Agreed with Socrates- no one does evil. People are all motivated (believe it or not) by the pursuit of good. The issue is their definition of "what is good". Usually it's misguided and uninformed and hence this leads to evil. Its quite fascinating when you delve into it as Socrates advises!
Personal thinking and remembering in Plato's Mind Uncannilly, Leibniz's Monadology often seems to provide answers to unforeseen questions, no doubt because the structure of Leibniz's universe is correct. First of all, a person, by which we mean the monad of a human, has intellectual capacities, ie has an individual Mind, which we designate mind or soul (Leibniz uses the term "spirit"). This contains his identity and has downward control, namely, dominance over a set of nested personal monads, such as the brain, the nervous system, and so forth. Leibniz's concept of monads differentiates him from the later British empiricists, such as Hume and Locke, who, unlike Leibniz, did not have Mind or mind in their toolbox to help them explain perception, impressions, and ideas. Here we will be able to to deal with such mental objects (Secondnesses) by calling them "intendeds", or "intended mental objects", a concept explored by the psychologist Meinong in the 19th century germany. These are Leibniz's apperceptions, which are perceptional experiences that we attend to so that they are intended or thought, making the experiences conscious. Monads are the mental correspondents of physical bodies. Intendeds or apperceptions are mental experiences made conscious by the intellect's intending them of thinking them (reflecting on them). These constitute our memory, and, although I cannot find such a claim at present in Leibniz's works, from Hume and Locke afterwards and simply from common sense, perceptions (memory) fade with time. They do not face in Plato's Mind, which is unchanging. Note that humans cannot see all mental experiences clearly, there is always some cloudiness or distortion, according to Leibniz. I propose that the more clear perceptions (following Hume), constitute ideas, which are then intendeds. These are similar to monads but have no corresponding physical bodies. Intendeds not being monads, these intendeds as ideas can then be compared and manipulated directly by the personal mind (soul). since they have attached intents, and downward control is in effect. Not all experiences are made conscious; the vast majority of them are not reflected on and so remain unconscious. Leibniz seems to be the first to discover this "unconscious", made famous later by Freud, whose method basically was to make perceptions (in the form of dreams) into conscious apperceptions. As to the particular mechanisms of such thinking, I refer the reader to annarborscienceskeptic.com/2011/david-hume/david-hume-impressions-and-ideas/ -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
The dialogue's only for true philosophers, those seeking the truth, those best of society, the most noble of minds. It's not for the usual sophists (BSers) we often see in university classes and lectures, the great sayers of nothings or expounders in law courts :). If we have so many great thinkers in our time why do they refuse to use the dialogue as a writing technique? They are likely ignorant of this method or their cowards in subjecting their ideas to scrutiny.
Agreed! Plato and his adviser Socrates were likely indisputable in philosophical prowess, it's doubtful any other after achieves their level of intellect (but please weigh in if you know your Plato well and that of your advocate). THe Republic is one of the best conceived books in philosophy (however I would say the most accessible (easiest to understand) is still the Apology), but all must read every Platonic dialogue if you consider yourself in possession of any iota of intelligence.
@ cocotiger77 - Guilty as charged, you are correct, I agree. “the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.” - Kerouac
But wait! I've been carried away with my inborn fervour, hastily sentencing myself before the court could hear the case's entire particulars. Now since Plato's asked the questions "What is Justice", "What is Knowledge", "What is Virtue" perhaps we should follow his lead, aspiring to become a more rational human and ask "What is Arrogance" or "What is Zeal" and determine if they possess the Platonic Good or Platonic Ignorance, using dialectic and not todays cowardly eristic discourse.
The problem with that argument is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not meant to be an ideal eternal state but a mere transitional stage. The contradictions between the producers, army and leaders will resolve in full communism as the distinctions between classes disappear. The leaders, producers and the army become the same exact thing - armed workers in control of their own destiny.
@@mattpelletier5368 Bakunin was a lunatic who was originally a pan-slav nationalist but switched to anarchist terrorism. He opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat on anti-semitic grounds: "What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralisation in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ... (Bakunin, collected works vol 3, p. 209, 1924) The only successful worker revolutions have been marxist and Bakunin's analysis is garbage. Bakunin inspired the failed Russian narodnik movement which used terrorism instead of trying to organize the masses.
The dialogue's only for true philosophers, those seeking the truth, those best of society, the most noble of minds. It's not for the usual sophists (BSers) we often see in university classes and lectures, the great sayers of nothings or expounders in law courts :). If we have so many great thinkers in our time why do they refuse to use the dialogue as a writing technique? They are likely ignorant of this method or their cowards in subjecting their ideas to scrutiny.
Agreed with Socrates- no one does evil. People are all motivated (believe it or not) by the pursuit of good. The issue is their definition of "what is good". Usually it's misguided and uninformed and hence this leads to evil. Its quite fascinating when you delve into it as Socrates advises!
Personal thinking and remembering in Plato's Mind
Uncannilly, Leibniz's Monadology often seems to provide answers to unforeseen
questions, no doubt because the structure of Leibniz's universe is correct.
First of all, a person, by which we mean the monad of a human,
has intellectual capacities, ie has an individual Mind, which we designate
mind or soul (Leibniz uses the term "spirit"). This contains his identity and
has downward control, namely, dominance over a set of nested personal
monads, such as the brain, the nervous system, and so forth.
Leibniz's concept of monads differentiates him from the later British empiricists,
such as Hume and Locke, who, unlike Leibniz, did not have Mind or mind in their toolbox
to help them explain perception, impressions, and ideas. Here we will be able to
to deal with such mental objects (Secondnesses) by calling them "intendeds",
or "intended mental objects", a concept explored by the psychologist Meinong in the 19th
century germany. These are Leibniz's apperceptions, which are perceptional experiences
that we attend to so that they are intended or thought, making the experiences conscious.
Monads are the mental correspondents of physical bodies. Intendeds or apperceptions
are mental experiences made conscious by the intellect's intending them of thinking them
(reflecting on them). These constitute our memory, and, although I cannot find such
a claim at present in Leibniz's works, from Hume and Locke afterwards and simply from
common sense, perceptions (memory) fade with time. They do not face in Plato's Mind,
which is unchanging.
Note that humans cannot see all mental experiences clearly, there is always some
cloudiness or distortion, according to Leibniz. I propose that the more clear perceptions
(following Hume), constitute ideas, which are then intendeds. These are similar to
monads but have no corresponding physical bodies. Intendeds not being monads, these
intendeds as ideas can then be compared and manipulated directly by the personal mind (soul).
since they have attached intents, and downward control is in effect.
Not all experiences are made conscious; the vast majority of them are not reflected on and
so remain unconscious. Leibniz seems to be the first to discover this "unconscious",
made famous later by Freud, whose method basically was to make perceptions
(in the form of dreams) into conscious apperceptions.
As to the particular mechanisms of such thinking, I refer the reader to
annarborscienceskeptic.com/2011/david-hume/david-hume-impressions-and-ideas/
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
The dialogue's only for true philosophers, those seeking the truth, those best of society, the most noble of minds. It's not for the usual sophists (BSers) we often see in university classes and lectures, the great sayers of nothings or expounders in law courts :). If we have so many great thinkers in our time why do they refuse to use the dialogue as a writing technique? They are likely ignorant of this method or their cowards in subjecting their ideas to scrutiny.
Agreed! Plato and his adviser Socrates were likely indisputable in philosophical prowess, it's doubtful any other after achieves their level of intellect (but please weigh in if you know your Plato well and that of your advocate).
THe Republic is one of the best conceived books in philosophy (however I would say the most accessible (easiest to understand) is still the Apology), but all must read every Platonic dialogue if you consider yourself in possession of any iota of intelligence.
cringe
The next issue is what is the excellence of man (hint human mind) ? Aristotle might have got it right the NE but what do you think?
@ cocotiger77 - Guilty as charged, you are correct, I agree.
“the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.” - Kerouac
very useful for me... congraciulations
🔥🔥
But wait! I've been carried away with my inborn fervour, hastily sentencing myself before the court could hear the case's entire particulars. Now since Plato's asked the questions "What is Justice", "What is Knowledge", "What is Virtue" perhaps we should follow his lead, aspiring to become a more rational human and ask "What is Arrogance" or "What is Zeal" and determine if they possess the Platonic Good or Platonic Ignorance, using dialectic and not todays cowardly eristic discourse.
The problem with that argument is that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not meant to be an ideal eternal state but a mere transitional stage. The contradictions between the producers, army and leaders will resolve in full communism as the distinctions between classes disappear. The leaders, producers and the army become the same exact thing - armed workers in control of their own destiny.
and how did all that claptrap about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" work out? go read Bakunin.
@@mattpelletier5368 Bakunin was a lunatic who was originally a pan-slav nationalist but switched to anarchist terrorism. He opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat on anti-semitic grounds:
"What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralisation in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ... (Bakunin, collected works vol 3, p. 209, 1924)
The only successful worker revolutions have been marxist and Bakunin's analysis is garbage. Bakunin inspired the failed Russian narodnik movement which used terrorism instead of trying to organize the masses.
Brilliant speaker, it appears. Terrible sound. It's a shame.
A wise man but a useless speaker. Also the sound goes messy after a few minutes. I'd expect that sort of carry on in eastern europe.
The dialogue's only for true philosophers, those seeking the truth, those best of society, the most noble of minds. It's not for the usual sophists (BSers) we often see in university classes and lectures, the great sayers of nothings or expounders in law courts :). If we have so many great thinkers in our time why do they refuse to use the dialogue as a writing technique? They are likely ignorant of this method or their cowards in subjecting their ideas to scrutiny.