I sure do.
I thought he was and innovative thinker, however I found the use he random ideas as doctrine to be just stupid.
Even if I could understand the last part of what you wrote I would still say what the hell have you read of him to merit any opinion.
Spin me the yarn of your rage, Dogar, for I wish to understand the root of your aggresssion towards this man.
Only second hand information on his random ideas on philosophy. Mainly his platonic realism bit.
First off, epistemological philosophy is VERY boring and nearly completely non-applicable for practical use in almost any form for a regular living. And I'm not just talking about his HORRID theory of forms either, just the notion of "what is knowlege" is SO VERY contrived it drives me insane. I just spent the last good part of the evening HACKING through Meno and for most of the time I was yelling "at" Plato on how stupid he is. 81-86C was a COMPLETE and utter bumble fuck of NONSENSE, COMPLETE FUCKING NONSENSE! And the fucking HORRID thing about all of that dribble is that he was just trying to make ONE SIMPLE FUCKING POINT and that was that one must not think that just because you do not have knowledge dose not mean you can not acquire it. Yes, very simple point, but the example and explanations he gave to lead up to that "conclusion" were so out of whack I had to through the book several times out of anger. "Knowledge is recollection," seriously? How fucking INSANE is this asshole! I CAN'T STAND this fucktard!
I am on the other end of the spectrum, but I understand your personal disregard for the man. I always found the complexities in early philosophy and realism to be fascinating...although they love to prattle on. I agree whole-heartedly on that point, he could have come to his conclusion and then provided the necessary points. Easier to study, and the flow would have been much more adequate to follow.
If you have a liking to epistemology so be it, and if beleive he prattles on, so be it, but YOU CAN'T agree with his views of knowledge as recollection, it is unsound!
God I could have debated that a few hours ago...
At the moment I've late 17th Century England on my mind. Tomorrow I will respectfully engage in discussion on this (even if I should be made a fool of as a result). I studied his philosophical principles a year ago but for the love of god I cannot recall any of the discussions (yes, I agree he makes some the most absurd statements, and I will also agree that it is 'unsound' but not entirely illogical). I fear I will end up using false reasoning and intangible inferences again.
A LOT of things can be valid and thus logical, but not sound. Plato is not sound in this argument and thus is saying utter bullshit. And I'm fucking sorry, when you start talking about reincarnation and a recollective conscience you are just not worth me giving you much respect. (In regards to Plato that is) We can all have whimsical ideas about these things, that's fine, but, Mr. Plato, king of debunking everyone else's theories about everything, when you say some fucked up shit like that and STILL want to be taken seriously as the "level headed thinker" then FUUUUUCKKKK YOOOOOUUUUU!!!!
Justin read Meno and then talk.
You had no idea what Plato's views were on knowledge and recollection before I posted to Seymour/TA thus what you said wasn't really relevant or contributive to the issue we are discussing. If you REALLY want to talk about it by all means do, but don't think you are adding anything to the conversation if you have no idea what the bone of contention is.
Ancient Greeks thought that the liver was more important than the brain.
Oh my god guys, an idea from 2000 years ago is wrong!1!!
I feel the same way about Machiavelli as you do about Plato.
hey dogar, guess what, THEY DONT DO IDs ON MONDAYS. why of course they dont. any reasonable person would just expect that monday is RANDOMLY the day they dont process a COMMON SERVICE REQUEST even though its not explicitly said ANYWHERE. fucking plebeians, i guess they just sit there jacking each other off all day on mondays.