|
Today, I was hit with a moment well summed up in this photo meme
![[image loading]](http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/29b/0be/23b/resized/datable-beard-man-meme-generator-that-is-brilliant-1f9135.jpg)
Talented minds often fail to produce results as good as less talented minds. To approach this issue I use some of Plato's more famous ideas as well as the idea that minds vary in complexity. By varying in complexity i mean that brains draw on different amounts of information when they try to make decisions. Namely, people with ADHD or a low rating on the aspergers spectrum often learn more slowly, however when they have understood, they work just as competently. This is relevant to learning all tasks and specfically starcraft because it may help us to understand what we need to keep in mind during a 1vs1to succeed, and what we can discard as less useful. To clarify, some people may know intuitively what their goals are during a game of starcraft two, while others may require a schema that is more furnished with information than others.
Plato believes that there is a world of forms. In it, all is perfect. In the world of forms a triangle's sum of inner angles is no more or less than 180 degrees. Our natural world, our natural world, with its flaws, is less perfect because things are flawed and uneven. People are unjust. Plato tries to use this idea of the world of forms to create a clearer, broader worldview which will allow a greater understanding of reality. He uses various systems of human thought to help expand this idea and its usefulness. By systems I mean logic, science, math, theory or any of their relatives. With these he aims to find the right way to live.
One can assume that he was faced with questions of moral weight in his life. The type of questions that are often taken for granted, such as “why really is it wrong to kill another man or steal from him?” Sometimes answers to these issues appeal to our faculty to reason. When the right moral choice is made, perfect justice is served and things go well. A bad person is kept from doing more harm and things are made right. Analogies can be used to illustrate that justice is a real thing. For instance, medicine exists. Perfect medical practice is delivered and health is served which allows a person less pain and debilitation. Justice is the same, and I do not know who can deny this.
Perfection is observable. A perfect triangle exists in theory only. A perfect triangle would be difficult to create but it exists in the mind, and by aiming for the perfect image of triangle that can be achieved by the mind, humans can become closer to make a perfect triangle a reality. Can a perfectly suitable mind exist? Yes, because imperfect justice can be observed and perfect justice can be imagined, just as the triangle. This belief leads Plato to seek knowledge in this sector for humankind. It is called philosophy which means love of knowledge.
So basically, he has tried to prove what many of us assume nowadays, that there is a better way to do things if you are able to find the correct path. His path to the better human mind is morality which is trying to be just for ones own benefit and the benefit of others. . Doing right is good he says and doing wrong is bad. Things like bad conscience will destroy the person who does bad. The person who does good cannot be hurt because he is moral.
To show the reader how it works he uses the analogy of the city state. All of the parts of a perfect city state would work together by doing the tasks they are most suited for. Some people are born strong and brave and they are suitable for the army for protecting other just people. Even more simply rocks are best used for building structures. The human spirit when met with something it knows to dislike is strong and able to summon suitable anger and passion to save itself. This benefits man because he avoids injury and death. Knowing what is good to dislike is both possible and beneficial. What is the poet for? What is ruler for? This is what my idea is based upon. One which as I write I see is very unoriginal.. The way in which it struck me however felt quite fresh.
Minds work differently from one another. Some people have difficulty with things that others do not have difficulty with. Specifically I want to talk about gifted minds. I believe gifted minds cannot thrive. A gifted mind I believe requires more instruction from its user. It takes into account more outcomes and more details but thus requires these things. Many who appear to be performing poorly have just not found the right instructions. This idea stems from my mind, which does not want to obey me very much unless I am very determined for something. To be determined I need to find out answers to many whys. So, basically I believe a lot of good talent is wasted for this reason.
 
|
|
|
United States15275 Posts
In Plato's world poets and artists are useless and dangerous to the security of the state.
|
On October 26 2012 05:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:
In Plato's world poets and artists are useless and dangerous to the security of the state.
Thanks for your input and thanks for reading (at least some). I hadnt known concretely what Platos stance on artists was. In a way it makes sense that his city state does not have a place for artists. I mean, he uses reason to explain and account for everything, while I know for myself, I appreciate art best when i'm not being reasonable but just letting beauty affect me.
|
Talented minds often fail to produce results as good as less talented minds.
See, I am no expert here, but how did you meassure how talented said minds are, if not by results?
One can assume that he was faced with questions of moral weight in his life. The type of questions that are often taken for granted, such as “why really is it wrong to kill another man or steal from him?”
Didn't Plato live before the bible was written and everyone was asked to accept these things without reasoning?
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 26 2012 06:43 meteorskunk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 05:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:
In Plato's world poets and artists are useless and dangerous to the security of the state. Thanks for your input and thanks for reading (at least some). I hadnt known concretely what Platos stance on artists was. In a way it makes sense that his city state does not have a place for artists. I mean, he uses reason to explain and account for everything, while I know for myself, I appreciate art best when i'm not being reasonable but just letting beauty affect me.
According to Plato's philosophy, artists/poets are guilty of two major issues. The nature of their work naturally plays upon the emotions instead of the rational part of the human soul. This alone is not worthy of condemnation (after all, Plato believes that balance is necessary for individual happiness). However, in Plato's judgment art/music/poetry necessarily distorts the nature of reality no matter how much it is inspired by recollection of the Forms.
|
On October 26 2012 06:50 HaRuHi wrote:Show nested quote +Talented minds often fail to produce results as good as less talented minds. See, I am no expert here, but how did you meassure how talented said minds are, if not by results? Show nested quote +One can assume that he was faced with questions of moral weight in his life. The type of questions that are often taken for granted, such as “why really is it wrong to kill another man or steal from him?” Didn't Plato live before the bible was written and everyone was asked to accept these things without reasoning?
Thanks for reading and replying.
" How do we measure a mind's talent without results that clearly demonstrate said talent?"
In the same way we could say that Usain Bolt is fast even if for some period his leg bone is broken. In the same way we see that a volcano has potential to erupt but currently does not erupt.
Check for characteristics of the interior of a mountain with instruments or found out how it sits on techtonic plates that fold and fault and push the insides of the earth to the outsides. Perhaps a car has a lot of horse power but no fuel in the tank. Spefically for sc2, a player may deeply understand how resources flow in a game, know something intrinsically pure about micro but have some weakness.
That said, you do raise some questions. Still editing the OP.
"were people asked to believe the bible without there being confirmable reasons to?"
Yes I'm sure. i don't really know. I do know that Saint Augustine wrote "Confessions" which is a book that tries to explain how God is reasonable like Platos world of forms. Augustine kind of says "he gives humans free will so that when they do love God on their own will it makes them more Godlike than other creatures who love God automatically"
"did Plato live before the bible?"
wow way to put me on the spot. My ancient history is not good. I know Plato is some time "before christ" but that whole area is foggy..
|
On October 26 2012 06:54 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 06:43 meteorskunk wrote:On October 26 2012 05:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:
In Plato's world poets and artists are useless and dangerous to the security of the state. Thanks for your input and thanks for reading (at least some). I hadnt known concretely what Platos stance on artists was. In a way it makes sense that his city state does not have a place for artists. I mean, he uses reason to explain and account for everything, while I know for myself, I appreciate art best when i'm not being reasonable but just letting beauty affect me. According to Plato's philosophy, artists/poets are guilty of two major issues. The nature of their work naturally plays upon the emotions instead of the rational part of the human soul. This alone is not worthy of condemnation (after all, Plato believes that balance is necessary for individual happiness). However, in Plato's judgment art/music/poetry necessarily distorts the nature of reality no matter how much it is inspired by recollection of the Forms.
Thanks, the relvance of that info is is concentrated. I can see what he means but i don't see specifically how these are bad things. I think art gives us great reason to live in its purposelessness.
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 26 2012 07:16 meteorskunk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 06:54 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 26 2012 06:43 meteorskunk wrote:On October 26 2012 05:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:
In Plato's world poets and artists are useless and dangerous to the security of the state. Thanks for your input and thanks for reading (at least some). I hadnt known concretely what Platos stance on artists was. In a way it makes sense that his city state does not have a place for artists. I mean, he uses reason to explain and account for everything, while I know for myself, I appreciate art best when i'm not being reasonable but just letting beauty affect me. According to Plato's philosophy, artists/poets are guilty of two major issues. The nature of their work naturally plays upon the emotions instead of the rational part of the human soul. This alone is not worthy of condemnation (after all, Plato believes that balance is necessary for individual happiness). However, in Plato's judgment art/music/poetry necessarily distorts the nature of reality no matter how much it is inspired by recollection of the Forms. Thanks, the relvance of that info is is concentrated. I can see what he means but i don't see specifically how these are bad things. I think art gives us great reason to live in its purposelessness.
Think about it this way:
Above everything else, Plato values the act of reason that allows the individual to conceive of the Forms. The Forms are immaterial and timeless while the whole of physical reality were 'shadows' that imperfectly represented the Forms. Representations were useful since they could lead one back to the Forms through empirical comparison, but actually knowing these representations were representations of something higher (instead of individual objects that shared an abstract concept between them) was the responsibility of recollection.
Back during his era art, poetry, and music did not have the same connotations as today. Thre was no concept of "abstract art" or "expressionist poetry". They were supposed to be representations of things in the physical world, which made them representations of representations. In Plato's philosophy this was another step away from the Forms that obscured knowledge instead of clarifying it.
|
United States15275 Posts
Plato lived before the New Testament. The Torah in its first few incarnations existed thousands of years before Plato.
|
I'm not clear about "instead of individual objects that shared an abstract concept between them." Perhaps my historical background is lacking. I put pseudo in the title. I hope that earns me some of the proverbial "slack."
I understand what you mean now. They are further and further from the forms. That sounds a little overly strict to me. everything is defined so clearly. It must not be that fun to think like that. But don't get me wrong.. Those dialogues be smart.
Yeah, I posted this a little hastily. I wanted attention before it was done. If a mod is around to help, i will take a title change to " A lesson in being distracted by the minute" without the quotations. EDIT again. my title change doesnt makesense. I thought minute could mean tiny and irrelevant. "focus on mynewt details" turns out dictionary.com is not down for that word.
|
United States15275 Posts
|
On October 26 2012 08:09 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 07:53 meteorskunk wrote:
I'm not clear about "instead of individual objects that shared an abstract concept between them." Perhaps my historical background is lacking. I put pseudo in the title. I hope that earns me some of the proverbial "slack."
I understand what you mean now. They are further and further from the forms. That sounds a little overly strict to me. everything is defined so clearly. It must not be that fun to think like that. But don't get me wrong.. Those dialogues be smart.
Think of a tree. A tree has a trunk and branches sprout from the tree. All branches and their iterations can be traced back to the trunk. ![[image loading]](http://www.pitt.edu/~mcs2/herp/snake.pics/rough_green.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://flatrock.org.nz/static/frontpage/assets/animals/snake_occasional_snake.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/images/lzpulchrasd4062.jpg) To a physicalist (someone who only believes the physical universe exists), these are three independent examples of snakes. They are related in the sense that they share certain characteristics that belong to the classification of "snake", but that classification is purely a concept invented by the mind and believed by other people. It exists in no other sense. The thought-process of the physicialist looks like a normal tree. Many different examples lead into one idea. To Plato, these three snakes are each imperfect representations of a Form called "snakehood" or whatever. It's that Form that leads your intellect to recognize a similarity between them, for the intellect (no proper concept of "mind" existed until Descartes) has an unconscious unawareness of the Forms that is brought to light through reason. The snakes depend on the Form for their individual existence; the Form is the "true" property that exists and connects them. It would look like a tree turned upside-down. Haha, Plato bans a lot of fun stuff in his hypothetical city-state.
It sounds like an unncessary step to have to refer back to "snakehood" because like the physicalists say, the mind could just invent a classification system independant of a realm of forms. Thanks a lot for your help CosmicSpiral. Your TL name relates to mine in my world of forms.
In summary, you have helped me to believe that to claim I do more than use his ideas to explain where some of my own wild conclusions may come from, is to obscuring the truth. I always lack the understanding of Plato's views needed to complete understand his material and its implications
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 26 2012 08:14 meteorskunk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:09 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 26 2012 07:53 meteorskunk wrote:
I'm not clear about "instead of individual objects that shared an abstract concept between them." Perhaps my historical background is lacking. I put pseudo in the title. I hope that earns me some of the proverbial "slack."
I understand what you mean now. They are further and further from the forms. That sounds a little overly strict to me. everything is defined so clearly. It must not be that fun to think like that. But don't get me wrong.. Those dialogues be smart.
Think of a tree. A tree has a trunk and branches sprout from the tree. All branches and their iterations can be traced back to the trunk. To a physicalist (someone who only believes the physical universe exists), these are three independent examples of snakes. They are related in the sense that they share certain characteristics that belong to the classification of "snake", but that classification is purely a concept invented by the mind and believed by other people. It exists in no other sense. The thought-process of the physicialist looks like a normal tree. Many different examples lead into one idea. To Plato, these three snakes are each imperfect representations of a Form called "snakehood" or whatever. It's that Form that leads your intellect to recognize a similarity between them, for the intellect (no proper concept of "mind" existed until Descartes) has an unconscious unawareness of the Forms that is brought to light through reason. The snakes depend on the Form for their individual existence; the Form is the "true" property that exists and connects them. It would look like a tree turned upside-down. Haha, Plato bans a lot of fun stuff in his hypothetical city-state. It sounds like an unncessary step to have to refer back to "snakehood" because like the physicalists say, the mind could just invent a classification system independant of a realm of forms. Thanks a lot for your help CosmicSpiral. Your TL name relates to mine in my world of forms.
Well, physicalists can't really say that since they don't believe in the concept of mind except as a holistic construct of the brain. They have problems justifying how anything remotely abstract (even things like pain) can exist in a meaningful sense. That would be more closely correlate to a Kantian view of perception.
I am honored and flattered. :D
|
On October 26 2012 08:21 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 08:14 meteorskunk wrote:On October 26 2012 08:09 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 26 2012 07:53 meteorskunk wrote:
I'm not clear about "instead of individual objects that shared an abstract concept between them." Perhaps my historical background is lacking. I put pseudo in the title. I hope that earns me some of the proverbial "slack."
I understand what you mean now. They are further and further from the forms. That sounds a little overly strict to me. everything is defined so clearly. It must not be that fun to think like that. But don't get me wrong.. Those dialogues be smart.
Think of a tree. A tree has a trunk and branches sprout from the tree. All branches and their iterations can be traced back to the trunk. To a physicalist (someone who only believes the physical universe exists), these are three independent examples of snakes. They are related in the sense that they share certain characteristics that belong to the classification of "snake", but that classification is purely a concept invented by the mind and believed by other people. It exists in no other sense. The thought-process of the physicialist looks like a normal tree. Many different examples lead into one idea. To Plato, these three snakes are each imperfect representations of a Form called "snakehood" or whatever. It's that Form that leads your intellect to recognize a similarity between them, for the intellect (no proper concept of "mind" existed until Descartes) has an unconscious unawareness of the Forms that is brought to light through reason. The snakes depend on the Form for their individual existence; the Form is the "true" property that exists and connects them. It would look like a tree turned upside-down. Haha, Plato bans a lot of fun stuff in his hypothetical city-state. It sounds like an unncessary step to have to refer back to "snakehood" because like the physicalists say, the mind could just invent a classification system independant of a realm of forms. Thanks a lot for your help CosmicSpiral. Your TL name relates to mine in my world of forms. Well, physicalists can't really say that since they don't believe in the concept of mind except as a holistic construct of the brain. They have problems justifying how anything remotely abstract (even things like pain) can exist in a meaningful sense. That would be more closely correlate to a Kantian view of perception. I am honored and flattered. :D
Haha, wow, yeah. It's hard to claim to be talking any philosophy. You become automatically responsible to have read so much. I mean sure this is my own private writing but still. Using names of great thinkiners, even if its just casual feels disrespectful without a lot more knowledhe. I guess that is part of it being a university discipline.
It would seem fitting than my ideas rely more on Kantian thinking that Platonic. Kant's morality felt abstract to me. He thought each human is an "end" as in they may not be a means to an end. To kill a human to accomplish something for another human is immoral to him.
It makes a lot of sense but the arguments he uses felt like they relied on some abstract supreme perfection that I guess a lot of others (these physicalist people) would not want to assume the existence of.
|
I think the "snakehood" classification is a bit arbitrary. We classify snakes into a family (phylla? forgot my biology) due to their internal structure and evolutionary background, but someone who didn't know animals well could classify them with eels due to external shape, and who would be to say he is wrong?
Our classification is better for scientific purposes, but there is no "divine logic" that compels us to classify snakes the way we do.
|
On October 26 2012 19:17 targ wrote:
I think the "snakehood" classification is a bit arbitrary. We classify snakes into a family (phylla? forgot my biology) due to their internal structure and evolutionary background, but someone who didn't know animals well could classify them with eels due to external shape, and who would be to say he is wrong?
Our classification is better for scientific purposes, but there is no "divine logic" that compels us to classify snakes the way we do.
Yes, that is a great point. I think Plato wanted to use forms to explain "essences". Essence being the word one uses to explain the overall effect something has on his perception. We easily distinguish a cat from a dog, yet lack an elegant explanation for how we do so. We cannot say, "it has four legs." They both have four legs and a tail. To explain how we distinguish the two without hearing the cat meow and the dog bark, Plato ( i think) wants to say the forms explain the essence. We recognize the form and thus have essence. My thought though, is that you can just say the cat moves with a more precise and agile grace. I'll look this up later. It's pseudo philosophy after all; We are giving ourselves a break here. (at what cost or reward?  )
Nonetheless the origins and details of the world of forms are not my concern. I include Plato because I want to imply that there is some aim for the human enterprise that is unimaginable. How could that be if there is no rationality in nature or existence?!
In other words, by changing what we value we may change everything. How can one explain this?
as I write, my structure crumbles. I've lost my intention to confusion.
Back to drawing board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
