The Pre Socratics were concerned with providing an explanation of Phusis, the idea of Phusis being the result of the Monism that sprung from the weakening of Olympianism and the growth of Dionysus worship and Orphism. rather then accept a pre determined fate, converts hoped that through ritual and lifestyle one could influence one’s place in the afterlife.
The idea of Harmony springs not from all the Pre Socratics, as the statement tends to blanket, but instead from Pythagoras. As no Pre Socratic could adequately explain the process in which Phusis served as the basis for the world, thinkers began to abandon the eart/air/water/fire model. One even offered an esoteric “boundless” that was “something which is nothing” to, again, serve as an explantion of the physical world. What Plato did, was to make “harmony” between the being of Paramenides and the becoming of Heraclitus.
While I do not disagree that Plato clearly thought that ‘what one was’ is of the most importance, even then, much of the Republic serves as a training manual for “what one should do” to prepare those who lead (or those who are in harmony). Harmony is the direct result of one doing what one does in relation to what one is. Balance then is not based on one or the other entirely, but on the combination of the two. Or to put it bluntly, Using mind to employ the will to overcome one’s animal appetites.
Taking the rest of the post in context, I do not think that I am in disagreement with you, merely, what you wrote seems to indicate something else.
For this to be the case, we would have to be interested only in the harmony of the individual whataver that individual might be like. According to this, Plato felt that a harmonious (or balanced) individual might also be unjust, incontinent, etc, which I feel is a misrepresentation of what Plato actually said - namely that a balanced individual is balanced in all aspects of particular Arete.
i know that you did ask nicely, GateControltheory, only i don’t really feel like playing philosophy professor/tutor. so i clarify with an extreme reluctance.
despite the social conditions surronding the presocratics, which i believe are highly debatable as often all that one is working with is a handful of fragments, the philosophic works paints a dramatically different story than that which you are trying to protray. the presocratics initially had the major focus of explaining the existence of the universe; both from a causaul and descriptive standpoint. however, with the earth-shattering work of paramenidies, there was a tremendous shift in the current while thinkers scambelled to battle with the question of the nature of existence itself. yet, a constant theme throughout all the explainations was the achievement of balance. anaxamander and anaxagoras conceptualized this balance using different physical elements. in the works of empedocles, however, the balance is struck with the use of the forces (love and hate), operating on a binding condition of necessity. heraclitus has a harmony theory that governs the state of flux and operation of the basic element of fire. paramenidies uses harmony to justify the absolute existence of what is, and an ethical strain of harmony also runs in his work. the atomists, democritious and lucretious, also have balance in the creation of things.
pythagoras is a really shady figure in philosophy, and it will be wise not to rely on his doctrines to expraliate too much. the school of pythagoras itself was a cult-like institution, the very first actually, and everything produced by the school is attributed to him. so, what he actually said and what his students said cannot be historicaly varified. also, there were two pythagoras’ and i would caution getting those mixed up as well. even so, his number theory of the universe seems to strive for the need of balance.
however, anaxagoras and anaxmander has a theory of harmony/balance that was formed before the pythagorean school started. so you are not correct in your objection:
further, as i have tediously shown, the idea of balance and harmony was in the presocratic. i can proove my point further if i used quotes, which i haven’t b/c i don’t got my book with me at the moment.
HA!!! HA!!! HA!!! HAHAH!!
oxfordwill has a decent explaination. you’re really off buddy. if you can possibly support your arguement then i’ll correct you where you went wrong.
And the myth of the metals was a typo? I think we misunderstand one another. (which isn’t hard… The dialogues begin one place and the latter dialogues often end somewhere else). Plato might say that the worst kind of person could also be the best… dependent upon his or her society and other factors (age, personal experience, education, and so on). Book VI of the Republic makes mention of this.
Why the assumption that only professors/tudors need clarify their arguments? You mentioned the Pre Socratics, and blithely ignored their cosmological intentions to further your own argument.
The “earth shattering” work of Parmenides is not all of the Pre Socratics, as you had attempted to argue. My problem is not so much that I believe you are wrong, just that, for the heavily moderated forum I expected to see something a little tighter than the bilge one can read here in this forum. For all your vaunted expertise/intelligence, etc, surely you can be a little less lazy… no?
Furthermore, the idea of balance is a Greek Trait, it can be argued that it flows more out of the society as opposed that it was the end to which the Pre Socratics sought. For them, it was a given. So, the onus then was not explaining balance, but answering the question as posed by Thales, “what is the stuff out of which the world is made”.
For the West, this was the first time it was assumed that Man was capable of even answering such a question. What you think as a minor or unimportant interpretation is actually the birth of Western thought.
One line from one book remains from what Anaximander wrote. You might interpret a search for Harmony from it if you like, to me, it reads as if he is equating natural law to moral law, both would be our interpretations, no?
By all means, provide quotes from all the Pre Socratics, as it is you argument that this was the main their main concern.
Book VI of the Republic… the Line. Book VII, The Cave. The Higher realm, the true world, is the eternal, the changing world of opinion, the shadows in the cave, that is the flux.
Plato combined both to explain why we sense change but still can hold certain eternal truths (like the Good for example). In fact, if he doesn’t do this, then the Forms don’t exist, the Sophists are correct, and he generally has a very bad day.
So, from what I got from the first post here, was:
“Those are most harmonious who do least to ‘contradict’ their own selves”.
A mundane example of someone who is not all that harmonious would be an individual who exaggerates his or her feats to others—and does it to the point where the feats are so exaggerated that they contain very little truth.
Did I get that right, or did your guy’s points like go right over my head?
how? where? read carefully, sound out the words if you must, this quote from my other post:
i have NO WHERE equated paramenidies with all the presocratics. that was an absurd objection.
nevermind the fact that i don’t think you understood my post, nor do i think that you understand plato or the presocratics. but NOT ONE of you objections so far have had ANY merit whatsoever. the blanket statement on the presocratics was a blanket statement because it is common knowledge. getting bogged down in the history of philosophy in a post NOT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY (that’s a study tip for you, skipper) will only obscure my point. among academics, the statement was neutral enough to be commonly accepted because it is commonly known – among those who know about the topic. which is probably why you’re having so much trouble over there with it.
fucking hell. nevermind the fact that the idea any concept springs innately from the characteristics of the nation (as the term “greek trait” suggests) but let’s go with this for a second. the presocratic society dates back to about the fourth or fifth century BC. the amount known is made largely through conjectures, assuming, piecing together what little evidence survives/is found. how the society actually was is itself a large assumption. the written works clearly tell us what the motherfucking thinkers think. why on earth would one base on arguement on an assumption when documented evidence that a bunch of dudes wrote is available?
you have a very very confused and rocky understanding of the presocratics. but it’s damn near genuis compared to your horrible confusion surronding of plato. which i will not touch.
further, nothing bugs me more than being unable to argue. you went from saying that balance is a concept that “springs not from all the Pre Socratics” to the presocs making the concept at the “birth of Western thought.” and for the record, i do not think that the idea of balance is unimportant, but that having to proove it existed in presocratic thought is redundant and a waste of time. it’s like arguing that descrates believed in god, or berkeley in the immaterial world. it’s common knowledge to anyone educated in the area.
But originally you presented the Pre Socratics as monolithic, which is clearly fallacious, as the pre Socratics are commonly known as a successive chain of thinkers arguing and evolving their thoughts in response to prior arguments.
Another fallacy, don’t bother to prove anything… pass it of as common knowledge. You offered to provide quotes. I see you didn’t bother. Until you actually bother to prove anything why should anyone believe you? I had initiated this thread in anticipation of seeing some proof for the earlier part of your original argument. I find any interpretations of the pre Socratics beyond the Common Knowledge Cosmological ones to be interesting. So please, a little less tail wagging and a little more work would be appreciated.
How would I know that, you refuse to provide the documents. I don’t doubt you, I simply thought posts on the Heavily Moderated board would be less sloppy. At least as topic starters anyway.
Please touch it. I will even pay you to touch it, so you can continue the family tradition. Since you obviously aren’t comfortable with your understanding of Plato, let me simplify it for you. To prove that the Dilectic was not simply a fancy word game Plato had to have the forms. But to have the forms he had to have Parmenides. To have Parmenides, he had to explain how we can observe things change in what he would have to argue is an unchanging world. he needed an eternal world for an eternal, unchanging Form of the Good upon which his Ethics might stand and from which he could validate Socrates and further condemn the Sophists. Clearly, however, The process of change causes problems of parmenides (This is Why Zeno crafted his paradoxes ya know) so to explain observable change he applied it to this world, and argued that the true world was eternal unchanging world of the forms. That is the common interpretation anyway. Some argue that what Plato really held was that the forms are not so far divorced from their representations here. I am not overly familiar with that interpretation, however, so if you would like to elucidate it, please feel free.
Right, so your point is that your point was bullshit. Both points are noted.
That is right. You have some quotes from all the Pre Socractics purporting their ends to be the explication of Balance? No? I didn’t think so. Sometimes I like to pretend I am from the Big MO.
Then maybe you shouldn’t try.
lets see… you have quotes you won’t provide, you have mentioned jargon/mumbo jumbo, and then argue that what… that the common interpretation must be true in furtherance of your original argument. So, you are lazy when it suits your purposes. I find your honesty refreshing.
I am sorry if you get all hyped up over this. I actually thought your original post was quite good, and since I had promised a Mod here I would do a write up on the Pre Socratics (but unfortunately never had the time for it) I decided I would instead initiate this little discussion, as the pre Socs are rarely if ever mentioned here… I couldn’t let the chance pass me by. Plus, I get to insult you in a high handed and authoritative manner not dissimilar from your own. I find it quite refreshing, this form of snobbery. Alas, I already possess some modicum of self esteem so will not engage in it any further. I am back to All I know is that I know you a little better and that I know nothing.
Whew, you’re really getting ripped apart on this one, eh? Try not to take it personally!
I struggled for a few moments trying to see why you thought the metals were of relevance here. If anything, the metals of Plato’s republic are an example of how harmony is to be created through individuals who, in and of themselves, are not balanced but when together, are. That’s controversial though, so let’s not.
I think you might have misunderstood Plato when he tries to get to the true nature of justice? He takes the best kind of man and wraps him in the worst kind of reputation to test his resolve when faced with extreme treatment, thereby testing his nature. Plato says that the perceived worst kind of person could be the actual best kind of person. He doesn’t say the worst kind of person could be the best, no.
Book VI does or does he not say what would make the worst kind of tyrant? Isn’t his worst kind of tyrant also his best kind of Philosopher, only raised under different kinds of circumstances as compared with those he suggests throughout the Republic.
Gold is not what it is? But, to be Gold one must be trained and educated the proper way, but first and foremost, one must possess the innate talents that engender the designation. Unjust would be Bronze posing as Gold, and vice versa.
Right… I never said that Plato said that natural born Philosophers are naturally the worst, they are, according to him, actually the best. But that quality, in large part, depends on them pursuing the Good they and they alone are capable of apprehending. If they do not do this, and as he points out in Book VI, should they grow up in , say, a Democracy (and such) and allow themselves to be swayed by the arguments of the Sophists… they are no longer the best, but can very well be the worst. Instead of pursuing the good, they will use their minds to further their appetites. Aside from the true Philosophers who have the age, experience, and wisdom (Ala Socrtaes) to know the good despite what the Sophists might say, Plato was pointing out from his perspective that the Sophists are the true corrupters of the youth. Taking the best and making them the worst. Thus when I said the worst could be the best, If you take a child who normally would have been raised to be a terrible tyrant (assuming he possesses the abilities to also be a philosopher) and raise him in Plato’s Republic… he will be an example of the best kind of person.
But Athens and the real world does not do this. Thus what is often the case is that best are made the (and this is aside from his arguments showing Society’s judgement of Philosophers as being wrong) worst. Whereas in the ideal society, the worst would be the best.
I will dig up the quotes later today. From memory, Plato makes this argument after he responds to the assertion that the commonly held view is that Philosophers are either worthless or terrible sorts of people.
Well that makes more sense, but it wasn’t what you said originally!
Re Metals. Bronze was not an indication of an unjust person. The metals were to be indications of your place in society, such as guardian etc. Nothing to do with character or arete
buddy, i have papers i have to write and time not to be wasting arguing with someone who really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. the idea of harmony in the presocratics is talked about in any survey course on ancient phil, brush up on your shit at this website: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/index.html
and come back with specific arguements if you still need clarification. my patience runs thin. there’s nothing to debate here, in my opinion, just to teach. and you don’t really seem to be able to learn.
also, if i thought that posting the quotes would help convince you, i would. the problem here is clearly in your interpetation and understanding of my arguement. if you wanted to use this thread as one on the presocs, then you can, but try to have some grasp on the material.
oxford will, wonderful job in discussing plato! just like to add that the metals were a mythical great lie.
yes, well I did say earlier that I thought we were misunderstanding each other.
In the Grube translation his argument is actually longer than I remembered, so I will not be typing it all up. However, What I was mentioning begins at 491 A on through 493. And no I don’t recall i ever said “bronze” was unjust, if I did allow me to rephrase. I believe he gives that Myth as a means of placating those who might complain, and thereby negating future complaints, by asserting that, well, all men are not created equal. Some possess abilities that clearly make them superior to others. But, All can be Just, provided all do as their talents dictate.
Edit: Speaking of the Myth, a Prof of mine intimated that if viewed Myths themselves as being on the same level as poetry and art… representations of representations, shadows on the wall. Myths then, are a tool used to form the world of those not capable of walking out of the cave. Perhaps this is an unmentioned attack on religion… or my Prof’s interpretation anyway.
In other words, your premise is not so stable as to warrant a defense.
However, as a fellow student I do sympathize with your plight. You are a student correct? You only play at teaching on the internet?
When suggesting that myths might be like that, I would guess your professor was only trying to kick start some thinking in the back row. If he is serious, I’d need to read the whole thesis.
Yea, internal metals are Plato’s deliberate lie to assist kids find their alloted place with ease. He made a point of ensuring that, when they grew up, they would ‘understand the need’ for such a lie to be told.
sweethart, its the reverse. even a base internet site can explain to you what is a mere statement of facts. i don’t need to argue it because i don’t need to write a paper on presoc philosophy to proove my point; the idea of balance is a constant theme in presoc phil, running from the milesians, to the eclatics, paramenidies and atomists. this point has been conceded by you in some roundabout way. whatever happen to arguing that only pythagoras held this view? then, you think all early greek philosophers necessarily had to have this view as it was a part of their ‘ancient greek-ness’. your objections are a mess. they are ill informed. they are also constantly reversing their position. i have no time for this, if i was a student, teacher or pig farmer.
I think a better example would be this: Harmony is attained when a person who is a born leader actually leading as opposed to, say, sweeping floors for a living. This applies to the person and the society as a whole. That works both ways… someone born with an innate talent for sweeping floors should not be leading.
When you want your floors swept by the best… do you call your congressman or do you call the best floor sweeper in town?
Or to put it another way. Several years ago Shrub was quoted as saying something along the lines of “if I can be President anyone can.”
I imagine Plato, if he were alive today, would of had a stroke upon hearing that.
Try not to take it personally!