Should People with no Understanding of Platonist Teleology, Arithmetic, Geometry, and so forth, even be allowed attend University?

Status
Closed

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,563
Netherlands
This seems to be a rather bizarre assertion. Tell me, have you ever studied Plato or the neo-Platonists (Plotinus, Proclus, etc) on anything more than a superficial level? The neo-Platonists have articulated what is probably the single most profound non-Abrahamic system of metaphysics and ethics. Then there are also the Stoics. Are they useless as well?
I have answered part of that above. While others may have built upon him, there is no reason to learn his theories. It is not like we got an alchemy 101 when we started chemistry. We do get the law of Archimedes when starting physics for two reasons: It is a correct law (in that it is falsifiable and not yet falsified) and it is relevant.
Obviously, science has developed into it's own field, and Plato doesn't give you large hadron colliders or the genome. But science is merely descriptive, in that it explains the mechanics and rules by which things operate. But it tells us nothing at all regarding the metaphysical underpinnings of existence or ethics, and by extension, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the truly great questions which have engaged the minds of men since the beginning of time.
Neither does philosophy. It gives opinions of people who think for a living. Nothing more nothing less.
Science and philosophy each have their own lanes, and we ignore one or the other at our peril.
Disagree and agree. While I think it is good for scientists to be schooled in stuff like ethics, I think that is more of a thing of upbringing, society and personal interest, rather then making it some sort of mandatory requirement.

Vice versa destroys marriages ;)
1569263219285.png
1569263234707.png
 
Jul 2019
800
New Jersey
The teaching of the Trivium (Grammar, Logic, & Rhetoric), & Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, & Astronomy).
Yes, I understand. I. too, believe the trivium to be a superior system than the one we currently use. But Asher is asking why you believe that to be the case? What is better about the trivium than any other system?
 
Aug 2019
89
North Dublin
I have answered part of that above. While others may have built upon him, there is no reason to learn his theories. It is not like we got an alchemy 101 when we started chemistry. We do get the law of Archimedes when starting physics for two reasons: It is a correct law (in that it is falsifiable and not yet falsified) and it is relevant.

Neither does philosophy. It gives opinions of people who think for a living. Nothing more nothing less.

Disagree and agree. While I think it is good for scientists to be schooled in stuff like ethics, I think that is more of a thing of upbringing, society and personal interest, rather then making it some sort of mandatory requirement.

Vice versa destroys marriages ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/d7bqcs
Continental philosophy today is post-structural, meaning it is non-teleological. If you read a load of trash, without any idea what it is even refuting, then you will not even have the choice of not being a trash can "philosopher".
 
Aug 2019
89
North Dublin
Yes, I understand. I. too, believe the trivium to be a superior system than the one we currently use. But Asher is asking why you believe that to be the case? What is better about the trivium than any other system?
Logic is the basis of any context. Without context, knowledge is useless.
 
Jul 2019
800
New Jersey
I have answered part of that above. While others may have built upon him, there is no reason to learn his theories. It is not like we got an alchemy 101 when we started chemistry. We do get the law of Archimedes when starting physics for two reasons: It is a correct law (in that it is falsifiable and not yet falsified) and it is relevant.

Neither does philosophy. It gives opinions of people who think for a living. Nothing more nothing less.
I say this without any malice, but your ignorance of philosophy shows here. Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy is hardly just people spewing their own opinions, and is still quite relevant today. I'm not a big fan of analytic philosophy, but classical philosophy has hardly been "debunked" and still carries a great deal of meaning to those who genuinely engage with it. There is a lot of rigor in, say, the writings of Aquinas, regardless of whether you agree with his conclusions.

Disagree and agree. While I think it is good for scientists to be schooled in stuff like ethics, I think that is more of a thing of upbringing, society and personal interest, rather then making it some sort of mandatory requirement.
I never said anything about making it mandatory. I'm merely saying that your characterization of Plato and his philosophy is driven by a complete ignorance of what he actually maintained.

Just because this guy is unbalanced doesn't mean anything. And although it's irrelevant to our subject here, I will add that I'm in broad agreement with Filth's characterization of modern analytic philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2019
800
New Jersey
Logic is the basis of any context. Without context, knowledge is useless.
Can one learn logic within a different system than the trivium? For example, were the Chinese philosophers schooled in logic? If no, why not; and if yes, than do you admit that one can learn logic independent of the trivium?
 
Aug 2019
89
North Dublin
Can one learn logic within a different system than the trivium? For example, were the Chinese philosophers schooled in logic? If no, why not; and if yes, than do you admit that one can learn logic independent of the trivium?
I will admit my own poverty by way of Mencius, although I promise to get around to him at some point. You need Grammar to understand Logic, obviously. Rhetoric is also vital, for later philosophers, and for understanding the nuances of Rhetoric, in general.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2019
800
New Jersey
I will admit my own poverty by way of Mencius, although I promise to get around to him at some point. You need grammar to understand Logic, obviously. Rhetoric is also vital, for later philosophers, and for understanding the nuances of Rhetoric, in general.
Yes, but the trivium was a method of teaching, not just a collection of subjects. Grammar meant the basic facts, Logic meant the ability to piece those facts together into a greater whole, and Rhetoric meant the ability to formulate defensible theses. One can argue that all these things are, indeed, taught in the modern university, even if they're not explicitly addressed as such.
 
Aug 2019
89
North Dublin
Yes, but the trivium was a method of teaching, not just a collection of subjects. Grammar meant the basic facts, Logic meant the ability to piece those facts together into a greater whole, and Rhetoric meant the ability to formulate defensible theses. One can argue that all these things are, indeed, taught in the modern university, even if they're not explicitly addressed as such.
I would say Logic is missing from the contemporary university. Something like a quasi-rhetoric may remain, but it is largely non-teleological.
 
Jul 2019
800
New Jersey
I would say Logic is missing from the contemporary university. Something like a quasi-rhetoric may remain, but it is largely non-teleological.
In what way is logic lacking? Someone who is in doubt of the necessity of acknowledging a telos for existence would dispute your claim. How would you demonstrate to him that (a) teleology is necessary in order to have an intellible form of logic, and that (b) the university today fails in that regard?
 
Status
Closed