this might arouse your interest a bit.... but remember Nietzsche's critique of Plato is comprehensive and voluminous, utterly unprecedented in its breath and depth:
How the True WorldFinally Became An Fable: The History of an Error 1. The true world -- attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it. (The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.") 2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents"). (Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.) 3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolation, an obligation, an imperative. (At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, K�nigsbergian [i.e., Kantian].) 4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us? (Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.) 5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it! (Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens [�good sense�] and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.) 6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one. (Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA. [�Zarathustra begins�]) On Jul 3, 8:22 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 02 Jul 2011, at 23:10, B Soroud wrote: > > > a question I want to pose to the community as well as Bruno is: > > > Bruno, have you ever seriously studied Nietzsche... he is probably > > the single most persuasive critic of Platonism that has ever existed. > > By platonism I just mean the idea that ideas are primary and matter is > generated by the ideas. With comp it can be shown we need only two > ideas: addition and multiplication of natural numbers (together with > some tiny amount of classical logic). > If you get the point you can understand how this is completely > testable. Meanwhile it explains tha quantum appearance of nature, the > non booleanity of the observable, etc. I mean the facts seems to favor > comp and Platonism, and in my opinion, materialism will disappear, and > taken as a very deeply "Darwinianly" preprogrammed sort of > superstition. The greek and Indian mystics and rationalist might be > right, with respect of the coherent mechanist theology. > > I read Nietzsche a long time ago, I loved Zarathustra, but find his > text on Plato non convincing, but I might have been too young. > I tend to think that many philosophers confuse or are unclear about > first person truth (Bp & p) and third person communicable truth (Bp). > Don't mind too much the modal operator, until you read and grasp > (hopefully) the consequences of comp in the "classical machine > theology". > > You might try to sum up Nietzsche argument against "platonism" so that > can we see if it is relevant. If it does not appear as an argulment > against comp, then it might point on a flaw in the UD reasoning, which > could be something interesting. To be honest I have some doubt > because, like many, Nietzsche confuses mechanism and materialism. > > Note also that comp contradicts Plato's *politics*, but not Plato's > theology, especially as understood by the neoplatonist and > neoPythagorean, and then the machines. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > it just seems to me that mentality might be a better term to use > > then consciousness... > > > this is a notoriously difficult problem.... > > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net > > > wrote: > > Hi B, > > > Speaking only for myself, I do believe that consciousness is > > causally effective, in the sense that if it did not exist then > > certain other features of the world would not exist and that my > > belief that I (an indicator for inner subjective experience of > > “being in the world”) is not just an illusion. > > Is this belief justified? Hard to say, but so far I have not > > found that the materialist, physicalist, etc. have successfully > > given me unassailable reasons to believe that by experience of > > “being in the world” is just some kind of nonsense that we lie to > > ourselves about., pace Dennett, Churchland, etc. > > I supposed that I might be considered a dualist, but unlike > > Descartes, I argue against the notion of substance as an ontological > > primitive; instead it is proposed that all properties emerge from > > process ala Bergson and Heraclitus. I see mind and body as a > > specific instantiations of the Stone duality and the relation > > between them is an isomorphism. There is no “causal link” between > > the two, in the Humean sense, needed. For an elaboration of this > > view see:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf > > AFAIK, Bruno adheres to an Idealist version of Platonism. We > > welcome your thoughts and comments. > > > Onward! > > > Stephen > > > From: B Soroud > > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:25 PM > > To: email@example.com > > Subject: Re: consciousness > > furthermore you seem to conceive of a consciousness apart from its > > properties... you are making the erroneous distinction of attribute > > and essence.... you sound much like Descartes. > > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "A property of consciousness is" > > > it sounds like you are reifying "consciousness"... consciousness is > > not a thing in itself, consciousness does not exist in and of > > itself... it can only be understood within the interdependent and > > complex framework of sensation, bodies, space.... consciousness of > > something, in and through something.... inseparable from the system > > of space, energy, matter and motion... and essential equal to it.... > > not something seperate and distinct from it that can exist > > independently of it.... > > > consciousness is not something that exists in itself.... > > consciousness is always embodied consciousness of life.... in and > > through life and the complex instrument of form and the mystery of > > sensation and generation. Consciousness is a phenomena of the "body" > > and its natural system... and is equal to that "body" and "body > > system". > > > it sounds like you guys are reifing consciousness.... > > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Pzomby <htra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 4:23 am, selva kumar <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is consciousness causally effective ? > > > In my opinion, yes, if in simple terms, it is logically correct to > > state: A property of consciousness is….the capacity and ability of > > individual human consciousness to create intentionally desired > > physical and mental effects. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.