quote:

---

"There is another thing: - young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves; there are plenty of persons, as they soon enough discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing: and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth! - and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected - which is the truth: and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. And this is the reason why my three accusers, Meletus and Anytus and Lycon, have set upon me; Meletus, who has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen; Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians: and as I said at the beginning, I cannot expect to get rid of this mass of calumny all in a moment. And this, O men of Athens, is the truth and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet I know that this plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth? - this is the occasion and reason of their slander of me, as you will find out either in this or in any future inquiry."

---

The passage above is from Plato's Socrates' Defense*, written by a young Plato. I would like to debate the content of the quote in relation to contemporary philosophy and philosophers. Does anyone care to start us off?

Those interested in participating in or reading other Love of Wisdom debates should click here. Please feel free to continue a previous debate if it interests you, no matter how old.

* http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: blueskyboris ]

quote:

---

There is another thing: - young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves; there are plenty of persons, as they soon enough discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing: and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: this confounded Socrates

---

quote:

---

and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected - which is the truth: and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies.

I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet I know that this plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth? - this is the occasion and reason of their slander of me, as you will find out either in this or in any future inquiry.

---

[ 10 April 2005: Message edited by: blueskyboris ]

Is math natural or created?

Sophists

Main Entry: soph·ist
Pronunciation: 'sä-fist
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin sophista, from Greek sophistEs, literally, expert, wise man, from sophizesthai to become wise, deceive, from sophos clever, wise
Date: 1542
1 : capitalized : any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the 5th century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning

[ 14 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

during Socrates time "experts" were most likely elders with life experience and an ability to lecture (not too many people had "book smarts" back then)...it's different today...now-a-days one doesn't need face-to-face meetings to become learned

and as far as Kyoto goes....i don't think it can be proved that human created carbon dioxide has much to do with global warming.. i'm all for cleaning up the environment...but focusing on CO2/global warming is wrong....i'd much rather see an effort to combat particulate matter, smog and mercury

30 years ago the "expert" scientists were talking about global cooling....the cyclical nature of the earth/solar system is just beginning to be known...ice core samples have shown that there's been similar levels of warming and colling through-out history

quote:

---

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column... [links to various quotations]
...But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scienti press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try... [has a link]

---

[ 14 April 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

is it volcanos/calderas under the ocean causing el nino?...the sun?...outside the solar system?

i don't doubt that humans are causing a (slight?) increase in CO2 (if it matters at all).....it just seems the media and gov concentration on CO2 rather then other environmental phenom is skewed

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
the best science can be proven...remember when Einstien predicted the "gravitational cross" almost 75 years ago?...he was so certain of his science that he predicted a result (he knew- due to gravatational pull/displacement that photons would be scattered through space time vortex abd show a multiple effect)

i ask the thousands of climantologists on the world today to predict a phenom regarding weather...maybe then i'll take them seriously

---

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say! Climatology is an extremely complex subject, involving thousands of interacting variables. Gravitational physics, in comparison, is child's play.

actually there's only 4 forces at work in the known universe....gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force (quark influence) and weak nuclear force (radioactivity)

ya..things are getting hotter...but things were getting cooler 30 years ago (and the earth has somewhat improved environmentally since then)...

i'm sorry...but i'll call a spade a spade and voice that the current Kyoto plan by the fed's is bunk (not that the official oppostion has ofered anything meaningful)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
Surfosad---

actually there's only 4 forces at work in the known universe....gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force (quark influence) and weak nuclear force (radioactivity)

---

Uhhh... What does that have to do with the discussion? I was trying to explain to you why climatology isn't like astrophysics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
ya..things are getting hotter...but things were getting cooler 30 years ago (and the earth has somewhat improved environmentally since then)...

---

There was a lot we didn't know back then that we know now. Do you want a detailed explanation (I happen to be a geologist, and I've been to a good number of conferences on the subject)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
i'm sorry...but i'll call a spade a spade and voice that the current Kyoto plan by the fed's is bunk (not that the official oppostion has ofered anything meaningful)...

and read my previous posts....there are alternatives..solar/wind/soy/bee/wax/geothermal/...

---

Yeah, it is bunk, but because it doesn't go far enough. Probably too little too late.

[ 14 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

i think alot of people now know a lot of what they're being told is garbage...alot of people knew the earth was round and the earth followed the sun 500 years ago...for some reason vested interests decided to undermine public intellligence.. alot of theories are about to be destroyed in science and religion

i pretty sure Europa has life (we'll find out within 10 years)...but you think Venus had carbon based life in the past?...how did Venus or Mars get carbon based afterproducts?

Surfosad---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:

Surfosad---

astro, quantum, nuclear and meta physics has everything to do with everything

---

Yeah, but that's a pretty trivial (not to say boring) thing to say... And it brings nothing to the discussion. I also find it amusing that you put metaphysics in with the rest! You show clear signs of not knowing what the hell you're talking about (the carbon remark is a dead give-away), and yet here you are questioning the work of thousands of scientists... A bit arrogant, don't you think?

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

All math arose from philosophy?

---

CourtneyGQuinn

quote:

---

30 years ago the "expert" scientists were talking about global cooling....

---

quote:

---

the cyclical nature of the earth/solar system is just beginning to be known...ice core samples have shown that there's been similar levels of warming and colling through-out history

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

quote:

---

personally (not proven) i think el nino is not influenced by earth phenom....CO2 traps infra-red (heat) photons within earths atmosphere...if CO2 was the cause...the warming effect -(you would think)- would be more uniform in nature and not just occuring along the equator......the equator happens to have the lowest atmospheric density so a phenom occuring outside the earth would be amplified along the equator

---

quote:

---

ya..things are getting hotter...but things were getting cooler 30 years ago (and the earth has somewhat improved environmentally since then)...

i'm sorry...but i'll call a spade a spade and voice that the current Kyoto plan by the fed's is bunk (not that the official oppostion has ofered anything meaningful)...

---

You are not a scientist, but you are willing to dismiss the professionals.

quote:

---

i think alot of people now know a lot of what they're being told is garbage...alot of people knew the earth was round and the earth followed the sun 500 years ago...for some reason vested interests decided to undermine public intellligence.. alot of theories are about to be destroyed in science and religion

---

quote:

---

i pretty sure Europa has life (we'll find out within 10 years)...but you think Venus had carbon based life in the past?...how did Venus or Mars get carbon based afterproducts?

---

But what about Earth! Both Mars and Venus are different than Earth, because Earth CONTAINS LIFE>>>>> and more importantly Earth contains human life. The Earth's volcanic activity and emergence of life has, it seems, led to a balance between CO2 production (volcanoes; fauna) and CO2 consumption (flora), because, a la Venus, lots of volcanoes without life = Venus. Therefore, it is logical to conclude, based on our limited data, that the Earth would have become like Venus without life.

Sounds kinda dry. Though I like your argument about cool conditions required for earth’s lifeforms as oppose to the heat of Venus. But to say that Venus is lifeless? Then it’s dead? You measure life in earthly forms, but Venus isn’t Earth.

“Venus, characterised by Pythagoras as the sol alter, a second Sun, on account of her magnificent radiance – equalled by none other – was the first to draw the attention of ancient Theogonists. Before it began to be called Venus, it was known in pre-Hesiodic theogony as Eosphoros (or Phosphoros) and Hesperos, the children of the dawn and twilight. In Hesiod, moreover, the planet is decomposed into two divine beings, two brothers – Eosphoros (the Lucifer of the Latins) the morning, and Hesperos, the evening star. The planet has become with the Latins, Venus, or Aphrodite-Anadyomene, the foam-born Goddess, the "Divine Mother," and one with the Phœnician Astarte, or the Jewish Astaroth. They were all called "The Morning Star," and the Virgins of the Sea, or Mar (whence Mary), the great Deep, titles now given by the Roman Church to their Virgin Mary”

Why you think Venus is generally associated with Love? Because it’s lifeless? To state that is the same as to say that human consciousness was and is now full of crap (pardon the term).
Same in regards to Mars and other planets.

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:
blueskyboris-

Sounds kinda dry. Though I like your argument about cool conditions required for earth’s lifeforms as oppose to the heat of Venus. But to say that Venus is lifeless? Then it’s dead? You measure life in earthly forms, but Venus isn’t Earth.

“Venus, characterised by Pythagoras as the sol alter, a second Sun, on account of her magnificent radiance – equalled by none other – was the first to draw the attention of ancient Theogonists. Before it began to be called Venus, it was known in pre-Hesiodic theogony as Eosphoros (or Phosphoros) and Hesperos, the children of the dawn and twilight. In Hesiod, moreover, the planet is decomposed into two divine beings, two brothers – Eosphoros (the Lucifer of the Latins) the morning, and Hesperos, the evening star. The planet has become with the Latins, Venus, or Aphrodite-Anadyomene, the foam-born Goddess, the "Divine Mother," and one with the Phœnician Astarte, or the Jewish Astaroth. They were all called "The Morning Star," and the Virgins of the Sea, or Mar (whence Mary), the great Deep, titles now given by the Roman Church to their Virgin Mary”

Why you think Venus is generally associated with Love? Because it’s lifeless? To state that is the same as to say that human consciousness was and is now full of crap (pardon the term).
Same in regards to Mars and other planets.

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

---

N'importe quoi!

Do you have any idea of what you're talking about? Our ancestor had no idea what Venus really was! They just saw a very brilliant, quite beautiful, object in the sky (the most brilliant after the moon and the sun) so they decided it would be appropriate to name it after one of their gods. It was only in the 1950s that astronomers realised how hot Venus actually is (it emits radiation like an oven heated to 450 degrees celsius, and they detected this radiation). The fact that Venus is named Venus is an accident of history that has nothing to do with the planet itself. The planet Venus was around way before there were any humans to name it. It's idiotic to believe that the planet owes any of its characteristics to the name that a bunch of newcomers decided to bestow on it. Venus was formed 4.5 billion years ago! Modern humans have been around for a mere 300 000 years!

Here's some of the fun things you can find on the surface of Venus: corrosive sulfuric acid clouds that eat away at any spacecraft that passes through its carbon dioxide atmosphere. Extremely high temperatures (450 degrees Celsius, or 900 degrees Fahrenheit). The average atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is a crushing 2/3 of a ton per square inch. For comparison, the average atmospheric pressure on Earth (calculated at sea level) is equal to 14.7 pounds per square inch. There's no liquid water. The surface is so hot that rocks slowly creep like very viscous melted plastic. What we now know of the surface of Venus owns bupkiss to mystical mumbo-jumbo.

I think that if there's life on Venus (very doubtful), it won't certainly be life as we know it.

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

Talking philosophy, like talking science, requires some consistency, some notion of what would constitute evidence, some fairly clear notion of how truths relate to one another and what constitutes an argument. Some consistent idea of when saying a, b, c therefore X is reasonable and when it is not.

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Ohh boy.
New Agey types make my head hurt. And these people think they're capable of talking philosophy?

Talking philosophy, like talking science, requires some consistency, some notion of what would constitute evidence, some fairly clear notion of how truths relate to one another and what constitutes an argument. Some consistent idea of when saying a, b, c therefore X is reasonable and when it is not.

... Things aren't true because they feel right to you. Things are not related causally, or directly parallel cases, because they have some association in imagery. That an idea is creative does not make it real.

---

Sorry “old age” dude didn’t mean to cause you unnecessary ‘suffering’.
Wow, it seems you know your philosophy, what can I say…ahm…you don’t know a hack about philosophy if you are talking this way. You perhaps confusing it with bad (read dogmatic, limited) science or religion or logic which, it seems, you are a big fan of. In a mean time though I’d rather proceed with the New Age for it is indeed NEW because it unites all approaches (science, philosophy, religion) in a flair of new, progressive thinking, sensetivity and intuition. There could be no “old age” dogma in such an approach.

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:

Sorry “old age” dude didn’t mean to cause you unnecessary ‘suffering’.
Wow, it seems you know your philosophy, what can I say…ahm…you don’t know a hack about philosophy if you are talking this way. You perhaps confusing it with bad (read dogmatic, limited) science or religion or logic which, it seems, you are a big fan of. In a mean time though I’d rather proceed with the New Age for it is indeed NEW because it unites all approaches (science, philosophy, religion) in a flair of new, progressive thinking, sensetivity and intuition. There could be no “old age” dogma in such an approach.

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

---

It unites all approaches in big unseemly smelly piles of bullshit, that's for sure...

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:
No wonder you cannot see things, and can hardly think. You believe (worse then religious fanatics) that human evolution started 50 years ago and that all antiquity (and human beings as such) was dumb and useless, then I have nothing to talk to you about. And yes if a "big unseemly smelly piles of bullshit" is your favourite dish then please eat it alone, bon apetit. Or, even better, join the society of numb creatures and eat it there.

---

That's a pretty creative interpretation of what I've written so far!

Pray tell, where have I said that "human evolution" started 50 years ago and that all antiquity was dumb?

You know, you're rather ignorant. There's nothing wrong with that, we're all ignorant about many things. The trouble is, you don't know you're ignorant, and as a consequence you're actually convinced that you know quite a lot about subjects that are beyond you. The other problem you have is that you tend to confuse the way how you wish things would be with the way how things are.

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: blueskyboris ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blueskyboris:
If anyone else cares to answer the question asked in the OP, please feel free to do so. I am interested in exploring other modern examples of powerful people who have no idea what they are talking about, but still attempt to pass themselves off as wise and knowledgeable.

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: blueskyboris ]

---

You should read this book. Highly recommended.

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:
Surferosad-
Thank you padre for such a meaningful insight. Amen.

And, blueskyboris. Are you saying that Socrates was a powerful person who had no idea what he was talking about, but still attempted to pass himself off as wise and knowledgeable?

---

quote:

---

And, blueskyboris. Are you saying that Socrates was a powerful person who had no idea what he was talking about, but still attempted to pass himself off as wise and knowledgeable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:
Math, at least in its narrative form, is philosophy

That's a start I think. It underlies everything doesn't it? I liked the show Numb3rs because of the stories and the way this is portrayed mathematically. Is this a good portrayal you think?

---

Nothing to add here then about Pythagorean ideas eh What were the idealizations of the time?

Pythagoras discovered this by looking and listening. Today that information is more precisely encoded into mathematics,

At the time they were dealing with the confrontation that is applied to todays issues about discrete or continuous recognitions of reality.

Heros are aspired to and such idealizations are hope to change who they want to emulate. If they did not become him, then it was not Socrates fault, but the "lack of principle," that they had not understood that became Socrates.

Putting Socrates on a alter, one could not have underestimated the responsibility, but he'd have to remind them, that you are not Socrates, and if you fail, it is becuase you failed. Take ownership he might have said?

Conditioned reflexes(remember Pavlov) help us to understand that you should never reward bad behavior with coddling. You give a stern rebuff, so that they won't do that again.

Smarten up Venus man

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

"I am interested in exploring other modern examples of powerful people who have no idea what they are talking about, but still attempt to pass themselves off as wise and knowledgeable."

---Howard Dean's rise might be seen Socrates-like....he (and Trippi) got a group of mostly young people to question the traditional way of debating politics...the fact that Dean wasn't the person to lead the movement could be seen by his not recognizing the potential of the very platform he was gaining from...it's too bad he used the Net mostly for donations and not for discussions

"Professional climatologists = Catholic Church"

never read or heard of that author...just searched his background....interesting!...the Mars ideas seem interesting...i've been thinking about a Venus Protective Plate Project....an artificial, solar panel, space elevator attached moon around Venus to bring temp down

Robinson's book called "Icehenge" sounds like a cool idea....i've also been thinking about the potential of an ice infused, liquid nitrogen latticed structure for land or sea

[ 19 April 2005: Message edited by: CourtneyGQuinn ]