Fooloso4

The problem with the analysis is that it misses the distinction between forms and particulars. It is the form that cannot admit its opposite and so "f...

I think there are two reasons one might believe. The first is intellectual and in my opinion not a good reason to believe. It is, however, the reason ...

It is a difficult book and not one I would recommend to someone looking for general works on ethics, but to say it has no ethics in it is wrong. Altho...

I was a moderator on another forum. Its a thankless job, except in cases like this when someone says thank you - so, thank you. There are cases where ...

I think so as well. Perhaps he will defend the claim.

Rather than dismiss one of the greatest works of philosophy, it would be more sensible and modest to ask the question of why a book titled "Ethics" se...

As it is being used by 180 I take it to mean that what it being divided in terms of two different substances is actually a distinction between propert...

If I understand him correctly, by "supernatural" Hanover means non-physical: And so, emotions, inner thoughts, phenomenological states, and one's full...

Still trying! You know nothing about Strauss' work and never will unless you actually read him rather than read about him by those who do not understa...

Just the other day I found this website https://voegelinview.com/ and have referred to it couple of times already. It contains some very good essays. ...

There are noticeable differences between the earlier and later dialogues, but the question of whether his thinking is marked by different periods is c...

It is telling that you do not have enough confidence in your own arguments to let them stand, or fall, as the case may be.

We should recognize the difference between knowledge and belief, but this does not settle the matter. For some, like Kant, lack of knowledge leaves ro...

The question is why Socrates? If this is Plato's images of the truth then why not put them in the mouth of a stranger? After all, a stranger plays a r...

This raises the question of what Plato is up to when he has Socrates tell stories of transcendent knowledge. Platonists take these stories to be revea...

First, we should not expect reality to accord with the way we understand things. The way we understand things changes over time. Second, substance dua...

His defense in the Apology was his "human wisdom" his knowledge of his ignorance. He also said that the oracle proclaimed that no one was wiser than S...

He knows nothing about Strauss or "Straussians" or his students who do not call themselves Straussias, and yet he is ready to dismiss generations of s...

Right. That is my point. Someone who posits substance dualism must first provide an argument with enough merit in order to expect someone else to argu...

In that case there would be good reason to argue against countless claims regardless of whether they have any merit or not.

I have had this happen a number of times, although I think that sometimes they may be unaware of it. They are so busy arguing against you they do not ...

But if you are not convinced that there is something in what is said worth stealing you wouldn't. As I see it, it is not so much a matter of convincin...

I am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true

From Salman Rushdie:

No need to deny what has not been shown to be something that should be accepted. Suppose I was to say that there are three substances. Does that mean ...

Point taken. Nothing is proven. It is more a matter of making an argument persuasive enough to convince someone to accept that there must be two subst...

If someone posits the existence of something the burden is on them. Because they posit it does not mean that it becomes something that others must sho...

If someone posits the existence of two fundamental substances in order to account for the difference between mind and body, then the burden is on them...

When you close your eyes the evidence cannot be seen. It is all right here for anyone who might read it to make up their own mind.

Round and round you go. Ignoring my answers, refusing to read an author because he was around in the 30's, and, most significantly, ignoring Plato whe...

I don't just say so, we have a record of it across several threads. You have shown yourself to be just as ridiculous as Euthyphro.

You read Plato as if it was revealed religion. In order to maintain the illusion and protect your beliefs you ignore everything in the text that is a ...

You read Plato as if it was revealed religion. In order to maintain the illusion and protect your beliefs you ignore everything in the text that is a ...

Yes. You have stated your opinion several times now. I have explained why I think you are mistaken. If anyone is reading this and is interested they c...

Socrates says and I am quoting from the Republic: First you tried to explain this away, but now you just ignore it. In the Republic he says it is not ...

He does not deny it. Too bad you were not around to tell Socrates and the court and Plat and Xenophon and others that.

And, as I quoted, it does not include the bad. This is why the dialogue needs to be read as a whole not as isolated statements. Do you really not unde...

I see you still do not understand. If the Good and God mean the same thing the whole question of atheism becomes meaningless.

No, that is what you assume I am saying. I have told you many times that it is not. But you ignore what I say and make up something you think you can ...

The Good as described in the Republic does not contain all other things. There are bad things in the world. They cannot be explained away as privation...

Some start with God as the default position and think that the opinions are either accept or rule it out. Others simply find no compelling reason to r...

He does not affirm the existence of gods either. The question of Socrates atheism is made explicit in the Apology (26c )with the distinction between n...

Are you claiming that they all name the same or that we can pick the one we like? When the meaning of terms does not matter then it is all just arbitr...

Faith is the absence of knowledge. You are talking about something you know nothing about. Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, he...

That is precisely why the distinction between Plato and Platonism is important. Aristotle's unmoved mover is not to be found anywhere in Plato. In add...

So the story goes, but Socrates, despite having told the story, denies having seen the Forms. Plato never introduces anyone else in the dialogues who ...

In terms of the present discussion, neither form of dualism is about what is higher. Both have something to do with the facts of the world and the rep...

If you knew the anything about Strauss you would know that. He provides a careful, detailed interpretation of the dialogues and leaves it up to the re...

Are you claiming to have divine wisdom, to have seen the Forms themselves? Faith does not mean knowledge. Socratic philosophy is driven by the recogni...

Yes, I said as much. I also said that over the years his views have become far more widely accepted. Of course he did not demonstrate that! You really...