Everyone here has probubly read the republic. I dont believe i am out of line with that statemeant? Well we have all seen the thoughts of philosophers of antiquity, but what about modern referendums.
What is Justice?
If a law is not protecting people, is breaking it wrong?
[size=75]And, what in you’re opinion is the basis for a “utiopia” for lack of a better word[/size]
ii) Don’t just ask questions. Bring something to the discussion.
Asking “WOAH…LIKE…COULD WE BE LIKE…IN THE MATRIX???” does not make you a philosopher. Honestly. Asking questions is great, as long as you have studied to some extent the topic that you are talking about. Have the decency to go and read some philosophy before asking questions that any old schmoe could ask. There’s no need to try and look cleverer than you actually are, this isn’t a contest. We’re here to educate and be educated.
-Imp
with all due respect sir dont you think calling you’re self a philosopher is a bit arrogant
i mean lover of truth and wisdom literally but i find it offensive.
all plato and socrates did was ask question of there students
and on a second note, i am well read on plato and i am only 15. i would simply like to know peoples opinion on the topic since the republic didnt really get to the opinions of REAL people and the dialogues did jsut the same thing.
and the fact that you would state that this isent a contest about being clever makes me think that you you’re self are a little insecure about the level of you’re intelligence.
on a further note intelligence is starting a fire not filling a bucket. Posting crackpot renditions of the theorys of freud or lark or marx and calling them you’re own is just as bad as trying to act clever. a philosphy on something is nothing unless you go out and do something with it
[/quote]
nothing personal, I simply posted the forum rules.
you should have read and understood them before posting in the forum.
-Imp
hi yro,
It may be too late for me to give a gut reaction to the question “what is Justice”, since I’ve already read others who I must credit so as not to plagiarise their work.
As for the Republic, I think the opinions of Socrates’ adversaries are just the points he wants to argue against, and I do think people’s opinions boil down to, say, the arguments of Thrasymachus, who stated that justice is “the advantage of the stronger”. But I don’t think I thought that the first time I read it.
Justice and utopia? Borrowing from a modern scholastic who differs man considered as material (the “individual”) and man considered as form (the “person”), I say from my gut now that justice is in modern times equality of people as individuals, and that a practical utopia is a state where people are treated as persons.
Welcome to the boards.
my real name
By the way, why is this topic under “Mundane Babble” and not “Social Sciences” or “Philosophy”?
Dear yrom
Not true. The Socratic method is a rhetorical ploy (Socrates being the sophist, noble or otherwise) designed to limit the possible answers to the questions and therefore direct the discourse on a given subject. It’s like ‘leading the witness’ in law. It isn’t ‘just asking questions’ by ANY stretch of the imagination.
Reading is one thing, understanding is another. I’d say your claim about Socrates (and plato) demonstrate how you’ve not grasped their work with any subtlty.
‘real’ - ?
By what measure or standard?
Also, you do get ‘real’ peoples opinions in the dialogues, you get the opinions of Plato and Socrates…
That you’d mistake Imp’s brandishing of the rule book (and throwing of it at you) for his own claims about himself (keep on his good side and he’s a willing teacher, keep on his bad side and he’s an excellent logical sparring partner) speaks volumes about your own security or lack thereof.
I’m sure the deconstructionists would have something to say about how the bucket is always already there, but nevermind…
No, it isn’t. It requires some rudimentary ability with theory, acting clever simply requires the capacity to use certain words…
It’s a thing whether you do something with it ‘out’ there or not. Otherwise you’d be talking about (literally) nothing, which is nonsensical.
I think that you’ve got a lot of ideas above your station, and you should be careful not to piss off the moderators because they determine your access to these forums. But welcome to the boards and I hope you learn by being here.
Because the rules are slacker here, perhaps?
Not long to go before you rack up the thousand posts, I notice. Feel free to piss off GreedyDick by starting a whole new thread…
The entire “don’t just ask questions” thing is a silly rule. I am sure every mod is capable of judging when a question (in and of itself) doesn’t belong in any given specialized forum and when it does. “what is justice” is as a legitimate philosophical question as any ever uttered by man. Any rules that would regard such a question as being mundane babble is a rule worthy of examination.
no, it isn’t a silly rule…
it is not “don’t ask questions;” it is “don’t just ask questions”…
-Imp
I support the rule. The first post gives something to respond to instead of allowing the author to surprise their wisdom on us later. This makes for a shorter, more focused thread, and an actual viewpoint is discussed. In this case, it is more polite for the poster to offer his thoughts first, before recieving others’.
mrn
to be perfectly honest i am sorry for blowing this out of proportion, you caught me at a bad time and i was reading to take on anybody regardless of how mismatched.
i am honestly out of my leauge here and that is understandable.
I’ve just really been getting into philosophy in all aspects and i apreciate what ever advice can be givin.
That would be what I said… don’t just ask questions. As my Argumentation prof once said, “never ask a question, always make a statement”. Statements serve as positions. Something someone can attack and thus ‘argue’ over.
and on a positive note “i love this site” going to a public history I hunger for a real intellectual conversation in which the point of reference has nothing to do with attracting the opposite sex and things getting “blowed” up.
Welcome to the rock-tumbler!
Perhaps a discussion of commuism would be interesting?
By the way, do you like Salvador Dali? It’s your name that interests me.
He has a painting called “The Persistence of Memory”.
mrn
Read Kant, Nietzsche and Hume before getting into 20th century philosophy (phenomenology, existentialism, poststructuralism, behaviourism and so on). I’m still playing catch-up in terms of understanding Kant and it’s made Derrida and Sartre and Rawls and so on seem very different to how I first read them.
My only other advice is to learn the rules of logic regardless of how boring and inapplicable you may find them. They are what they are, they have their problems but it’s important to have at least a strong grasp of the fundamentals. You seem willing to be taught, so look up the logic and argument threads on the philosophy forum and teach yourself some stuff.
Best of luck with your studies
And if you really want to know something true – read Aristotle, and Aquinas…and neo-Scholastics in general. 
mrn