Skip to comments.A Noxious 2,400-year old lie, started by Plato, still Cripples us today.
Posted on 01/18/2010 4:32:02 PM PST by El Gringo
A Noxious 2,400-year old lie, originated by Plato, still cripples us today.
And, once more, Karl R. Popper comes to the rescue.
Popper has examined, in great detail the writings of Plato. He concludes that Plato, and later thinkers and writers that followed Plato have wreaked havoc in science politics and philosophy down through the centuries. Popper presents the following small table of word definitions. The two columns have opposite definitions .i.e., individualism is the opposite of collectivism. Egotism is the opposite of altruism.
(Excerpt) Read more at death-of-a-republic.blogspot.com ...
Let's call the whole thing off.
Why say that Plato lied? That he was engaged in some devious deception? Maybe he was just wrong.
In reality the word "Fascist" refers to something other than a political party ~ instead, it refers to a behavior, and to a belief system underlying how rules should be imposed.
Because the term "Fascist" describes behavior and not political affiliation, it's fair to use it to describe the behavior of Democrats, Socialists, Communists and Shining Path! It can be applied to Royalists and traditional Moslems in non-democratic states.
We've pretty well "hijacked" the term here at FR to the degree that others outside the FR counter-conspiracy are beginning to adopt the term for the same purposes.
We probably need to work a little harder to nail down "teabagger", meaning "a winner", and I think the path to that salubrious eventually was shown with the expression provided by another Freeper yesterday ~ to wit: "Better a TEABAGGER than a TEABAGEE."
Objectivism is the antidote: Aristotelian epistemology is superior to the Platonic construction. Besides, Aristotle was a better drinking companion. And when Socrates offers to buy a round, take a pass: that hemlock is one nasty hangover.
I believe Plato came up with his false simile the day he was supposed to pour the olive oil in the new jug, but instead drank all the wine in his personal closet.
There was not enough substance in this article to drawn any conclusions. Anyone that has studied Plato knows that he supported totalitarianism, even to the point of propagating the “noble lie.” I doubt that anyone today supports Plato or Aristotle’s views on the relationship of the individual to government.
Good stuff. The guy has a unique perspective on how all our current troubles started. Worth the time to study.
There's a great anecdote about Plato and Diogenes that (I believe) is from Plutarch's Lives...
Goes like this: One fine day, Diogenes was at the town square cleaning lentils to make himself a meal. Plato strolls up to Diogenes and says: "Diogenes, if you'd only learn to kowtow to kings, you wouldn't have to eat lentils." To which Diogenes immediately responds: "Plato, if only you'd learn to eat lentils, you wouldn't have to kowtow to kings."
Naw, ol’ Plato just went made from all those conversations with his shadow.
Read Peikoff The Ominous Parallels.
I wonder if they will still be blaming Bush in 2,400 years?
I'm not going to give the author's site a hit, but I will point out that in Plato's Republic he explicitly introduces the so-called "Noble Lie" to justify rule by his Philosopher Kings.
Rand's objectivism, you mean? That's a lie, too, and a far more pernicious one than Plato's -- the latter at least had the honesty to admit his lie, but Rand insists that she's got the real goods.
Rand demanded that you accept her premises as correct -- but here's the test. Try to arrive at Rand's premises through logic and reason, applied to the evidence gathered by your senses -- just as she says you should. You very quickly end up stuck in the mud.
Here's the killer: consider Rand's statement that "manevery manis an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."
Now consider the moral responsibilities inherent in something so natural as parenthood -- we are morally required to be the means to our children's ends. Objectivism cannot even contend with the propagation of the species: it's a damned fraud.
I'm pretty sure Rand started with atheism and a desire to define an "absolute" moral system, and she fiddled with the logic to make it all work.
Try to arrive at your premises through logic and reason, applied to the evidence gathered by your senses: Please show how you thus derive:
“we are morally required to be the means to our children’s ends”
Think you better think this one through a little more.
The Republic was all about being ruled by the elite (philo. king) and he argued for a slave state...You do what the king (who knows more than you) says you do.......
Somewhere long forgotten I read Plato said a man should not drink wine before 18, drink wine 19 to 40 but do not get drunk, after 40 consume as much as you want.
Recently purchased a copy Atlas Shrugged. Can someone help me get started..I can’t get past Who is John Galt. It is a paperback and the print is very small.
I know folks who on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays think Ayn Rand is just the bee's knees. The other days of the week they're devout, professing Christians.
I've never read Rand myself but I've heard all that I care to. I figure it's just all about the money.