Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Platonic idealism, Aristotelian naturalism

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array joft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    silicon valley
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    4,064

    Default Platonic idealism, Aristotelian naturalism

    i was thinking about this, and decided to start a thread
    "If I could do it over again, I'd just bone the living shit out of everyone, fuggit." -stuck

  2. #2
    Cabal Member Array panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    4,376

    Default

    kthx

  3. #3
    hiply tragic Array waxwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    2,911

    Default

    Where should we go with this thread, I wonder. All four words carry so much potential.

    Somebody hurry up and be more specific or you will be sorry you let me ramble.
    my angel rocks back and forth





  4. #4
    Senior Member Array kwis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    ny
    Type
    intp
    Posts
    721

    Default

    , is annoying so I dont use it

  5. #5
    Member Array Mr. Good Beats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    414

    Default

    i once used platonic idealism to answer a question on who this micheal guy was. apparently he some big shot business guy who got a phd from harvard business school. i didn't think writing about that would be very much fun. but the grader didn't think i answered the question.
    What if God was a Goddess and Jesus was a mushroom?

  6. #6
    Kanshiketsu Array
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Type
    xxxx
    Posts
    4,352

    Default

    Aristotle>Plato.

  7. #7
    sdfg3w4trtg Array last_caress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    3,668

    Default

    >"Aristotle>Plato."

  8. #8
    Member Array LostInThoughts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Paris & Biarritz, France
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    177

    Default A>P?

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic
    Aristotle>Plato.
    Architectonic,

    Please explain.
    LostInThoughts

    AS ALWAYS - THIS IS A TROLL FREE ZONE!

    "Confidence is that feeling by which the mind embarks in great and honorable courses with a sure hope and trust in itself."

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, well, I have others."
    -Groucho Marx

  9. #9
    Royalist Freikorps Feldgendarme Array Claverhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Suffolk England
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    8,687

    Default The Allegory of the Cavernous Maw of Purgatory

    Moved to Purgatory from Philosophy and Spirituality

    All threads find their natural home in the end.


    Claverhouse
    Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem

    It's such a sad old feeling
    The fields are soft and green
    It's memories that I'm stealing
    But you're innocent when you dream


    Tom Waits Bonnie Kellswater mid

    http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/.....avase1tiny.jpg
    Mehr sein als scheinen v. Schlieffen.
    Be more than you appear to be

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array joft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    silicon valley
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    4,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joft
    i was thinking about this, and decided to start a thread
    so, actually i was hoping Lee would reply with some long post, and then i could copy/paste that and use it as my research paper for this philosophy class. i ended up writing it instead, it only had to be 500 words, i was just lazy. i don't care if any of it is wrong or BS, it's 300% better than what any of his other students will be handing in

    Naturalism is a monistic metaphysical philosophy which holds that the universe consists only of the natural world. In naturalism, there is no transcendental or supernatural realm existing aside from the natural world; nothing exists outside of the natural order. The natural world obeys laws that we can observe and discover, and everything in the natural world can be understood within the constraints of those laws. In Western philosophy, naturalism became prominent with the ideas of the pre-Socratics, in their attempts to explain the universe without alluding to the gods. However, these early attempts were highly speculative and theoretical, and it was not until the comprehensive work of Aristotle that naturalism was given much credence or usefulness as a tool for explaining reality.

    Idealism, which can be used either as a monistic or dualistic metaphysical philosophy, asserts that direct knowledge can only be had of ideas or mental states. It is possible, in dualistic idealism, that a world exists other than the world of ideas; but it is only the world of ideas that we can know directly. In Platonic idealism, the realm of ideas is known as the realm of the forms. In Kantian idealism, the ideas are not "forms," but categories. But to both of these philosophers, separated by thousands of years, the thread of idealism remained the same; there had to be something transcending the physical world and giving it its appearance. In this way, idealism is proposed as a solution to the problem of universals. An example of this is Heraclitus' assertion that one can never step into the same river twice, because the water will have moved and the river will have changed. What is it that remains constant in the river that could make it the same river each time, or even a "river" at all? According to Plato, that would be its participation in the form of "river," this is essentially the function of idealism. In its extreme form idealism can be monistic and assert that ideas are all that exist.

    Naturalism and idealism are similar in that they seek to answer the same question; namely, "What is?" Naturalism is parsimonious and holds that the answer to this question is the natural world only; there is no need for any teleological, immaterial being or existence, we have direct access to all that we need in order to explain the world and it is simply a matter of time before we discover and explain it all in naturalistic terms. To the idealist, this claim is overly optimistic; we have been seeking those explanations for millennia and the solution to each successive riddle of nature is just another riddle. To the naturalist, this attack is just a rationalization used in order to excuse laziness or unwillingness to keep searching for the natural laws.

    Which of these philosophies is the "right one"? The debate over this question has withstood the test of time long enough to be fairly certain that we will always disagree. It is one of the great conceptual conflicts of all time, anyone proposing to have the answer has probably either grown weary of the debate or is ignorant of the massive tradition they propose to have disproven so easily. Such a person would do wisely to consider Raphael's classic painting of The School of Athens, at the center of which is an aged Plato, pointing up to the sky, to the realm of ideas; and next to him Aristotle, gesturing down here to Earth, to the natural world. If they were disagreeing about the same thing then that we still are today, then there must be something fundamentally indispensable about the insights offered from both schools of thought. At least, hopefully this is the case, and it is not merely the reluctance of one side to admit defeat.
    "If I could do it over again, I'd just bone the living shit out of everyone, fuggit." -stuck

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •