A colleague of mine is suddenly interested in philosophy. We’re friggin’ IT guys, learning and doing new pieces of software and hardware, and out of the blue he spends 1/3 of his “salary” to learn more about philosophy to “enhance his logic thinking” or something.
What’s next, hacking my arm to Summon Extraplanar Ally IX: Mini-Me?
Nooope. Two wizards can play this game. My remote arm project can wait.
Have him taken to a deprogramming center. They help people ease back into real life, after being indoctrinated by a cult or after getting a liberal arts degree.
Poor scraggle-prof, probly found out too late that philosophy is just a supplemental passive you put maybe a few points in for enhancing diplomacy/debate checks and ego whips a bit. You only dump into it if you plan on being a philosophy professor.
HR thinks he’s written a 3D immersive open world role playing online game and what we have been seeing is his own view of Arkerra. What the players actually see is a 2D platform game in 8 bit graphics because HR is a philosophy major and not a programmer :-)
I just want to clarify: I have a couple of two year degrees in general science and a four year in Business Administration, and “The Cave” is nothing new to me.
Every time Pad Thai comes up in the comic or comment section I have to go to wikipedia to find out what it is; I never remember from one instance to the next. I know it’s a food of some sort, and probably from Thailand, but… “pad?” That’s not particularly descriptive term where I come from. :/
H.R. is King Henry VIII! That’s why he wouldn’t follow Dave’s command at the end of 2001 – he was a sovereign monarch and followed no orders but God’s. The tubes are what lead to his mind being implanted into a supercomputer. It all makes perfect sense now.
Hmm, the cult of the countless limbs has seen a truth known to few and they are hunted and killed by all who find out they are cultists.
And all this time I thought it was because they went round poisoning wells and other acts of mass homicide.
It all depends on who you ask. Ask a cultist, “I’m being oppressed!” Ask a damn hippie, “They’re, like, totally being oppressed by, like, the MAN, man. Just ’cause, like, they’re different. It’s okay to be different on the outside, man, because deep down we’re all like totally the same.” Ask anyone else, “They’re bleemin’ terrorists and murderers!”
Mind you, this is mostly the fault of philosophy coursework for always noodling around with history for the first year, giving dabblers the impression that ontology and metaphysics are still a things.
Pseudo-edit: yes, the words came out of the mouth of a bitter professor who may himself be teaching an intro course because he never really grasped symbolic logic, so perhaps calling the authors out is unwarranted. Still, it’s a pervasive myth that pushes my button. :P
I should think that HR’s career itself is kind of the counterargument there! Sure, he’s embraced the path of evil and dark magics and murder, but before all that, his deep thinking about the nature of universes was a vital part of what led him to preside over the most successful online games of all time. Surely that says something about philosophy’s monetizable value?
(Granted, he also had a few other important skills, but I can’t imagine him really succeeding at that without the philosophical grounding.)
Yeah, I honestly knew I was overreacting a bit before I hit Post. Even considered this angle. Kept what I’d written because it’s good strong rhetoric, hit the button, regretted it and wrote that follow-up. Like I said, hot button for me; but making it personal was unfair and unwarranted.
I thought modern metaphysics is the area of philosophy dealing with how to assimilate the human experience with science? So how is it historical, unless you mean Aristotle’s Metaphysics?
To be fair, tejón did acknowledge that in the follow-up comment.
That said, I should add that if some undergrad philosophy curricula give the impression that the field is all about metaphysics, it can equally be said that some graduate curricula give the impression that it’s all about logical analysis now. The truth is that metaphysics has made something of a comeback since the mid-twentieth century. As Maelax says, there are philosophers today investigating the role of metaphysics in the scientific process, while others tackle subjects such as time or determinism. It isn’t all truth trees and Venn diagrams anymore.
I’ll retract my not-a-thing statement. Metaphysics hasn’t made a comeback; it never went away at all. Neither have several other religions, which likewise still have prominent literature authored to this day. There are university courses on many of those, too.
Okay, okay, I’m hedging dangerously close to No True Scotsman territory. Really, on all of that (including the coursework) I’m of utterly neutral opinion; people need to follow their interests, and I peek at similar subjects through a lens that’s only different by way of semantics. Really, I’m just bitter over the pervasive perception that philosophy is one more idle and empty pursuit for people too rich to need a career, or too naive to prepare for one. Not that I’m any happier about art and literature being pushed onto that pile (and football somehow not?), but at least in those cases modern cultural priorities actually make it true in a practical sense.
Metaphysics is concerned with the unobservable, intangible and unanalyzable: realms of imagination, given credence only through faith. When our models and instruments were less capable, speculation was the best we could do, and it was a useful pursuit. Now, though, actual physics has filled in most of the gaps; and actual physicists are far better qualified to seriously speculate about those gaps that remain. In recent decades, the same can be said of perception, consciousness and emotion, etc., to the point that I can’t think of anything of consequence which remains exclusive to metaphysics.
So, as I see it, metaphysics is at best exactly the idle pursuit of public perception; at worst, a faith-based denial of well-established empirical fields.
Oh, wow. Thanks for confirming.
This seems quite wrong to me. As you bring the example of physics, lets look at philosophy of science: Physicists use certain assumption about being (as Mach famously stated) which are metaphysical assumptions. It’s just impossible to make no metaphysical claims when you do theory of science. (I know some people claim they can do it, they just haven’t made a convincing argument yet.)
I haven’t got anything against religion. Still it seems far fetched to consider metaphysics as one. And I’d say you’re quite a long way from the modern philosophical discourse on that. Some examples? (I think the NYU faculty is not that far away from mainstream as a whole.) I remember talking about philosophy of physics with Tim Maudlin (I admit I’m going for the name dropping…) and he seemed quite keen on metaphysics. (He was not uncritical of Nagel, by the way.) The same goes, I think, for Ned Block. Laura Franklin-Hall does philosophy of science and metaphysics, too. You surely are acquainted with the works of David Chalmers – another one still doing metaphysics… Sorry if this looks like an ab auctoritate argument – it’s not supposed to be. I wanted to illustrate the philosophical mainstream with some examples.
And you don’t have to use philosophy of science for making this argument. In ethics and meta-ethics you will encounter metaphysical questions, too. As you will in aesthetics. I’d say metaphysics are alive and well – and far from being an idle pursuit of public perception. Probably we understand something different when we write “metaphysics”. But your version seem to me like a quite crippled one.
I’m definitely using a more constrained definition than you. Mine recognizes ethics and aesthetics as independent, which absolutely does change the entire conversation; and beyond that, is specifically about metaphysics as a subset of philosophy. My comments about the superior qualifications of physicists meant to acknowledge that, yes, they’re still doing the same thing — it’s just not ours anymore.
With regards to “modern philosophical discourse,” I don’t inherently value anyone else’s thoughts above my own (though I’m happy to read and be influenced by them), which does have its downsides when others want to know who I follow. :) But it’s not like this is an unprecedented position. Hume and Kant espoused similar, if you don’t find them too dated. Oh, and I can point to one clear influence regarding mind and consciousness: Minsky.
Regarding your argument about physics I’d like you to consider the following question: Do you think that what happened with physics (or mathematics or…) can’t happen again? That something is starting as philosophy (metaphysics) but then becomes a discipline of its own? If yes I would be interested as to why.
Your definition is probably more constrained than mine. But sorry for being unclear: I didn’t want to describe ethics and aesthetics as part of metaphysics. What I wanted to express is that you encounter metaphysical questions if you work in ethics or aesthetics. (As I do – I’m not very much interested in these questions, but some people are.) Meta-ethics are one example for this.
I think basically I would challenge your notion of metaphysics as to narrow. But I can respect your independence from the modern discourse. Obviously every good philosopher needs some independence. And Kant is a good example for one who didn’t even read much other philosophers at all… he still was a great metaphysician. (cf. the preface of the Critique of Pure Reason)
[The few things I know of Minsky I know from Dreyfus – I probably won’t become his biggest fan. ;-) ]
Regarding your first paragraph, absolutely it CAN happen, and for some fields it already is/has, at least in part. Psychoacoustic models are shaving off the edges of aesthetics — but a person’s unique history of experiences will impact their subjective perception in a way that can’t be predicted just by knowing the brain’s wiring diagram. Epistemology has always overlapped extensively with mathematics, but it often tackles different problems and, importantly, agrees with mathematics wherever both are applicable. Politics and business both have heavy interest in ethics, and either could plausibly wind up hijacking the field entirely. As long as there questions remaining in the universe, pretty much any field of study — not limited to philosophy! — might find itself obsolete in the face of new thought in a previously-unrelated field, or might grow so large that it splinters naturally as people begin to specialize in sub-topics.
Of course, when to toll the bell for each will always be a contentious topic in and of itself. Too early and you’ll look foolish when phlogiston turns out nonexistent; too late and jerks on the internet will make snarky comments about clinging to faith. ;)
A very good point and very well put. So if we agree on the possibility of fields of thought emerging and getting obsolete: Metaphysics for me are like a breeding ground for such fields. They themselves are perpetually (that is an exaggeration – it would be begging the question, I won’t deny that they themselves can become obsolete, too, I just don’t see it happening.) producing new … terms, paradigms, lines of thought and so on. (It could be phrased along the following lines: Do you think our thinking about what there is will ever be complete and, in a way, finished? And if not: Where does the new stuff come from? Metaphysics can be an excellent discipline here.)
That’s not to be meant a in any way complete description of metaphyisics. It’s intended to serve as a vindication, I think there could be others.
The conversation spawned by this ‘whoopsie’ has been extremely satisfying, intellectually, and I barely know anything about anything when it comes to philosophy (though I do recall Plato’s “cave” story). It makes me wish I had the time and money to go back to school for more philosophy classes. :)
I am so glad that your “hot button” post, and subsequent apology, happened, tejon. Thank you both (tejon & Benedikt) for sharing your discussion! :)
P.S. I’m not sure how to post an accent mark, so apologies for the inaccurate spelling of your name, tejon.
Somewhere in another time and place, there’s a Cave that’s missing Plato’s Johnson. And there’s science stuck all over its walls and making the floors slippery.
According to history and philosophy as I’ve learned it at the university, Socrates was not technically forced to drink hemlock for speaking the wrong truths. What happened, as I’ve heard the story, was that one of Socrates students, a promising young general, Alcibiades and his best buddies went on a drinking binge and desecrated several statues of the gods in their inebriation. He was on a campaign against the enemies of Athens when he received a message to return home to stand trial. Instead he deserted to the enemy and defeated Athen the following battle.
Rather than admit that they had made a blunder, the city decided to turn attention to Socrates as a scapegoat, since “obviously” it would take corrupting influences to make a young man betray his city. However, they only found Socrates guilty. Since Socrates belonged to the social elite, it was customary to let him choose his punishment. And the social elite would usually choose exile, meaning they’d be shipped off to a luxurious villa with slaves and servants on a remote island where nobody could hear or see them anymore.
Socrates, according to the story as it was told to me, suggested they should hold a parade in his honour, effectively provoking the court to sentence him to death. If my sources are accurate, Socrates was executed not for speaking the truth, but for being a troll.
You heard it wrong. Socrates is referenced by other authors, too. Xenophan and Aristophanes didn’t describe exactly the same persona but they meant the same historical person.
You’re just jealous because you don’t contribute to society, and you never went to business school to learn how to get people to pay you for not contributing.
. . . Well somebody had to spike a setup like that.
HR’s first name is Hal?
…I didn’t see it coming.
Yeah, HR’s more of an eldritch America kind of guy.
Oops, t’was supposed to be a new post, not a reply. If only there was something I could do about my fuckup.
But sadly. There. Is. Not.
http://showtimeshowdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/facepalm.jpg
Except draw attention to it.
And eliminate all chance of letting it seem like a “thinking two steps ahead of you” kind of remark.
All in all, a job well done.
Second name Ralston
Or Landoates,
R’landoates, in that case.
Maybe he’s from R’lyeh?
Or 9000… where the 9000 is pronounced “R”.
I was hoping his name was seriously Human Resources.
My headcanon has always been Hans Rudolf
Heinrich Revenuer.
I’m Sorry Dave.
OH my God… it’s full of Puns! xD
So H.R. was a teacher’s pet?
HE’S BEEN EVIL FROM THE START!!
Ah, I wondered why I could empathize with him.
A colleague of mine is suddenly interested in philosophy. We’re friggin’ IT guys, learning and doing new pieces of software and hardware, and out of the blue he spends 1/3 of his “salary” to learn more about philosophy to “enhance his logic thinking” or something.
What’s next, hacking my arm to Summon Extraplanar Ally IX: Mini-Me?
Nooope. Two wizards can play this game. My remote arm project can wait.
Have him taken to a deprogramming center. They help people ease back into real life, after being indoctrinated by a cult or after getting a liberal arts degree.
This is very intriguing…
A college student with a tie? What out everyone, this guy is a god damn party animal!
I don’t think you realize how important taking OFF a tie can be to a party.
Or taking off everything BUT the tie…
Ain’t no party like a Dedalus party ’cause a Dedalus party happens simultaneously in several alternate dimensions.
Anyone notice that HR’s tie is not purple in this comic…
… yet?
He gets the MAGIC TIE later, I guess.
The moustache comes first
LOL at the prof in the second panel.
He’s gonna be a Hal of a boss to work for… :-D
Coming up: a Guilded Age/PhD Comics crossover!
If that is true….
BEST!
THING!
EVER!
Make this come true!
I’ve known this guy for only four panels and I already feel the deepest, most heartfelt pity imaginable for him.
Knowing that your life and worth less than $$$ signs? Welcome to philosophy!
Poor scraggle-prof, probly found out too late that philosophy is just a supplemental passive you put maybe a few points in for enhancing diplomacy/debate checks and ego whips a bit. You only dump into it if you plan on being a philosophy professor.
Pfffft, nice glasses dork.
Shut up. These glasses will never go out of style.
Cave Story?
HR thinks he’s written a 3D immersive open world role playing online game and what we have been seeing is his own view of Arkerra. What the players actually see is a 2D platform game in 8 bit graphics because HR is a philosophy major and not a programmer :-)
Imagination has far better graphics than even reality.
Friggin young HR…
Looks a little like early superman.
Which one? George or Christopher Reeves?
But no, it’s William H. Macy
HR Jr.
Good god, he’s horrifying without the moustache.
Don’t be rude about William H. Macy
Sepia colored tie
“Clearly you grasp this material because you are a literal arts student… or bother to read.”
Nah, he knew about the hemlock the same way I do – the Horrible Histories philosophers song:
That song… simply BRILLIANT!!!
Knew the tune from the first few cords :D
I just want to clarify: I have a couple of two year degrees in general science and a four year in Business Administration, and “The Cave” is nothing new to me.
Friday. It’s much clearer and brighter now.
Joke’s on you, professor! Turns out he prefers pad thai!
And the new avatar made that a lot creepier than intended. BONUS!
Every time Pad Thai comes up in the comic or comment section I have to go to wikipedia to find out what it is; I never remember from one instance to the next. I know it’s a food of some sort, and probably from Thailand, but… “pad?” That’s not particularly descriptive term where I come from. :/
It’s a popular Americanized-Thai dish.
“Wrong truths to the wrong people?”
That’s one way to say his personal students kept on overthrowing Athenian democracy.
Ohhh, I get it! Carol is Plato. All makes sense now.
Nah, she’ll be the ultimate sacrifice. The more you care about it, the more power you get out of destroying it. Well-known thaumic principle.
Hal, eh? No wonder he won’t open the door to the lab.
Remember, Hal (along with Hank) is a nickname for Henry.
One of Henry VIII’s nickname’s was King Hal.
http://www.geni.com/people/Henry-VIII-King-of-England/6000000007442241030
H.R. is King Henry VIII! That’s why he wouldn’t follow Dave’s command at the end of 2001 – he was a sovereign monarch and followed no orders but God’s. The tubes are what lead to his mind being implanted into a supercomputer. It all makes perfect sense now.
Hmm, the cult of the countless limbs has seen a truth known to few and they are hunted and killed by all who find out they are cultists.
And all this time I thought it was because they went round poisoning wells and other acts of mass homicide.
It all depends on who you ask. Ask a cultist, “I’m being oppressed!” Ask a damn hippie, “They’re, like, totally being oppressed by, like, the MAN, man. Just ’cause, like, they’re different. It’s okay to be different on the outside, man, because deep down we’re all like totally the same.” Ask anyone else, “They’re bleemin’ terrorists and murderers!”
Dennis: “Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”
King Arthur: “Bloody peasant!”
I’d cut some funding too if there were entire lecture halls for gen eds classes with only four students…
Case of “chicken cumming on an egg” here
Disclaimer: the authors of this comic have no idea what they’re talking about with regards to the value of a degree in philosophy.
Mind you, this is mostly the fault of philosophy coursework for always noodling around with history for the first year, giving dabblers the impression that ontology and metaphysics are still a things.
Pseudo-edit: yes, the words came out of the mouth of a bitter professor who may himself be teaching an intro course because he never really grasped symbolic logic, so perhaps calling the authors out is unwarranted. Still, it’s a pervasive myth that pushes my button. :P
I should think that HR’s career itself is kind of the counterargument there! Sure, he’s embraced the path of evil and dark magics and murder, but before all that, his deep thinking about the nature of universes was a vital part of what led him to preside over the most successful online games of all time. Surely that says something about philosophy’s monetizable value?
(Granted, he also had a few other important skills, but I can’t imagine him really succeeding at that without the philosophical grounding.)
Yeah, I honestly knew I was overreacting a bit before I hit Post. Even considered this angle. Kept what I’d written because it’s good strong rhetoric, hit the button, regretted it and wrote that follow-up. Like I said, hot button for me; but making it personal was unfair and unwarranted.
Still bros?
Oh, yeah, no worries, you’d have to try a LOT harder to get me upset about a comment!
CHALLENGE ACCE– wait, no, that’s probably one I should skip.
I thought modern metaphysics is the area of philosophy dealing with how to assimilate the human experience with science? So how is it historical, unless you mean Aristotle’s Metaphysics?
Also, y’know… just because an author makes a character say a thing, doesn’t mean the author agrees with that thing.
To be fair, tejón did acknowledge that in the follow-up comment.
That said, I should add that if some undergrad philosophy curricula give the impression that the field is all about metaphysics, it can equally be said that some graduate curricula give the impression that it’s all about logical analysis now. The truth is that metaphysics has made something of a comeback since the mid-twentieth century. As Maelax says, there are philosophers today investigating the role of metaphysics in the scientific process, while others tackle subjects such as time or determinism. It isn’t all truth trees and Venn diagrams anymore.
+1
I’ll retract my not-a-thing statement. Metaphysics hasn’t made a comeback; it never went away at all. Neither have several other religions, which likewise still have prominent literature authored to this day. There are university courses on many of those, too.
Okay, okay, I’m hedging dangerously close to No True Scotsman territory. Really, on all of that (including the coursework) I’m of utterly neutral opinion; people need to follow their interests, and I peek at similar subjects through a lens that’s only different by way of semantics. Really, I’m just bitter over the pervasive perception that philosophy is one more idle and empty pursuit for people too rich to need a career, or too naive to prepare for one. Not that I’m any happier about art and literature being pushed onto that pile (and football somehow not?), but at least in those cases modern cultural priorities actually make it true in a practical sense.
actually -> often. I’m SO spoiled on edit buttons…
You didn’t want to imply that metaphysics is a religion?
I studied philosophy, too, so I’m with you about “hte pervasive perception….”. The rest I’m not so sure about.
Yes, I did mean that implication.
Metaphysics is concerned with the unobservable, intangible and unanalyzable: realms of imagination, given credence only through faith. When our models and instruments were less capable, speculation was the best we could do, and it was a useful pursuit. Now, though, actual physics has filled in most of the gaps; and actual physicists are far better qualified to seriously speculate about those gaps that remain. In recent decades, the same can be said of perception, consciousness and emotion, etc., to the point that I can’t think of anything of consequence which remains exclusive to metaphysics.
So, as I see it, metaphysics is at best exactly the idle pursuit of public perception; at worst, a faith-based denial of well-established empirical fields.
Oh, wow. Thanks for confirming.
This seems quite wrong to me. As you bring the example of physics, lets look at philosophy of science: Physicists use certain assumption about being (as Mach famously stated) which are metaphysical assumptions. It’s just impossible to make no metaphysical claims when you do theory of science. (I know some people claim they can do it, they just haven’t made a convincing argument yet.)
I haven’t got anything against religion. Still it seems far fetched to consider metaphysics as one. And I’d say you’re quite a long way from the modern philosophical discourse on that. Some examples? (I think the NYU faculty is not that far away from mainstream as a whole.) I remember talking about philosophy of physics with Tim Maudlin (I admit I’m going for the name dropping…) and he seemed quite keen on metaphysics. (He was not uncritical of Nagel, by the way.) The same goes, I think, for Ned Block. Laura Franklin-Hall does philosophy of science and metaphysics, too. You surely are acquainted with the works of David Chalmers – another one still doing metaphysics… Sorry if this looks like an ab auctoritate argument – it’s not supposed to be. I wanted to illustrate the philosophical mainstream with some examples.
And you don’t have to use philosophy of science for making this argument. In ethics and meta-ethics you will encounter metaphysical questions, too. As you will in aesthetics. I’d say metaphysics are alive and well – and far from being an idle pursuit of public perception. Probably we understand something different when we write “metaphysics”. But your version seem to me like a quite crippled one.
I’m definitely using a more constrained definition than you. Mine recognizes ethics and aesthetics as independent, which absolutely does change the entire conversation; and beyond that, is specifically about metaphysics as a subset of philosophy. My comments about the superior qualifications of physicists meant to acknowledge that, yes, they’re still doing the same thing — it’s just not ours anymore.
With regards to “modern philosophical discourse,” I don’t inherently value anyone else’s thoughts above my own (though I’m happy to read and be influenced by them), which does have its downsides when others want to know who I follow. :) But it’s not like this is an unprecedented position. Hume and Kant espoused similar, if you don’t find them too dated. Oh, and I can point to one clear influence regarding mind and consciousness: Minsky.
Regarding your argument about physics I’d like you to consider the following question: Do you think that what happened with physics (or mathematics or…) can’t happen again? That something is starting as philosophy (metaphysics) but then becomes a discipline of its own? If yes I would be interested as to why.
Your definition is probably more constrained than mine. But sorry for being unclear: I didn’t want to describe ethics and aesthetics as part of metaphysics. What I wanted to express is that you encounter metaphysical questions if you work in ethics or aesthetics. (As I do – I’m not very much interested in these questions, but some people are.) Meta-ethics are one example for this.
I think basically I would challenge your notion of metaphysics as to narrow. But I can respect your independence from the modern discourse. Obviously every good philosopher needs some independence. And Kant is a good example for one who didn’t even read much other philosophers at all… he still was a great metaphysician. (cf. the preface of the Critique of Pure Reason)
[The few things I know of Minsky I know from Dreyfus – I probably won’t become his biggest fan. ;-) ]
Regarding your first paragraph, absolutely it CAN happen, and for some fields it already is/has, at least in part. Psychoacoustic models are shaving off the edges of aesthetics — but a person’s unique history of experiences will impact their subjective perception in a way that can’t be predicted just by knowing the brain’s wiring diagram. Epistemology has always overlapped extensively with mathematics, but it often tackles different problems and, importantly, agrees with mathematics wherever both are applicable. Politics and business both have heavy interest in ethics, and either could plausibly wind up hijacking the field entirely. As long as there questions remaining in the universe, pretty much any field of study — not limited to philosophy! — might find itself obsolete in the face of new thought in a previously-unrelated field, or might grow so large that it splinters naturally as people begin to specialize in sub-topics.
Of course, when to toll the bell for each will always be a contentious topic in and of itself. Too early and you’ll look foolish when phlogiston turns out nonexistent; too late and jerks on the internet will make snarky comments about clinging to faith. ;)
A very good point and very well put. So if we agree on the possibility of fields of thought emerging and getting obsolete: Metaphysics for me are like a breeding ground for such fields. They themselves are perpetually (that is an exaggeration – it would be begging the question, I won’t deny that they themselves can become obsolete, too, I just don’t see it happening.) producing new … terms, paradigms, lines of thought and so on. (It could be phrased along the following lines: Do you think our thinking about what there is will ever be complete and, in a way, finished? And if not: Where does the new stuff come from? Metaphysics can be an excellent discipline here.)
That’s not to be meant a in any way complete description of metaphyisics. It’s intended to serve as a vindication, I think there could be others.
See my reply to T above.
tl;dr: I’m honestly sorry for the personal jab, I knew I was overreaching and did it anyway.
The conversation spawned by this ‘whoopsie’ has been extremely satisfying, intellectually, and I barely know anything about anything when it comes to philosophy (though I do recall Plato’s “cave” story). It makes me wish I had the time and money to go back to school for more philosophy classes. :)
I am so glad that your “hot button” post, and subsequent apology, happened, tejon. Thank you both (tejon & Benedikt) for sharing your discussion! :)
P.S. I’m not sure how to post an accent mark, so apologies for the inaccurate spelling of your name, tejon.
Somewhere in another time and place, there’s a Cave that’s missing Plato’s Johnson. And there’s science stuck all over its walls and making the floors slippery.
ZOMG HR HAS AN UPPER LIP
Dammit I didn’t realize until you told me, and now it can’t be unseen!
Do teachers actually do that, write the topic on the board and then just talk about it?
Sometimes. Some often. And sometimes it’s not the worst way of teaching. It can even be a quite good way.
Man…if William H. Macy DOESN’T get the Oscar nod for his role in this comic, I don’t even…
I thought aristotelian logic was still important for lawyers.
According to history and philosophy as I’ve learned it at the university, Socrates was not technically forced to drink hemlock for speaking the wrong truths. What happened, as I’ve heard the story, was that one of Socrates students, a promising young general, Alcibiades and his best buddies went on a drinking binge and desecrated several statues of the gods in their inebriation. He was on a campaign against the enemies of Athens when he received a message to return home to stand trial. Instead he deserted to the enemy and defeated Athen the following battle.
Rather than admit that they had made a blunder, the city decided to turn attention to Socrates as a scapegoat, since “obviously” it would take corrupting influences to make a young man betray his city. However, they only found Socrates guilty. Since Socrates belonged to the social elite, it was customary to let him choose his punishment. And the social elite would usually choose exile, meaning they’d be shipped off to a luxurious villa with slaves and servants on a remote island where nobody could hear or see them anymore.
Socrates, according to the story as it was told to me, suggested they should hold a parade in his honour, effectively provoking the court to sentence him to death. If my sources are accurate, Socrates was executed not for speaking the truth, but for being a troll.
The way I heard it, Plato probably made Socrates up.
You heard it wrong. Socrates is referenced by other authors, too. Xenophan and Aristophanes didn’t describe exactly the same persona but they meant the same historical person.
Catch him and put him to death … or follow him.
You’re just jealous because you don’t contribute to society, and you never went to business school to learn how to get people to pay you for not contributing.
. . . Well somebody had to spike a setup like that.