|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 2nd, 2004 12:11 AM | |||
| sspadowsky | This thread is still here? | ||
| Jan 1st, 2004 09:05 PM | |||
| Protoclown | Listen One Size Fits All, you really need to stop taking words out of your college level philosophy book. | ||
| Jan 1st, 2004 08:38 PM | |||
| kahljorn | "Look he knows what he's talking about; he must be a bigger loser than me who wastes his time actually posting intelligent shit rather than posting useless shit over and over again" | ||
| Dec 31st, 2003 08:30 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
I pointed out that it was college level so you wouldn't shout out crap like "STOP TAKING WORDS OUT OF DICTIONARIES!!!" Plato did not think that that the Forms were made up of ideas themselves. He just thought that the Forms could only be known through the intellect. Thus, we see the difference. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 11:11 PM | |||
| AChimp |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:15 PM | |||
| Helm | Mercy! Marx was a dialectic materialist! | ||
| Dec 30th, 2003 09:10 PM | |||
| Supafly345 |
Quote:
But Plato wasn't an idealist, to the best of my knowledge. I remember Marx (Marks?) was. But I don't remember similarities between them. Plus this is stupid and I don't care. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 07:29 PM | |||
| The One and Only... | (Bashes head against wall repeatedly) | ||
| Dec 30th, 2003 05:42 PM | |||
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 04:14 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Idealism: In metaphysics, the theory that all reality consists of mind and its ideas. Plato: (427-347 B.C.) The first great systematic or synoptic philosopher whose work survives in real quantity, propounder of transcendent Forms (or essences) as the absolute realities which are imperfectly mirrored by things in the sensible world and are known through the intellect alone. Note the very, very, very major differences in idealism and Plato's philosophy. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 09:03 AM | |||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 05:13 AM | |||
| Helm |
Please do not post philosophical definitions you found on dictionary.com. Dictionary.com provides uses of words. Which are not always corect. From the same site: Quote:
Why don't you consult your philosophical dictionary? Or get one? As to Plato I strongly urge you to actually read at least some of his dialogues (I suggest Politia for some of the best and worst of his work) before telling me he's not an idealist. Obviously modern idealism has progressed (or fractioned, as many would say) into various forms. Edit: slash |
||
| Dec 29th, 2003 10:36 PM | |||
| Buffalo Tom |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 02:04 PM | |||
| Protoclown |
Seriously, dude. Get a girlfriend. Or hell, just a friend. |
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 01:33 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Egoism is a doctrine that says it is moral to try to maximize your pleasure. Utilitarianism is a doctrine that says it is moral to try to maximize the pleasure of everyone. Altruism is a doctrine that says it is moral to try to maximize the pleasure of others. The distinction between utilitarians and altruists is major, because utilitarians always count themselves as one. Plato, while having a large impact on idealism, was not an idealist at all. Idealism's true progenator was Berkley. Idealism is necessarily a monistic view which claims that all reality is mental. Definition of idealism. |
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 11:27 AM | |||
| Protoclown | Yeah! | ||
| Dec 28th, 2003 04:37 AM | |||
| ziggytrix | Can too! | ||
| Dec 28th, 2003 02:48 AM | |||
| Helm |
No because even if the two were the same (they aren't) the fact that you choose to use such a definition suggests historical and philosophical semiotic value the layman statement doesn't. For example, for me when a person says "I am the only one that exists", it is quite different from a person that says "I am a solipsist" even for the simple fact that the latter is more likely to be familiar with the finer points of said philosophical concept, since he can name it. But the more important reason remains that no philosophical concept can be summed up in a layman-friendly concise sentence. |
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 02:14 AM | |||
| Drew Katsikas | Well, Helm, I'm saying, now that I've been enlightened by Pern, wouldn't it be more sensible if you were a so called social-nihilist to say, rather than "I'm a social nihilist", "I do what I fucking want?" | ||
| Dec 28th, 2003 02:05 AM | |||
| Helm |
The choice of words is misleading. Ascetic suggests that one chooses not to indulge his basic instincts. Epicuros did nothing of the sort. Anyway, by bad I guess since I was just going by the popula definition of ascetisism 
|
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 01:52 AM | |||
| Perndog |
My sources must be misinformed then; this one says he favored a "moderately ascetic life" and this one refers to the satisfaction of basic needs and the indulgence in luxuries only so long as they are readily available. "...in our present lives we need only live a simple life..." |
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 01:44 AM | |||
| Helm | There's nothing ascetic about epicuros :O | ||
| Dec 28th, 2003 01:39 AM | |||
| Perndog | I wasn't aware at first that Epicurus's simple ascetic lifestyle could qualify as hedonism. | ||
| Dec 28th, 2003 01:23 AM | |||
| Helm |
..and it would be misleading for you to do so because whereas hedonism is inherently atavistic, it does depend on social structure in order to fully exploit a wider spectrum of pleasure. As to your original question, DrewKatsikas, no, I do not feel using proper terminology when dealing with philosophy harms one's point in any way. Language is faulty enough a method of communication as it is without having to dumb down one's vocabulary. As long as we'e using the same definitions for our philosophical terms, then we're going to be okay. For example, your definition of hedonism below is faulty in many ways. What you described more likely is some sort of nonholistic egoism. I suggest research on your part. Quote:
|
||
| Dec 28th, 2003 01:23 AM | |||
| Perndog |
That'd be social nihilism. Another fun jargon term for you. 
|
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
