NEWS FLASH the bear is going to be MIA 9/18

So yeah, I didn't pay my cable bill so I'm probably out of commision for tonight. Perhaps some of you are baffled at how I was able to post this thread because as I have just mentioned I have no internet. Fortunatly for you I am not a witch that can conjure internet signals, I am merely using the school's computers. I'm not quite sure is this is really a big deal but I thought I would let ya'lls know, just incase some of you go into hysterics wondering where I am. FEAR NOT!! IT IS ONLY A CABLE PROBLEM!! Hope you guys can find a suitable tank for tonight's fun, I'm sure it won't be too difficult

P.S. For those who care I did finish my paper on Platonic Realism and it is extremly sexy. Forms FTW!!!

Calling dibs on Elenn now.

lol, is that all we are to you people? Tanks with out souls?! Screw you guys, I'm waiting for Brewfest! GO go Keg partys!

oh you have a soul. Just don't make me drain it and trade you in for a voidwalker...

...which is a tank! <.<

Gratz on finishing the paper

Is there any way you can post it so we can read it?

Hot and sexy I just did my tutorial for the paper (i had to orate my paper to the proff) and I did awesome. As projected I got an 'A!' Rock, rock on!!!

Hey! I'll take an mp3 file of your oration! But I could read it too.

Here Mal, this is my paper. It is in reponse to questions that were given to us but you can understand them without the questions. Have fun getting bored.
Q1: Plato attributes the philosophical view of realism to Glaucon. In order to understand the view of realism one must first be familiar with a few philosophical terms. The first term that needs to be discussed is material object. A material object is something that can be experienced by the five senses and exists in space and time. The second term that must be understood is a nature or as Plato would call it a Form. A form is an object that exists outside of space and time and defines what material objects are. Realists believe both material objects and Forms exist. It is apparent in Plato's republic that Glaucon holds this view.
The first indicator that Glaucon is a realist is how he doubts that the lovers of sights and sounds are philosophers. Both Glaucon and Socrates think that philosophers are those who love knowledge. Realists believe that truth lies in knowledge of Forms. The lovers of sights and sounds are depicted people who run around attempting to absorb the world through their sight and hearing and also use the materials in the world to craft things. Plato uses the seers of sights and sounds to portray the view of nominalism. Nominalists are people who believe that only material objects exist. A realist would say that nominalists do not have knowledge because they do not believe in Forms. To a realist forms are nessicary to gain knowledge. So, a realist would think that a nominalist cannot obtain knowledge. Realists believe that if a person cannot gain knowledge then they cannot be a philosopher. Since Glaucon objects to the seers of sights and sounds as being philosophers, he is a realist.
The second indicator of Glaucon being a realist is that he agrees to an argument for realism that Socrates created. The argument goes as follows:
1. Beautiful and ugly are opposites
C. Beautiful and Ugly are two.
This argument is an argument for realism because it hints as beautiful and ugly as being Forms. Although this argument is somewhat incomplete, it expresses the view of realism. To explain this let us look to how a nominalist would see beautiful and ugly. A nominalist must only believe in what his senses tell him. The world appears to have many beautiful and ugly things in it. Since many things appear to be beautiful and ugly, beautiful and ugly are many. A realist can believe that beautiful and ugly are only two things because they think that beautiful and ugly are forms that only manifest themselves in material objects; and because they are opposites the two cannot be the same and thus there are two objects.
The third indicator that Glaucon is a realist is that he views nominalist the same way a realist would. Realists believe that material objects are examples of Forms. Glaucon agrees that the image Socrates provides of how the nominalsts view the world is correct. This image is that nominalists are in a dream state where they think that things that are merely similar are the same. The dream state image is a good example of how realists would look at nominalists. In a dream state people can perceive that what they are experiencing through their five senses is actually happening to them but in reality it is not happening to them because they are only dreaming it. What happens in the dream seems to be reality, is a lot like reality, but is not reality. A realist would see that material objects seem to be like forms, are a lot like forms but are not forms; material objects are only similar to forms. Realists would think that nominalsts are not seeing reality because they only believe in the representation of reality. Glaucon agrees to this metaphor as being an accurate example of nominalists, since a realist would agree to this also, Glaucon holds a realist idea.
Q2: The philosophical view Plato is attributing to 'our friends' is nominalism. This can be assumed because Plato describes the person to not believe in any form of the beautiful itself. Plato creates an argument to convince the nominalist his ideas are incoherent. This argument is used to demonstrate the kind of 'knowledge' the nominalist has. Plato's argument is as follows:
1. Things can appear beautiful in a way and ugly in a way.
2. These things participate in both opposites equally.
C. These things both are and are not being
As you can see this argument is somewhat of a reductio ad absurdum or as logicians refer to it as an RAA. That is, the argument attempts to reduce the first premise to something absurd. This argument reduces the first statement, "things can appear beautiful in a way and ugly in a way," to a statement that rejects the law of non contradiction. The law of non contradiction can be simplistically expressed that something cannot be both 'a' and not 'a.' The last premises is essentially saying that these things can both be and not be. Since the knowledge that a nominalist has is contradictive Socrates thinks that the nominalist doesn't have knowledge but merely opines.
RAA is one of the most solid kinds of arguments and is difficult to counter argue. This being said I would think that Plato's argument is a strong one against nominalism. Then again an argument can be strong but not sound; that is that an argument can have solid logic but false premises. However, I think Plato's argument works because this is how the nominalsts would see things and it does follow that they would have to reject the law of non contradiction to support their claim that things can appear beautiful in a way and ugly in a way. Then again, would a nominalist have an issue with rejecting the law of non contradiction? Material objects can appear to be a contradiction through the senses. Since nominalists believe that only material things exist they would think that whatever their senses present to them is truth. So the issue here is that Plato needs to also take into account that the nominalist may not care about the law of non contradiction. Otherwise this argument would have no impact on them because the nominalist would not care about the conclusion. If Plato were to truly convince them that nominalism doesn't make sense he would have to have a conclusion that plays by the nominalist's rules and breaks logic with the nominalist's rules.
However, Plato does account for the concern that the nominalist wouldn't be convinced that their view is incoherent. After the argument is laid out in the dialogue Socrates discusses its effectiveness. Socrates states that "as for those who study the many beautiful things but do not see the beautiful itself and are incapable of following another to who leads them to is…(1106-1106)." What this means is that Plato realizes that although his argument is solid a nominalist would not be convinced because they are completely incapable of seeing reality despite anyone's best efforts to show them. Just like a nominalist would reject the law of non contradiction because their philosophical view does not allow them to question what their senses are perceiving; so if something looks like it is both being and not being than it must be so.
Q3: Plato points out a major difference in perceptibles and Forms by discussing puzzling things that are seen by the senses. The example of a weird perceptible occurrence is how the ring finger appears to be both tall and short in comparison to the middle and pinky finger. Plato thinks that perceiving the ring finger this way would cause confusion and then a need for understanding. However, the understanding of this would not come from the information that the senses get from the object but from thinking about the forms of tallness and shortness.
The ring finger example seems to pose that the perceptible just provides a question. It is an example of tallness and shortness and only this. The ring finger appears to have both of these opposing qualities; the philosopher tries to make sense of this by looking at Forms because the answer cannot be found in merely looking at the finger. If one were to grasp what tallness and shortness are by just looking at the perceptible ring finger, they would be confused as to what tallness and shortness are because the perceptible object is providing is an example of both at the same time; it would appear that only one thing was there, that is a mixture of tallness and shortness, instead of seeing two separate concepts.. The perceptible itself does not explain the difference between tallness and shortness all it is doing is manifesting both forms at the same time. So if one were to only look at the perceptible object for knowledge one would not receive it because the perceptible does not explain anything. If one were to look towards Forms to understand what tallness and shortness are, they would be able to differentiate the opposites and realize that the ring finger is manifesting two types of concepts, both tallness and shortness. The essential difference between a perceivable and a Form is that one is an example and the other is an objective definition. That is to say that perceptibles provide an example of what a Form will explain. A perceptible falls short of a form because it can explain nothing; a person can gain no understanding from a perceptible.

Thats alotta big words. My brain is on fire now.

I lied the bill got paid; let me tank something PLZZZ!!!

You got it! Wait....wait!! Hold on a second. Nah, I got nothing. Welcome back to the family! Tank tank tank!

There weren't that many big words

That was good. I had to sharpen up on my philosophy, but good none the less. I really enjoyed the part on the Law of Non-contradiction. I heard your vocabulary was exceptional but damn. And with that said.....I don't EVER wanna hear that foul lauguage ever again young lady JK! Great job by the way! You've got bright future ahead of you!.... Back to Tanking

Holydrisst wrote:There weren't that many big words

Philosophy papers don't require the full extent of my vocabulary. My literary papers and creative pieces do however...

having her not curse is like saying I need to slow down my posting.

That is a freaking good analogy. Shit!!

I wasn't saying it needed big words or anything dont get me wrong Was just sayin ^^

of course it's a good analogy! I thought of it!

it's also pretty accurate >.>

Why am I still awake? *passes out on desk*

Insomnia?

cause it hasn't caught up with you?

Wonder if she'll fall asleep in the middle of Kara tomorrow <.<

I'm just saying!

All bets down, what odds we giving her? If she wants she can MT and I'll OT

I am gonna tell you right now that I will be having problems staying awake tomorrow

Well get some sleep you hobos! sheesh. Take a nap before Kara, but just be on time. I really don't want to get started at stupid late-o'clock.

I would however like to get to at least Curator/Shade tonight or god help us - full clear.