dmb says: Hmmm. As I understand it, Plato slandered the Sophists by calling them relativists. It was Plato that had his panties in a bunch over the notion that all is relative. Plato insisted on a fixed and eternal truth whereas the Sophists said reality just isn't like that. As I understand it, Heraclitus said you can't stand in the same river twice, which is a metaphor for the idea that reality is fundamentally about flux and change, and Zeno "proved" that motion and change were impossible and all appearances to the contrary are illusions. And so the main camps in philosophy sort of pivot around these two rival visions; the empirical flux and fixed eternal Ideas.
Ron: In my own reading they are understood as two parts of a whole, which is worked out in a discussion with Zeno,Parmenides and Socrates consisting of the one and the many which involves the discussion of being and non being, the discusion leading to the conclusion that ideas are relative. Thats what has these guys in a twist. They come to rather interesting conclusions for example some philosophers draw from this that nothing can be said that is true (The Sophists contention) . Combine this with Heraticlitus observation and your in a real pickle if one cares about meaning in experience. What evolves out of this is a reactionary response. We see Socrates working towards an empirical inquirey, the development of meaning through careful observation and questioning to explore every possibible angle of an idea and it's consequences. To inspire the love of wisdom through inquirey. Ideas are relative only inso far as they are underdeveloped. When ideas have real practical meaning with real practical consequences they take on a truer value a practical value"benefical value" is the word that was used frequently. Aristotle takes these points and develops scientific method. Plato, influenced by the Pythagoreans is really taken by the concept of the divine and developes his own version of the theory of forms that focuses on a particular interpretation on what Parmenides and Zeno mean by the fixed and eternal "One". Ron previosly commented: Right, again we see him stating that cultural assumptions (opinion) ta endoxa as the starting point of reasoning is an imitation of reason. And that method of collection and division, the is and is not of the matter, Dialectic, I contend, is a radically empirical method of gaining a more precise meaning of a concept. dmb says: As I understand it, the dialectical method is contrasted with the empirical method. It is the method of choice for those who do not trust the senses and therefore believe that logic and reason is the only road to truth. Thus they talk instead of observe, investigate or experiment. This is rationalism and it's opposed to empiricism. As you pointed out, Ron, "they saw empirical reality as subjective and ... based upon cultural bias and opinion. Relativism had them stymied." This, I think, is what Pirsig would be talking about when he says that Plato slandered them. These are the reasons they give for distrusting empirical methods. Ron: It has come to my attention after reading these texts is that dialectiacal method is an empirical method, collection and division, the is and is not of the concept, and the dialectic opposition applied to both is only to arrive at accuracy and precision of meaning. TRUTH is the rationalization of the Pythagoreans, that reality is expressed in number fixed eternal and seperate from the flux of imperfection. Ron continued: but.....we can see..that like Pirsig...these philosophers understood that truth was a love of wisdom a passion for the precise and accurate the highest virtue. And this is what Aristotle really took up and expanded apon in scientific inquiry and method. The Pythagoreans on the other hand went precisely the way you state toward a vicious intellectualism and they really influenced Plato's latter work so much so that it's really difficult to see the great contributions to Pragmatism Plato made in earlier writ. dmb says: Yes, as Plato construed it, there are three basic types of people and they correspond pretty neatly with the MOQ's biological, social and intellectual levels. Plato talked about these three types as the lovers of pleasure, the lovers of honor and the lovers of truth or wisdom. The pleasure seekers are hedonists. They like what the pastry chefs and prostitutes have to offer. The lovers of honor want fame and fortune and power. Then there are the philosophers, whose love is of a higher order. But Plato stops there and associates all things good and divine with the intellect. He was a very ungroovy dude. Now Socrates, on the other hand, he gets real close to what Pirsig is saying in Plato's Phaedrus. His description of the soul, Pirsig says in ZAMM, is pretty much what he means by DQ. Ron: Thats why I think the Socratic dialogs have much to offer us in the way of our discussions regarding DQ and SQ . The Sophists were, like some here on the forum, were advocating DQ in that nothing true can be said of reality and SQ is illusion. Your opposition to this position and the posts you write in response are in line with the Philosophers. Your reasons correspond with their reasons and it's really neat to see the same discussions played out in a different context and note the simularities. thnx Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
