So, I've knocked out three dialogs since my last post.
First being Hippias Minor, or Hippias the Lesser, or On Lying, whatever you want to call it. Either way, it's about lying. Not so much the morality of lying, but about how knowledgeable someone has to be to be a good liar. Structurally uninteresting though. Sad, but true.
Next is Lysis, which is about what exactly friendship is. Again, structurally uninteresting. Atleast since it's only uniqueness when compared to the rest of Plato's works I've already found in Phaedo (granted Phaedo was probably written after Lysis)
And finally, the Symposium. It's about the nature of love, and the origins of Eros, who is either a God or a Demi-Godish creature depending on who in the dialog you listen to. It get's creepy because they talk rather frequently about how much they want to have relations with Socrates -shudder-. Anyways, the dialog seems heavily to have been an exercise in rhetoric for Plato, since each of the interlocutors use a long speech instead of the normal short question and answer method that Plato liked so much.
So, I'm done, but here is something interesting. It seems that some folks have done studies on the structure of known dialogs of Plato. It seems he used musical structure in his dialogs. I thought this was kind of cool, and might help weed out the true dialogs from the spurious. And so could the use of software that finds patterns in word uses by an author. Just a thought.
Have fun
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Gorgias
Wow, sorry for the long wait folks. It was one of those things where life just kind of happens, I'd rather not get into it. Hopefully it wont happen again, or atleast not for awhile, or as long of a wait (a month, holy crap, that is unacceptable).
This time, I'd like to talk to you about Plato's Gorgias. The dialog is long enough to merit it's own book (instead of a dialog like Crito, where it amounts to a few pages in Microsoft Word). My copy is the Penguin Classic version. Now, I'm not going to advise anyone to buy book you can get for free (and with Plato, you can), but if you decide to pay for a free product, I would say this is the way to go. Why? Well, it's kind of nice to have the book broken up into sections about 6-10 pages long with a notes about what you're about to/just read. I think I bought it off of the borders website.
Before I get into Gorgias, let me just put out a general suggestion of shop around. I realized it cost me alot of money to buy the complete works of Plato off of borders.com and not shopping around, or just getting it for free. I did however wise up by the time I got to buying Kant and Hegel. So, that's better.
Anyways, back to Plato. Gorgias is concerned with (by and large) morality in power. The first interlocutor is Gorgias himself. His part is short, and he acts a bit like a MacGuffin technique. He just kind of starts it off, and gets hardly mentioned after. He takes on the view of the majority of Athenians, which of course helps support the existence of the Athenian Democracy. Plato was very much of a social critic, and I'd argue that criticizing Athenian politics was the thing he did the best at. Which means that Socrates simply obliterated Gorgias in the dialog, with no hope what so ever of survival.
Next was Polus. He diverts from conventional morality, but still tries to justify Athenian Democracy. He says that Gorgias was too easy in agreeing with Socrates, even though that ends up happening to him anyways. Oh, irony.
Finally is the longest section, Callicles. He claims that conventional morality are all used to usurp Natural Law, in which the strong rule the weak by right of force. He is unable to find a definition of strong and weak that will actually work, and the dialog goes from a dialog to a lesson on the failings of a Platonic Dialog. Callicles starts out polite, and quickly becomes a jackass. He insult Socrates, denies that inadvertently agreed with Socrates, and eventually refuses to answer or speak his own mind. He (at a point) simply refuses to answer Socrates' questions, to speed the dialog along to get Socrates to shut up. And claims that, even though he jumped into the discussion, he is only doing this to satisfy Gorgias.
All of this serves as a lesson on the strengths and weaknesses of Plato's method. In the beginning, Socrates is able to use logic and Socratic Irony to weaken, and even destroy his opponent. This sometimes leads to his opponent agreeing with Socrates (as in the case of Crito), Socrates and the interlocutor coming to a different but agreed position (I know it happens, but Ion is the only one I can think of at the moment), or (in the case of Gorgias) the two simply tossing there hands up and going away from each other. This one included a bit of the first and last. With Gorgias and Polus, the first. Callicles is able to create the third, but simply not answering. It becomes the ultimate dodge to superior logic. So, for anyone looking for a little bit of a self criticism of Plato, Gorgias is not a bad place to start.
So, yah. Have fun folks.
This time, I'd like to talk to you about Plato's Gorgias. The dialog is long enough to merit it's own book (instead of a dialog like Crito, where it amounts to a few pages in Microsoft Word). My copy is the Penguin Classic version. Now, I'm not going to advise anyone to buy book you can get for free (and with Plato, you can), but if you decide to pay for a free product, I would say this is the way to go. Why? Well, it's kind of nice to have the book broken up into sections about 6-10 pages long with a notes about what you're about to/just read. I think I bought it off of the borders website.
Before I get into Gorgias, let me just put out a general suggestion of shop around. I realized it cost me alot of money to buy the complete works of Plato off of borders.com and not shopping around, or just getting it for free. I did however wise up by the time I got to buying Kant and Hegel. So, that's better.
Anyways, back to Plato. Gorgias is concerned with (by and large) morality in power. The first interlocutor is Gorgias himself. His part is short, and he acts a bit like a MacGuffin technique. He just kind of starts it off, and gets hardly mentioned after. He takes on the view of the majority of Athenians, which of course helps support the existence of the Athenian Democracy. Plato was very much of a social critic, and I'd argue that criticizing Athenian politics was the thing he did the best at. Which means that Socrates simply obliterated Gorgias in the dialog, with no hope what so ever of survival.
Next was Polus. He diverts from conventional morality, but still tries to justify Athenian Democracy. He says that Gorgias was too easy in agreeing with Socrates, even though that ends up happening to him anyways. Oh, irony.
Finally is the longest section, Callicles. He claims that conventional morality are all used to usurp Natural Law, in which the strong rule the weak by right of force. He is unable to find a definition of strong and weak that will actually work, and the dialog goes from a dialog to a lesson on the failings of a Platonic Dialog. Callicles starts out polite, and quickly becomes a jackass. He insult Socrates, denies that inadvertently agreed with Socrates, and eventually refuses to answer or speak his own mind. He (at a point) simply refuses to answer Socrates' questions, to speed the dialog along to get Socrates to shut up. And claims that, even though he jumped into the discussion, he is only doing this to satisfy Gorgias.
All of this serves as a lesson on the strengths and weaknesses of Plato's method. In the beginning, Socrates is able to use logic and Socratic Irony to weaken, and even destroy his opponent. This sometimes leads to his opponent agreeing with Socrates (as in the case of Crito), Socrates and the interlocutor coming to a different but agreed position (I know it happens, but Ion is the only one I can think of at the moment), or (in the case of Gorgias) the two simply tossing there hands up and going away from each other. This one included a bit of the first and last. With Gorgias and Polus, the first. Callicles is able to create the third, but simply not answering. It becomes the ultimate dodge to superior logic. So, for anyone looking for a little bit of a self criticism of Plato, Gorgias is not a bad place to start.
So, yah. Have fun folks.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Reviews of Books
OK, so I already read these books and articles, but felt I should give a review at this point. (these aren't in order, by the way)
First is The Philosophers Toolkit and Socrates Cafe. I highly recommend these books to anyone who is interested in Philosophy and needs a starting point. Both give alot of general information for someone to pursue further. I'd also recommend the Plato and Platypus series.
Next was Dialectical Inquiry. It wasn't quite what I thought it would be, but is still worth the read. The article is about using the Dialectal Method to conduct corporate research. In it, they took already existing data (in this case, opinions on why technology transfer was difficult for the company in question). They outlined the method as comprising 4 steps, though I think 6 is more accurate for the way they used it. The steps are:
1. Identify scripts and models.
2. Define models
3. Assumptions and Counter assumptions
4. Define Contradictions
(these are my additions)
5. Define Results
6. Check internal and external validity
Now, the scripts are what is actually said, with models being broader more inclusive sentiments. For instance 'you cannot transfer technology, only people' is a script, related to the model called 'people centered'. Easy enough? Good, it should be. In the identifying stage, you're simply trying to find out what the model is ('people centered'). In defining, you're actually writing down the specifics of what the model includes ('the people centered model is based around the view that only with the transfer of skilled users of a technology can the use of it be possible). In each model are certain assumptions, and certain counters to other model's assumptions.
Now, what are the 'contradictions'? Simply put, in any kind of philosophical or theoretical discussion, all views will hold a grain of truth. The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind at this point. Basically, a group of blind men was gathered to examine an elephant, and say it was. Each man picked a different part, and identified what they thought it was based off of their experiences and what they were physically examining. The man who looked at the leg said a column. Another the body, who said a wall, and so on. The same is true here, each perspective contains some grain of truth, and should thus be respected, and examined for it's own truths, and failings. If the man who said an elephant is a column had looked at the body, he would likely not be able to say that an elephant is a column anymore, which would be the contradiction. This parable is actually the origin of my interest in Dialectics.
So, how do define the results? Basically, you look for where one model will solve the problems of a different model. This tends to create slightly more complex results, but that may be needed. And yes, it is possible to come to the conclusion that one of the models is infact correct, and no contradiction can be made. The internal consistency you are looking for is any contradictions within the new model, in which case you need to go back and do a review of your research and process. The external validity is the ability to apply the results. If it does not work in real application, preferably in multiple settings, you likely have a problem with the theory, or your process more generally.
Next, on to Plato! The Apology is a good read which seems to me to be the less about philosophy itself, and more about the role of a philosopher. Not even that really. To me, it seemed like Plato wanted us to know about the trial of Socrates, and he injected into it the role of a philosopher, which can summed up in Socrates referring to himself as a gadfly (think mosquito), constantly challenging Athens, making it examine itself over and over again.
Crito is, so far, my favorite Dialog. The discussion takes place in Socrates's jail cell while he waits to be executed. The discussion is initiated when friends of Socrates try to convince him to run away, since they can get him out and to safety in another city if he so desires. He refuses and lays the groundwork for what will later become the Social Contract. Although, structurally, this dialog is unexciting.
Charmides is an ok dialog. It is about what is temperance. I am ashamed to say that the dialog came to no conclusions, and was generally, not as interesting as I had hoped. That being said, it does arise a few interesting points about what is and what is not temperance.
Euthyphro is another dialog of little interest from a structural stand point, and moderate interest from a philosophical stand point. In it, Plato and Euthyphro are arguing about the definition of piety. A number of definitions are presented, and refuted. In the end no conclusion is met. It seems to me that the point is that we cannot know what is piety.
The above is true of Ion as well. In this one, they're basically discussing if rhapsodes have a legitimate skill, or are metaphysically possessed.
Laches is about courage. Sorry, not much to say about this one. Although the ending is similar in certain ways to that of Euthyphro.
Protagoras is an interesting dialog. While the structure is of this one remains mostly uninteresting, is of worth reading for it's philosophical and historical value. This one is about whether or not it is possible to teach virtue, and what in general can be taught. This seems to be one of the better dialogs for historical value, since it covers the nature of the Sophists as much as the philosophy.
Phaedo is the first structurally interesting dialog. This one is actually told by a narrator. Plato uses the character of Phaedo (who was at the actual discussion) to repeat what was said, and give his opinions of what he thinks both sides meant, and the emotions and actions of the speakers. He also converses with Echecrates, who occasionally asks questions about what he thinks the speakers mean. In essence, giving the Elenchus method used by Plato a meta-structure similar to the one used by Berniker in the article linked above. This dialog, by the way, is about the nature of the after life. I think the subject is interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not something I'm interested in.
Finally (for now) is Meno. Like with Protagoras, this one is about the teachablity of virtue (though Socrates comes to conflicting answers), and is to me interesting mostly for it's philosophical value, not it's dialectical.
Have fun!
First is The Philosophers Toolkit and Socrates Cafe. I highly recommend these books to anyone who is interested in Philosophy and needs a starting point. Both give alot of general information for someone to pursue further. I'd also recommend the Plato and Platypus series.
Next was Dialectical Inquiry. It wasn't quite what I thought it would be, but is still worth the read. The article is about using the Dialectal Method to conduct corporate research. In it, they took already existing data (in this case, opinions on why technology transfer was difficult for the company in question). They outlined the method as comprising 4 steps, though I think 6 is more accurate for the way they used it. The steps are:
1. Identify scripts and models.
2. Define models
3. Assumptions and Counter assumptions
4. Define Contradictions
(these are my additions)
5. Define Results
6. Check internal and external validity
Now, the scripts are what is actually said, with models being broader more inclusive sentiments. For instance 'you cannot transfer technology, only people' is a script, related to the model called 'people centered'. Easy enough? Good, it should be. In the identifying stage, you're simply trying to find out what the model is ('people centered'). In defining, you're actually writing down the specifics of what the model includes ('the people centered model is based around the view that only with the transfer of skilled users of a technology can the use of it be possible). In each model are certain assumptions, and certain counters to other model's assumptions.
Now, what are the 'contradictions'? Simply put, in any kind of philosophical or theoretical discussion, all views will hold a grain of truth. The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind at this point. Basically, a group of blind men was gathered to examine an elephant, and say it was. Each man picked a different part, and identified what they thought it was based off of their experiences and what they were physically examining. The man who looked at the leg said a column. Another the body, who said a wall, and so on. The same is true here, each perspective contains some grain of truth, and should thus be respected, and examined for it's own truths, and failings. If the man who said an elephant is a column had looked at the body, he would likely not be able to say that an elephant is a column anymore, which would be the contradiction. This parable is actually the origin of my interest in Dialectics.
So, how do define the results? Basically, you look for where one model will solve the problems of a different model. This tends to create slightly more complex results, but that may be needed. And yes, it is possible to come to the conclusion that one of the models is infact correct, and no contradiction can be made. The internal consistency you are looking for is any contradictions within the new model, in which case you need to go back and do a review of your research and process. The external validity is the ability to apply the results. If it does not work in real application, preferably in multiple settings, you likely have a problem with the theory, or your process more generally.
Next, on to Plato! The Apology is a good read which seems to me to be the less about philosophy itself, and more about the role of a philosopher. Not even that really. To me, it seemed like Plato wanted us to know about the trial of Socrates, and he injected into it the role of a philosopher, which can summed up in Socrates referring to himself as a gadfly (think mosquito), constantly challenging Athens, making it examine itself over and over again.
Crito is, so far, my favorite Dialog. The discussion takes place in Socrates's jail cell while he waits to be executed. The discussion is initiated when friends of Socrates try to convince him to run away, since they can get him out and to safety in another city if he so desires. He refuses and lays the groundwork for what will later become the Social Contract. Although, structurally, this dialog is unexciting.
Charmides is an ok dialog. It is about what is temperance. I am ashamed to say that the dialog came to no conclusions, and was generally, not as interesting as I had hoped. That being said, it does arise a few interesting points about what is and what is not temperance.
Euthyphro is another dialog of little interest from a structural stand point, and moderate interest from a philosophical stand point. In it, Plato and Euthyphro are arguing about the definition of piety. A number of definitions are presented, and refuted. In the end no conclusion is met. It seems to me that the point is that we cannot know what is piety.
The above is true of Ion as well. In this one, they're basically discussing if rhapsodes have a legitimate skill, or are metaphysically possessed.
Laches is about courage. Sorry, not much to say about this one. Although the ending is similar in certain ways to that of Euthyphro.
Protagoras is an interesting dialog. While the structure is of this one remains mostly uninteresting, is of worth reading for it's philosophical and historical value. This one is about whether or not it is possible to teach virtue, and what in general can be taught. This seems to be one of the better dialogs for historical value, since it covers the nature of the Sophists as much as the philosophy.
Phaedo is the first structurally interesting dialog. This one is actually told by a narrator. Plato uses the character of Phaedo (who was at the actual discussion) to repeat what was said, and give his opinions of what he thinks both sides meant, and the emotions and actions of the speakers. He also converses with Echecrates, who occasionally asks questions about what he thinks the speakers mean. In essence, giving the Elenchus method used by Plato a meta-structure similar to the one used by Berniker in the article linked above. This dialog, by the way, is about the nature of the after life. I think the subject is interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not something I'm interested in.
Finally (for now) is Meno. Like with Protagoras, this one is about the teachablity of virtue (though Socrates comes to conflicting answers), and is to me interesting mostly for it's philosophical value, not it's dialectical.
Have fun!
Opening thoughts
So, what is Adaptism, and why is it making a journey? Well, to start, Adaptism is kind of two things. First, it is a method of research, based heavily off of Platonic/Kantian/Hegelian Dialectic Methods, and Pragmatism, with lesser influences from Radical Empricism, Instrumentalism, and Conceptualism. From these (which shall be explained a little further down the line) comes Philosophical Adaptism. This is simply a research method. The result of Philosophical Adaptism in the political arena (which is where I plan on going with it) is Ideological Adaptism, the second type of Adaptism. Now, because each person is going to come to different results when given the same information, it is virtually impossible to define different ideologies within the Adaptism grouping (for example, you can be a Left Libertarian, but it will be impossible to be a Left Adaptist).
So, what exactly am I going to do with this blog then, and how does it relate to a journey? Well, I've decided realistically very little about how Philosophical Adaptism will be designed, and nothing about my Ideological Adaptism (which I'll call Smith's Adaptism, even though my name is not Smith). This blog is going to be me doing additional research on the components of Philosophical Adaptism. For example, I'm going to be reading all of Plato's works. During this time I'm going to be writing down my thoughts on the structure of Plato's Dialogs, as well as my general thoughts on the dialogs themselves. When I am finished, I shall lay down what specifically I'm going to be looking at for my research into Smith's Ideological Adaptism, and of course, my thoughts on the sources I'm reading for this research, and then my final conclusions.
Well, have fun!
So, what exactly am I going to do with this blog then, and how does it relate to a journey? Well, I've decided realistically very little about how Philosophical Adaptism will be designed, and nothing about my Ideological Adaptism (which I'll call Smith's Adaptism, even though my name is not Smith). This blog is going to be me doing additional research on the components of Philosophical Adaptism. For example, I'm going to be reading all of Plato's works. During this time I'm going to be writing down my thoughts on the structure of Plato's Dialogs, as well as my general thoughts on the dialogs themselves. When I am finished, I shall lay down what specifically I'm going to be looking at for my research into Smith's Ideological Adaptism, and of course, my thoughts on the sources I'm reading for this research, and then my final conclusions.
Well, have fun!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)