genders?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:36 am

So your favorite enemy is Nietzche, eh? Why is he your enemy, and why is he your favorite (Not that I have much of an opinion on Nietzsche either - another great philosopher which I have read deeply enough to have a coherent opinion).

There's a nearby bookstore which sells "Nietzche's Will to Power" bars - it advertises itself as the nutritional supplement of the Superman. I find it funny, but overpriced.

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

Post by Hammurabi » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:23 am

Well, it seems this became a dicussion about Plato and his pholosophy! :o :o

Well.. let Plato speak and -through Socrates- gives his opinion about Chris Weimer and his debate (if I may call it so)...

ΣωκÏ￾άτης (Θεαίτητος)
κινδυνεÏ￾ουσιν οἱ á¼￾ν δικαστηÏ￾ίοις καὶ τοῖς τοιοÏ￾τοις á¼￾κ νέων κυλινδοÏ￾μενοι Ï€Ï￾ὸς τοὺς á¼￾ν φιλοσοφίᾳ καὶ τῇ [172d] τοιᾷδε διατÏ￾ιβῇ τεθÏ￾αμμένους ὡς οἰκέται Ï€Ï￾ὸς á¼￾λευθέÏ￾ους τεθÏ￾άφθαι.
… οἱ δὲ λόγοι ἀεὶ πεÏ￾ὶ á½￾μοδοÏ￾λου Ï€Ï￾ὸς δεσπότην καθήμενον, á¼￾ν χειÏ￾ί τινα δίκην ἔχοντα, καὶ οἱ ἀγῶνες οá½￾δέποτε τὴν ἄλλως ἀλλ' ἀεὶ τὴν πεÏ￾ὶ αá½￾τοῦ, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ πεÏ￾ὶ ψυχῆς [173a] á½￾ δÏ￾όμος: ὥστ' á¼￾ξ á¼￾πάντων τοÏ￾των ἔντονοι καὶ δÏ￾ιμεῖς γίγνονται, á¼￾πιστάμενοι τὸν δεσπότην λόγῳ τε θωπεῦσαι καὶ á¼”Ï￾γῳ ὑπελθεῖν, σμικÏ￾οὶ δὲ καὶ οá½￾κ á½€Ï￾θοὶ Ï„á½°Ï‚ ψυχάς. τὴν γὰÏ￾ αὔξην καὶ τὸ εá½￾θÏ￾ τε καὶ τὸ á¼￾λευθέÏ￾ιον ἡ á¼￾κ νέων δουλεία ἀφῄÏ￾ηται, ἀναγκάζουσα Ï€Ï￾άττειν σκολιά, μεγάλους κινδÏ￾νους καὶ φόβους ἔτι á¼￾παλαῖς ψυχαῖς á¼￾πιβάλλουσα…


Socrates: I mean to say, that those who have been trained in philosophy and liberal pursuits are as
unlike those who from their youth upwards have been knocking about in the courts and suchplaces, as a freeman is in breeding unlike a slave.
…. The consequence has been, that he has become keen and shrewd; he has learned how to flatter his master in word and indulge him in deed; but his soul is small and unrighteous. His condition, which has been that of a slave from his youth upwards, has deprived him of growth and uprightness and independence; dangers and fears, which were too much for his truth and honesty, came upon him in early years...


Atte.

Plato -cited by Hammurabi :oops: :D :D :lol:
phpbb

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

Post by Chris Weimer » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:53 am

I really find it hilarious that not only did Paul and Hammurabi rip their passages out of context without any commentary, as if these philosophers should always be regarded as absolute truth (nevermind that Nietzsche ripped Plato a new one) but that they chose the passages full of blatant ad hominem. Oh yeah, real mature guys! Keep up the hard quote mining! 8)

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 1:26 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:I really find it hilarious that not only did Paul and Hammurabi rip their passages out of context without any commentary, as if these philosophers should always be regarded as absolute truth (nevermind that Nietzsche ripped Plato a new one) but that they chose the passages full of blatant ad hominem. Oh yeah, real mature guys! Keep up the hard quote mining! 8)
A. Commentary - what are you talking about? Why do you care who authored it? If you are able to respond to its content, please do so.

B. Absolute truth - eh? It's a quotation from a philospher. Take it in the spirit it was offered, as food for thought.

C. Ad hominem - I sure hope you don't think that the bolded personal and possessive pronouns really mean "Chris Weimer"! Nietzsche isn't really talking to you, Chris. NB: the emphasis was in the original.

D. Quote mining - just because you googled the quotation to find its author doesn't mean that I did something similar. I've spent most of my adult life in "conversation" with Herr Nietzsche. I knew exactly where to find this quote.

E. Nietzsche "ripped Plato a new one" - this shows the same kind of insight as your "Plato's philosophy sucks". But, to recall your first reponse to me, of what relevance is this to the content of the quotation, or of my post?

And that brings us to the main content of my post - you ignored it.

-Paul

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 3:18 pm

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:So your favorite enemy is Nietzche, eh? Why is he your enemy, and why is he your favorite
Hi GGG,

It's a long story, and not especially interesting at that. Here's the short version.

He's an enemy because his ideas are anathema not only to "religious types", but to humanity itself.

He's my favorite enemy because he is a worthy opponent. When he's wrong, he is profoundly wrong; one can learn much even from his errors. I also learned from him the importance of ideas; he forced me to think seriously about what I believe. Finally, he is a delight to read and, after Thomas Aquinas, one of the most intelligent men who ever lived.

Cordially,

Paul

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:58 pm


Last edited by PeterD on Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by Adelheid » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:45 pm

PeterD wrote:I am often reminded ( :oops: ) by pretty, French women ...

I was totally focussed on the ongoing 'battle' between Paul and Chris. I am totally thrown off balance now :D
Regards,
Adelheid
http://www.perispomenon.nl

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:03 pm

PeterD I am lousy at French too so this maybe totally wrong but maybe the -is ending in French is more or less automatically male?

The reason I am making that wild assumption is that, in another forum in a "why are there genders" discussion, a German guy noted that words taken from another language may change their gender if their ending is of the opposite gender in German.

(Reason number 2 is that a clitoris is a *ahem* uniquely female word so to speak; if anyone asked me why it is female in greek I would reply that it is obvious why)

auctor
Textkit Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2002 6:35 pm
Location: Eastbourne, East Sussex
Contact:

Post by auctor » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:44 pm

Since this topic has veered somewhat nearer to its starting point, I'd like to ask the historical linguists hereabouts why the Latin words cunnus and mentula are the genders that they are. (Look them up yourselves if you can't guess.)
Paul

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

Post by Chris Weimer » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:05 am

[quote=Paul]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.[/quote]
You're assuming a priori that there is a material realm. Everything we know about the material realm contradicts the suppositions of supporters of the immaterial realm. Who created the universe? Who created man? Why are there lightning bolts? Adding an immaterial realm to explain phenomena like thinking and creation goes against everything we know about them thus far.

Where is your evidence that this realm exists? Even Socrates failed at that one. There is no evidence of any of it.

Post Reply