ken hanly wrote:
>
> There is no such Platonic argument. Thrasymachus in the Republic argues this
> and gets a good trouncing for doing so at the hands of Socrates. Where do
> you think that PLATO argues this? Or do you think that Thrasymachus is
> actually Plato in the Republic. That is an interesting theory.
>
> Cheers. Ken Hanly...
Thrasymachus is pushed by Socrates to admit this argument, and as a
result he does get as you say, crushed. But the argument belongs to
Socrates, not Thrasymachus, and it calls for a number of observations.
One that I will make here is that from it we see that Plato had become
much more dishonest when he wrote the _Republic_ in contrast to his
younger self in the _Protagoras_, the only dialogue in which he offers a
reasonably honest presentation of the opposition. The debate between
Thrasymachus and that slimeball Socrates is rigged from behind the
scenes by Plato.
Carrol
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:55 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:31316] Re: Re: What is science
>
> >
> >
> > Charles Jannuzi wrote:
> > >
> > >The science report
> > > is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c/v
> > > building that pretends we can.
> > >
> >
> > The basis both of "SCIENCE" (deified -- as at Sceptical Inquiere) and of
> > SCIENCE (demonized -- as with Carl & too many others) -- is the Platonic
> > argument that a mathematician is not a mathematician when he/she is
> > making a mistake. Both (Carl & Sceptical Inquirer) are pitching religous
> > woo-woo and can't tell us much about the actual world.
> >
> > Carrol
> >
