Both, actually.Though I've read parts of Plato here in there, I thank my ancient polisci for the thorough reading of the Republic and ancient philosophy class for the rest of him. I did find that parts of Plato I liked best happened to be the ones that most think are authentic Socrates, while that which I thought were not-so-good seemed to be some of the fine examples of Plato's own intellect.Paul wrote:Have you actually read any Plato, or are your deep insights - "his philosophy sucks" - the result of a survey course in "ancient thought"?
Oh, yes, do beat that strawman! Beat him hard, and beat him good, because you haven't even bothered to attack my position. Now why don't you run along and be a good boy and brush your teeth before bed. Perhaps tomorrow your school will teach you to correctly identify someone's position before sounding like an idiot.It's too bad you weren't around during the lifetimes of Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. You could have spared them needless study.
Please be more relevant.As to the achievements of historical linguistics, even Saussure conceded that "only some signs are absolutely arbitrary".
Hrm, you mean the same Esperanto that vied for the status of universal tongue oh-so-many years ago and hasn't come close to reaching that position yet? That one?There is also the amusing historical anecdote that he considered Esperanto, whose fledgling movement was at the time headed by his brother, to be wrong-headed.
I fail to see your relevance.