universe? Wouldn't the very existence of these types of "ideal" beings would seem to suggest more than just two types of things in the universe? |
Indeed, I believe Plato sees things in terms of two classifications perfect/ideal and imperfect/non-ideal. To Plato there would be two types of beings; perfect or imperfect. I'm uncertain as to how the existance of a perfect being suggests there are more then just the two types. Personally, I prefer to simplify it further... I think in terms of existant or non-existant. Given that non-existance is simply a failure to exist there is really only one type of thing in the universe... the existant. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
As a matter of fact, it is the "object truth" of many religions. And I believe it's the same "Brahman" of Hindus, "Allah" for Muslims, "God" for Christians. |
Just a quick point of order.... Allah and Yaweh (judeo-christian god) are the same entity according to those religions.
Your earlier point about god being the engergy that gives rise to the universe is an interesting one as is the suggestion that such a god would be an object truth, however, I think RJT is right in that introducing religion to this discussion would take things in a whole different manner and ultimately would lead to a breakdown in rationality as in religion the answer to all that cannot be explained is "god." |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
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: |
Does this mean that you equate virtues with morality?
|
really gotta define my interpretation of some of these words to explain more fully...
Knowledge - something that is or may be known
Virtue - conformity of one's life and conduct to moral / ethical principles
Morality - a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct
so i guess based on those definitions i see a relationship between these things to be...
-we believe the pursuit of knowledge is a moral undertaking.
-the actual decision to live our life in the pursuit of knowledge is a virtuous decision.
-the product of this is a greater understanding and knowledge of things.
knowledge in itself is not a virtue. knowledge is just the ability to understand something. what is virtuous is the act of acquiring knowledge. this decision to seek understanding is a denomstration of our acceptance of knowledge as a moral pursuit.
hard to try and simply this concept, but one more try...morality is a concept of right and wrong. virtue is the decision to act in accordance to what is right. knowledge is often the byproduct of that decision.
not sure if everyone will agree with that or not, but that's my interpretation...
as for the pursuit of knowledge being the only virtue?
it depends on a lot of things. if we have a moral basis for believing compassion or love is good. that seems to be unrelated to knowledge. would being virtuous in this instance mean acting kind to everyone? maybe. would that be directly related to knowledge? well i guess you could say...how did you come to the conclusion that compassion or love is good. you could say it is instinctive or you could say it's learned and in that way tied to knowledge. i dunno... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
knowledge in itself is not a virtue. knowledge is just the ability to understand something. what is virtuous is the act of acquiring knowledge. this decision to seek understanding is a denomstration of our acceptance of knowledge as a moral pursuit. |
Based upon this arguement one would have to conclude that Josef Mengele's experiments were virtuous acts. I think that as soon as you attach a moral connotation to something such as knowledge you run into problems as the quest for knowledge will not always be consistant with whatever moral code you impose whereas the information gathered will be. So it leads to the question can an end be moral or virtuous if the means were not? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
To Plato there would be two types of beings; perfect or imperfect. I'm uncertain as to how the existance of a perfect being suggests there are more then just the two types. |
Plato certainly postulates that there are two types of things, but he refers to them in different contexts throughout the dialogues. Perfect/Imperfect, Soul/Physical, etc. In some sense, I guess I just felt that if we weren't using the perfect/imperfect model, and were perhaps saying there is "body/mind," neither of which were defined as perfect, then the addition of ideal beings or "gods" would imply a third type of thing. But there's a good chance that was all just diarrhea of the mind and I just convoluted things too far.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Personally, I prefer to simplify it further... I think in terms of existant or non-existant. Given that non-existance is simply a failure to exist there is really only one type of thing in the universe... the existant. |
Noted - I'm a dualist, through and through at this point - But I'm always open to new ideas :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
So it leads to the question can an end be moral or virtuous if the means were not? |
I have a sneaking suspicion that morals do not equal virtues, but I'm not sure why- intuition? It's just hard to articulate.
But I think what you're getting at is the idea of tragic conflict; And in that sense, I'm inclined to say that a moral end can be attained by immoral means, but I think this also gets muddied by the very qualifications that the word moral implies to different peoples. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
really gotta define my interpretation of some of these words to explain more fully...
Knowledge - something that is or may be known
Virtue - conformity of one's life and conduct to moral / ethical principles
Morality - a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct |
just a pointer regardless of your point:
if you have to define your own interpretation of your words, you shouldn't be using those words in the first place.
i may respond to your point later, just had to say that the general way you communicate in this thread so far has been lowering my desire to participate :/ (sorry for being brutally honest) |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Religious thought and rational thought are often very, very different things. I'm not discounting the argument you offer because it's religious, however I'm weary to accept any argument that has its roots in blind faith over one of rational thought. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Your earlier point about god being the engergy that gives rise to the universe is an interesting one as is the suggestion that such a god would be an object truth, however, I think RJT is right in that introducing religion to this discussion would take things in a whole different manner and ultimately would lead to a breakdown in rationality as in religion the answer to all that cannot be explained is "god."
|
It isn't really about blind faith if you ask me. I've read a lot of religious philosophy and I'm a completely rational guy. I don't take anything on pure belief. I've been learning Physics and Maths all the way till my Master's level and believe me, that seriously affects the way you think about beliefs which don't hve acceptable proof.
I find it very strange that Christianity focuses completely on Jesus and faith and prayers. In Hinduism you only need to dust the surface to realize that it's really a massive philosophical structure which propounds you to search for truth through rational means only!
Metaphysics and Mythology are for ordinary people who don't understand nor have the intellectual capacity to understand complex philosophical principles.
It is a pity that "blind beliefs" in mythology have grown to such gigantic proportions today, that people think of religion as just another bull, irrational faith based no-use-for-intellectuals field. But they are completely wrong. Dig a little bit and you will realize what profound philosophy religion has to offer (I talk about Hinduism because I've read it extensively. I am sure all religions have a similar structure)
Religion tries to address the very same questions Plato asks. They are nothing new. But I dispute your conclusion that we cannot grasp this object truth because we are flawed.
Atleast, Hinduism talks about well defined paths of realizing this truth/God. God has a profoundly more complex meaning when spoken of philosophically. The paths that Hinduism prescribes are every bit scientific if you ask me. The complete stress is on experimentation and generalization of concepts based on experimentation. That's pretty much what Science is all about, isn't it ? |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| how'd this turn into a religous thread |
|
|
|
|
