05 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasGood idea, but for the time being out of order;
You'd be better off consulting bbarr.
bbar has set up a Keres against my Scheveningen, but unfortunately his last move was made two months ago; everyday I want to click this tasty skull of his, yum yum, but anyway his position has gone down the drain, so I will wait for him to be back😵
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHere you are my obnoxious brother:
What was Socrates' contribution to Western philosophy, other than serving as a launchpad for Plato's career?
Aristotle arguably contributed the most of any Greek: what was Socrates' influence on him?
I'd sincerely like to know.
Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, claimed that the physical world is just a reflection of the ideal world of pure Forms, and his philosophy has to do with his will to understand beyond the veil of experience in order to grasp the “true reality” of the Forms.
Aristotle became an empiricist and he used the Science of his time in order to prove that there is not a single source from which all the evil things are evil and all the good things good. Aristotle stands for the multiplicity of the differ virtues
😵
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehas"Why, then, should we disregard the words of Jesus Christ as mere hearsay?"
Are you aware that Socrates is known only through the classical accounts of his students? At least there are non-biblical accounts of Jesus Christ having existed, but Socrates was known only through the writings of his students. Nevertheless, nobody disregards the words of Socrates as mere hearsay. Why, then, should we disregard the words of Jesus Christ as mere hearsay?
He was a great philosofer. Some he said was wrong, some was right. But to rely that his words was more than hearsay is not plausible. We know nothing if Jesus said exactly those word Matthew et al wrote decennia later, word by word. That's a religious belief. And that's okay with me.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetleSo Socrates begat Plato who begat Aristotle. I guess that's dialectics for you.
Aristotle became an empiricist and he used the Science of his time in order to prove that there is not a single source from which all the evil things are evil and all the good things good. Aristotle stands for the multiplicity of the differ virtues
😵
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA philosopher does his chores and his work trying to define qualities in areas which are not accesible through Sience, and this tendency of the differ philosophical schools joints hands with the social process of their time; since these tendencies are multiple, there are many different philosophical schools -all aiming to get an Understanding.
So Socrates begat Plato who begat Aristotle. I guess that's dialectics for you.
If you could tell Plato or Aristotle that they were aware of the fact that their systems are not leading to the Understanding however they were trying to promote them, I am sure that they would destroy this opinion of yours by using dialectics (evaluation of the mind/ common sens); and if they failed to destroy your synthesis, they would bow to you. This is how a philosopher advances -he has not ready answers, he is flexible and he cross checks his variations at any level of Understanding.
So Socrates begat Plato who begat Aristotle -but solely in the beginning; it seems to me that the Human climbs on the soulders of the giants in order to see all the way up to the horizon, and then he builts from that point and evolves beyond the known till that time bounds. All in all, Plato follows a different path than Socrates and Aristotle follows a different path than Plato😵
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasBiblically it says that they shall look upon him whom they have peirced when he returns. There will be no question, therefore, if you have a doubt about who he is, whoever, claims to be him, watch out!!
Do you think jews as whell as christians will recognize the same Jesus? Both groups are awaiting a new Messiah, right?
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas=================================
"Why, then, should we disregard the words of Jesus Christ as mere hearsay?"
He was a great philosofer. Some he said was wrong, some was right. But to rely that his words was more than hearsay is not plausible. We know nothing if Jesus said exactly those word Matthew et al wrote decennia later, word by word. That's a religious belief. And that's okay with me.
He was a great philosofer.
=================================
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within yourselves.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.
For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink." (John 6:53-55)
Great philosophy. Sounds like Plato or Aristotle, doesn't it ?
================================
Some he said was wrong, some was right.
=================================
Translation - "What I like was right. What I don't like was wrong."
05 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSounds like christian philosophy to me.
================================
Some he said was wrong, some was right.
=================================
Translation - "What I like was right. What I don't like was wrong."
"Interprete the scripture until you are satisfied" is another.
06 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasYea. Just what I always wanted. Go find the body of Jesus and eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Sounds like christian philosophy to me.
"Interprete the scripture until you are satisfied" is another.
You said "great philosopher" not me.
06 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywillI said he was a great philospher, not that he was right all the time. If he (Mouth of Jesus himself, remember?) said that we should eat his flesh, then christianity is cannibalistic.
Yea. Just what I always wanted. Go find the body of Jesus and eat His flesh and drink His blood.
You said "great philosopher" not me.
No, Jesus wasn't right all the time. Nor was the anchient greek philosophers.
06 Mar 09
Originally posted by PawnChopLet us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
100 bucks says your all still a waitin' when i hit 95. Ask for gramps and i'll give you your money but i ain't holdin out much hope for ya all.
06 Mar 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasI can't figure out what you are saying, but it looks rather like Pascals wager which every body knows is nonsense.
Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where ...[text shortened]... gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.