QUOTE(corus @ Dec 7 2007, 04:17 PM) [snapback]455353[/snapback]
QUOTE(Liam @ Dec 7 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]455338[/snapback]
QUOTE(corus @ Dec 7 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]455320[/snapback]
We also came to the conclusion Plato was a nob during philosophy lol.
I hardly think you can be as brazen as calling him a "knob". Sure, his ideas can be disproved, but that's no different to any other philosopher. Plus, you have to remember that he was writing like 2,000 years ago, and most of his ideas on political philosophy are still applicable today.
That has to count for something.
Oh no I agree with you there I completely respect the guy his scope of thinking for the time he was in was real deep. We just came to that conclusion because his theories were the first ones we studied in philosophy and we struggled really hard with the concepts etc. and therefore he was an instant dick haha.
I liked his analogy of the cave especially, it was the world of the forms I didn't really like much.
I found his theories to be elitist and promoting the idea of totalitarianism. His vision for a utopian society based on rigid class structure (one that people are essentially born into), eugenics, the 'noble lie' as he called it and the complete censorship of art is clearly wrong in my eyes, but hey, whatever. I much prefer Aristotle (who was taught by Plato), his theories just seem more logical--yet I agree with the criticism that they are not nearly as in depth and precise. Perhaps he thought it wasn't the philosophers role to tell people what to do, perhaps he thought they should just provoke thought and guide people in the right direction. I dunno, that's just my theory lol.
But yeah, you're right Liam, most (actually all) philosophies can have contradictions or criticisms, but that's just part of philosophy I guess.
Besides, everyone knows it Rousseau for the win, even though the periods of time are completely different.
Image file not present in the recovered backup