President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The worst part of that comparison is that just by being able to write and compose, Plato was in a different league relative to his contemporaries than rural magas who believe dumb things. It would be like comparing Einstein's later failed differential geometry based gravitational/electromagnetic theories of everything with some maga that thought Trump was going to bring prices down.
What I know of Plato is mostly through his writings, where it appeared he believed in the pantheon of gods and also believed in the Form of the Good, which is sort of similar to an idea of the perfect being which would be popularized by Agustine.
But it’s at least debatable and there are better examples.
It's difficult to know exactly what Plato thought because he didn't write in his own voice. To the extent we take the views of Socrates as expressed in Platonic dialogues as Plato's own views, it's still tricky stuff. When talking to others, Socrates often seems to accept the existence of the gods as a premise, but then his questioning often seems to be driving toward a conclusion that is inconsistent with the gods as they were broadly perceived at the the the time, and arguably inconsistent with the existence of gods at all.
Yeah even if we discard Plato’s polytheism, what about Newton’s belief in alchemy and other esoterica? It’s not hard to find smart people with crazy or weird beliefs.
Agreed, although in many cases those people wouldn't have held those beliefs if they had had access to modern scientific knowledge.
Put another way, Newton believing in alchemy wasn't nearly as irrational as it would be for me to believe in alchemy.
Plato was one of the first dude bros to suggest state-arranged sex contracts and communal ownership of women and children within certain classes, so I’m gonna go with a no on Plato.
And same for his little misogynist student, Aristotle. Apparently men have had the same tired shitty ideas for millennia. Hope they had fun circle jerking each other in their fora.
Yeah even if we discard Plato’s polytheism, what about Newton’s belief in alchemy and other esoterica? It’s not hard to find smart people with crazy or weird beliefs.
Wait now …
There is a freakn distinction between believing in stuff like god because u can’t explain certain thing in life , that’s fine .
That isn a reason to call someone stupid .
But would newton disregard science that explain stuff, discarding them and says it was god intervention instead ?
Certainly not …
it’s awfully hard to take historical brillant people and projecting them in present time and extrapolate things about them and their belief anyway .
But in my mind both of them wouldn’t discarded proven facts and stick to esoteric nonsense beliefs .
Agreed, although in many cases those people wouldn't have held those beliefs if they had had access to modern scientific knowledge.
Put another way, Newton believing in alchemy wasn't nearly as irrational as it would be for me to believe in alchemy.
+1
How did this discussion even get started? In what world are we using ancient philosophers and their beliefs as a benchmark for intelligence. Are you kidding me?
Ah yes, the Great Minds™ of western philosophy, the titans of thoughts, the fathers of reason, the sacred ****ing cows of intro to philosophy 101 curricula everywhere. AND the self-appointed world-class authorities on why women should sit down, be quiet, and preferably not have opinions unless supervised by a man. Can’t imagine why you guys would worship these clowns and their male-pattern wisdom specials, men who described women as reincarnations of cowardly men, morally and intellectually inferior, biologically incomplete. SO smart! The smartest probably!
Amazing how the Socratic Method just never got around to “Hm… could half the population also be rational human beings?” It’s a real mystery! Obviously everyone here loves the “I ask questions because I already know the answer” guy. He’d fit right in. Apparently the man who questioned everything from truth, justice, virtue, all the way down to ****ing shoelaces somehow forgot to question the little societal habit of treating women like decorative household equipment. The dude dissected animals, cataloged plants, analyzed politics and still concluded, with the full weight of his genius that women are basically defective men. Though what can you really expect from a man who believed heavier objects fall faster because they feel like it, and other stunning intellectual achievements like thinking shadows in a cave are metaphors and that everything is made of “substances” with “accidents.”
These losers shaped the foundation of western thought for centuries and have all the feminist insight of a wet ****ing limestone, these *******s who were totally unbothered by empirical evidence when it came to their questions and experiments regarding women. All hail the pioneers of “sounds right, probably true” mansplaining, the original dudes on podcasts asking “can women be logical?”
They can all get ****ed imo.
Imagine being so “enlightened” that you discover geometry, ethics, rhetoric, AND the soul, but the concept of treating women like equal human beings makes your big brain short circuit like a roomba falling down the stairs. They’re all the same.
And no I’m not mad about it, but I AM still extremely butthurt at having to rewrite a philosophy paper in college because the professor hated my conclusions.
How did this discussion even get started? In what world are we using ancient philosophers and their beliefs as a benchmark for intelligence. Are you kidding me?
That Plato was smart and believed dumb things so people who thought tariffs and Trumponomics would lower prices might not necessarily be dumb.
Plato was one of the first dude bros to suggest state-arranged sex contracts and communal ownership of women and children within certain classes, so I’m gonna go with a no on Plato.
And same for his little misogynist student, Aristotle. Apparently men have had the same tired shitty ideas for millennia. Hope they had fun circle jerking each other in their fora.
Aristotle invented the syllogism. That more than makes up for his other views imo.
How did this discussion even get started? In what world are we using ancient philosophers and their beliefs as a benchmark for intelligence. Are you kidding me?Ah yes, the Great Minds™ of western philosophy, the titans of thoughts, the fathers of reason, the sacred ****ing cows of intro to philosophy 101 curricula everywhere. AND the self-appointed world-class authorities on wh
Please stop beating-around-the-bush, Jenn. Please tell us what you really think of these men.
Agreed, although in many cases those people wouldn't have held those beliefs if they had had access to modern scientific knowledge.
Put another way, Newton believing in alchemy wasn't nearly as irrational as it would be for me to believe in alchemy.
What’s the comparison between voting for Trump in 2024 and believing in Alchemy during Newton’s time period?
That Plato was smart and believed dumb things so people who thought tariffs and Trumponomics would lower prices might not necessarily be dumb.
Actually the point was much more circumspect, it’s about whether being a smart person means you can’t do things that are irrational, or can’t hold beliefs that are irrational.
You can fill in the blanks to try to strawman but I mean it’s kind of silly to do that because you’ll just be preaching to the choir.
Please stop beating-around-the-bush, Jenn. Please tell us what you really think of these men.
Well forgive me if I hold a bit of contempt for the “intellectuals” who inspired the “Actually, sweetie, logic is our thing” podcast bros of the modern age.
Those paragons of higher thought would barely differentiate themselves from MAGA conservatives in terms of their views of women. But sure, they’re a pantheon of genius, a veritable symposium of brilliance that still somehow managed to produce takes about women so ****ing regressive they’d embarrass a clay tablet.
Well forgive me if I hold a bit of contempt for the “intellectuals” who inspired the “Actually, sweetie, logic is our thing” podcast bros of the modern age. Those paragons of higher thought would barely differentiate themselves from MAGA conservatives in terms of their views of women. But sure, they’re a pantheon of genius, a veritable symposium of brilliance that still someho
Okay, I forgive you.
What’s the comparison between voting for Trump in 2024 and believing in Alchemy during Newton’s time period?
It's not at all self-evident that alchemy is impossible, and it is in fact not impossible. Nuclear fission is basically alchemy, in the sense of being a process that transmutes one element into another.
IIRC it is also actually possible to transmute lead into gold using modern technology, it just costs more than the gold is worth.
If an idea appears crazy or irrational based on the knowledge at the time, it does not mean that believing it to be true means you are not smart. However it does mean you are not smart if you believe that the evidence for the idea indicates the idea is better than 50% to be true when rational analysis points otherwise. You cannot be smart unless you admit this about your belief. If you think that rational analysis makes you the favorite when the knowledge of the time obvious disagrees, it can still be that you are clever or talented or inventive. But not smart.
(There are rare exceptions like maybe Dick Fosbury.)
.)
If an idea appears crazy or irrational based on the knowledge at the time, it does not mean that believing it to be true means you are not smart. However it does mean you are not smart if you believe that the evidence for the idea indicates the idea is better than 50% to be true when rational analysis points otherwise. You cannot be smart unless you admit this about your belief
How can a smart, rational person simultaneously believe "x is true" and "rational analysis makes x worse than 50% to be true"? Can you give a concrete example of a belief that would make sense in this context?
How can a smart, rational person simultaneously believe "x is true" and "rational analysis makes x worse than 50% to be true"? Can you give a concrete example of a belief that would make sense in this context?
That wafer thingy.
