Well done. A pity Wittgenstein didn't spend more time with the Greeks. Plato's ideas on images (picture thinking?) reminded me of Wittgenstein's first philosophy. Both were concerned with the limits of what can understood.
that's so true. yea Wittgenstein didn't bother to read a lot of stuff unfortunately I guess because he thought he already figured the whole "philosophy thing" out.
Tough, the distinction between Dianoia and Noesis. One could postulate the descending spirit of the Logos. One could postulate the knowledge of the discursive power itself, to arrive at absolute nature by that of Forms as governing rationality. There is evidently in arriving at the Forms in Dianoia the problem of logical extension. That logical extension is an expression of the soul in that rationality is chained to the soul by means of corporeal being. Noesis must, to be higher, it ought be a refinement of the intellect and an active function of a universal utilitarian language and integrated symbolic logic of technical competence. In some ways the divided line is an imperfect understanding since that which permits the fullest understanding is that which is in a condition of being wise in the apprehending of being in relation to matters. This also questions what matters are concrete or merely adequate or sufficient for some but not others. The divided line in terms of function could be the metric for a Philosophers' IQ. Not at least for the sake of musings.
I think the process of going through dianonia and noesis is continuous. Since in a dialectic we are expected to stop somewhere and we have to start again working on the basics digging deeper.
Depends on whose version of "dialectic" you have in mind. In order to understand Plato, you won't want to import any ideas about that term from much later thinkers
Would this suggest in the highest end of the line there is a knowledge in everyone of everything that ever was or ever will be and only when something is first invented for example the person had unlocked or discovered it and moved it into a lower part of the line where is can become a form in which the material can be seen? Thank you for your videos I actually find the dialogue of the republic really difficult to keep track at times and videos like this help to explain or reassure what I believe is being expressed. Like you said the concepts in itself are not always difficult but drawing them out of the dialogue is not always easy
Hi Dr.Sadler. Thank you for your helpful videos. In which catagory do sounds and voices go? And we can gain knowledge of smth by touching it.which catagory does this knowledge go into?
@@GregoryBSadler ha. or, if you have plunged into nihilism and have given up on all teleological religions.... at least the Forms are something real. If you are raised in an environment with teleological religion, and then you no longer feel that it is real , and you still need some kind of meaning to get out of bed in the morning... :) // living in nihilism is a challenge because the trappings of culture which usually give so much support no longer give impetus along a narrative. Or, maybe i am reading too much into Plato's Forms.
I wouldn't try to lump all religion into one category like that. And if you're trying to do without religion, and substitute philosophy instead, Platonism might be one option (though you'd want to go beyond just Plato, if that's the case), but just one among many. And pretty much all of those options are going to be "teleological"
@@GregoryBSadler I'm reading A. N. Whitehead, wondering what his idea of the Platonic Forms might be.... I did read somewhere that, he thought that aesthetics was the new ethics! Obviously, i need to read much more and understand more... :) It's a captivating concept~
I don’t believe most know the divided line even exists or rather that anyone can grow closer to “reason”. People are not willing to listen to certain types of people, or anybody but themselves. The ones that know that they do not know are the ones that will aspire to grow closer to Noesis because they can’t help themselves. They are aware. It will always be a means for the ones who know of it. Hopefully
Well done. A pity Wittgenstein didn't spend more time with the Greeks. Plato's ideas on images (picture thinking?) reminded me of Wittgenstein's first philosophy. Both were concerned with the limits of what can understood.
that's so true. yea Wittgenstein didn't bother to read a lot of stuff unfortunately I guess because he thought he already figured the whole "philosophy thing" out.
Tough, the distinction between Dianoia and Noesis.
One could postulate the descending spirit of the Logos.
One could postulate the knowledge of the discursive power itself, to arrive at absolute nature by that of Forms as governing rationality.
There is evidently in arriving at the Forms in Dianoia the problem of logical extension. That logical extension is an expression of the soul in that rationality is chained to the soul by means of corporeal being.
Noesis must, to be higher, it ought be a refinement of the intellect and an active function of a universal utilitarian language and integrated symbolic logic of technical competence.
In some ways the divided line is an imperfect understanding since that which permits the fullest understanding is that which is in a condition of being wise in the apprehending of being in relation to matters.
This also questions what matters are concrete or merely adequate or sufficient for some but not others.
The divided line in terms of function could be the metric for a Philosophers' IQ. Not at least for the sake of musings.
Thank you so very much, from a philosophy undergrad from The Netherlands.
You're very welcome
I think the process of going through dianonia and noesis is continuous. Since in a dialectic we are expected to stop somewhere and we have to start again working on the basics digging deeper.
Depends on whose version of "dialectic" you have in mind. In order to understand Plato, you won't want to import any ideas about that term from much later thinkers
Thank you .
You're welcome
Would this suggest in the highest end of the line there is a knowledge in everyone of everything that ever was or ever will be and only when something is first invented for example the person had unlocked or discovered it and moved it into a lower part of the line where is can become a form in which the material can be seen?
Thank you for your videos I actually find the dialogue of the republic really difficult to keep track at times and videos like this help to explain or reassure what I believe is being expressed. Like you said the concepts in itself are not always difficult but drawing them out of the dialogue is not always easy
There's really no "ever was or ever will be" at the level of the Forms themselves, since that would be change
Gregory B. Sadler I understand . Thanks a lot for your reply and your great videos.
Hi Dr.Sadler. Thank you for your helpful videos.
In which catagory do sounds and voices go? And we can gain knowledge of smth by touching it.which catagory does this knowledge go into?
ua-cam.com/video/xgf2jztjaF4/v-deo.html
participating in the Forms, or; imitating the Forms; that could be the reason for living, or what gives life it's meaning and truth
Could be A reason, to be sure
@@GregoryBSadler ha. or, if you have plunged into nihilism and have given up on all teleological religions.... at least the Forms are something real. If you are raised in an environment with teleological religion, and then you no longer feel that it is real , and you still need some kind of meaning to get out of bed in the morning... :) // living in nihilism is a challenge because the trappings of culture which usually give so much support no longer give impetus along a narrative. Or, maybe i am reading too much into Plato's Forms.
I wouldn't try to lump all religion into one category like that.
And if you're trying to do without religion, and substitute philosophy instead, Platonism might be one option (though you'd want to go beyond just Plato, if that's the case), but just one among many. And pretty much all of those options are going to be "teleological"
@@GregoryBSadler I'm reading A. N. Whitehead, wondering what his idea of the Platonic Forms might be.... I did read somewhere that, he thought that aesthetics was the new ethics! Obviously, i need to read much more and understand more... :) It's a captivating concept~
@@mandys1505 When you have the time, I'd go back to the ancient middle and neo-Platonists.
One question, what translation of the Republic are you using?, I am using Jowett translation and is a little bit different, regards
I read the text in a variety of English translations and supply my own sometimes from the Greek. The particular one in the anthology is by Shorey
@@GregoryBSadler thank you!
I don’t believe most know the divided line even exists or rather that anyone can grow closer to “reason”. People are not willing to listen to certain types of people, or anybody but themselves. The ones that know that they do not know are the ones that will aspire to grow closer to Noesis because they can’t help themselves. They are aware. It will always be a means for the ones who know of it. Hopefully
Yes, most people are not engaging in much philosophical reflection about the nature of knowledge
Gregory B. Sadler why do you think this is?
Some of the same reasons Plato discusses in the Republic
💃
So please help, has Aristotle successfully addressed Plato's Form of the Good in Republic VI or not? How?
ua-cam.com/video/OV_T8Emyf6I/v-deo.html