genders?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:59 am

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"?
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.
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.
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.
As to the achievements of historical linguistics, even Saussure conceded that "only some signs are absolutely arbitrary".
Please be more relevant.
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.
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?

I fail to see your relevance.

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:54 am

Being woefully ignorant of Plato (a situiation I intend to correct when my Greek is better), I cannot contribute anything useful to this discussion. This tangent does make me think of Voltaire's conte "Songe de Platon".

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:02 am

thanx GlottalGreekGeek!

I didn't know that conte, I've now read it all. and I love it!...

I also realized about the first words....

"Il avait songé que la nature humaine était autrefois double, et qu’en punition de ses fautes, elle fut divisée en mâle et femelle."

thank you!

:D :D 8) :oops:
phpbb

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:29 am

I was still thinking about the opposites...

If one creates a relationtip of an element with wether the feminine or the masculine as already described, the opposite element "has to" represent the opposite gender, because if an element is opposite to one another it has to be opposite in all qualities and since a "gender" quallity has been already assigned to this frist element, the other element has to be also of an opposite gender. Thus I think that if a language has one gender, it has in fact no gender at all, because gender has to represent a ἕτεÏ￾ας.

I found this very nice quotation from the Aristotle's Metaphyisics about the conception of the opposites that I just wanted to share with you:

ἕτεÏ￾οι δὲ τῶν αá½￾τῶν τοÏ￾των Ï„á½°Ï‚ á¼€Ï￾χὰς δέκα λέγουσιν εἶναι Ï„á½°Ï‚ κατὰ συστοιχίαν λεγομένας,

πέÏ￾ας [καὶ] ἄπειÏ￾ον,
πεÏ￾ιττὸν [καὶ] ἄÏ￾τιον,
ἓν [καὶ] πλῆθος,
δεξιὸν [καὶ] á¼€Ï￾ιστεÏ￾όν,
ἄÏ￾Ï￾εν [25] [καὶ] θῆλυ,
á¼ Ï￾εμοῦν [καὶ] κινοÏ￾μενον,
εá½￾θὺ [καὶ] καμπÏ￾λον,
φῶς [καὶ] σκότος,
ἀγαθὸν [καὶ] κακόν,
τετÏ￾άγωνον [καὶ] ἑτεÏ￾όμηκες:

:D :D :shock: :shock:
phpbb

User avatar
Bardo de Saldo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:34 pm
Location: Newer Mexico

Post by Bardo de Saldo » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:29 am

I was reading the Mexican Constitution last week (talk about Joyce) and was surprised to read "discriminación por cuestión de género" (gender discrimination). It proves that politicians aren't very well educated anywhere in the world anymore. (Gender and género are false cognates.)

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:27 pm

Chris Weimer wrote: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.
OK. I brushed my teeth and went to bed. It's a new day and, guess what, your "position", as you so bravely call it, remains a mere assertion; one that borders on the inarticulate.

Consequently, even an idiot like me has no trouble "correctly identifying your position".

Perhaps if you put forth something meatier than "his philosophy sucks", a conversation would be possible.

Cordially,

Paul

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:29 pm

Paul wrote:OK. I brushed my teeth and went to bed. It's a new day and, guess what, your "position", as you so bravely call it, remains a mere assertion; one that borders on the inarticulate.

Consequently, even an idiot like me has no trouble "correctly identifying your position".

Perhaps if you put forth something meatier than "his philosophy sucks", a conversation would be possible.

Cordially,

Paul
Well, since you asked, I can explain now.

First of all, I despise all metaphysics and any philosophical inquiry that has no scientific base behind it. If it is not rooted in actual facts, then it is not valid, and especially not valid if it proposes unscientific yet supernatural explanations, such as Forms (and the "Ideal Form"). It was in this boiling pot that Christianity became seasoned, a most unfortunate thing.

And then there's his ideas on censorship and Spartan practices, such as making all children wards of the state.

I do admit I haven't gotten around to reading Laws yet, so if he would happen to change his mind on any of these issues, I could possibly change my mind on him. But as it stands, his conclusions I would most certainly not want to adopt.

Cheers.

Rindu
Textkit Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

Post by Rindu » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:00 pm

????

Sorry, this is still no more than assertion.

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:20 pm

Rindu wrote:????

Sorry, this is still no more than assertion.
What were you expecting for? I was giving my opinion on why Plato's philosophy "sucked" and I did. Were you expecting me to bring out every scientific paper that contradicts the notion of the divine?

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:40 am

Chris Weimer wrote:First of all, I despise all metaphysics and any philosophical inquiry that has no scientific base behind it. If it is not rooted in actual facts, then it is not valid, and especially not valid if it proposes unscientific yet supernatural explanations, such as Forms (and the "Ideal Form").
Chris Weimer wrote:Were you expecting me to bring out every scientific paper that contradicts the notion of the divine?
What do you understand by "scientific base"? If you are talking about modern mathematical physics, then you are squarely in the realm of nature: matter and its changes. What can knowledge of this natural realm possibly tell you about the non-existence of a supernatural realm?

Modern science is a great good, of utmost utility and predictive power. But it has nothing to say about the existence of the immaterial; you simply can't get there from here. In fine, a "scientific paper that contradicts the divine" cannot do so on the basis of scientific principles.

Here's something for you to chew on from my favorite enemy:

"It is no different with the faith with which so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human evaluation - a "world of truth" that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square little reason....That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?) - an interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and touching, and nothing more - that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is not a mental illness, an idiocy."

Cordially,

Paul

P.S. - there is much in Plato that I dislike. But he is worth studying.

Post Reply