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
John Nash was widely known to be schizophrenic and admitted as much. Fischer probably was not schizophrenic, and although he likely met the criteria for some sort of mental illness, it isn't obvious that his profound antisemitism was the product of mental illness. He was antisemitic long before he dropped off the competitive chess circuit.
John Nash was widely known to be schizophrenic and admitted as much. Fischer probably was not schizophrenic, and although he likely met the criteria for some sort of mental illness, it isn't obvious that his profound antisemitism was the product of mental illness. He was antisemitic long before he dropped off the competitive chess circuit.
Wasn't Fischer basically Playbig with a decent chess game? If there is anything this forum has proved, it's that you don't need to be particularly smart to be good at chess.
Fischer certainly believed a lot of crazy things. His chess game was a little better than decent. I think that he would have beaten you and lagtight most of the time.
I don't know where you got the idea that everyone here agreed with this interpretation. Searching for hidden meanings in ancient philosophy that are informed by modern notions of psychology and psychiatry seems dubious to me.
I got it from you.
The rest is a bit silly I'm afraid.
Fischer certainly believed a lot of crazy things. His chess game was a little better than decent. I think that he would have beaten you and lagtight most of the time.
I was obviously being humorous calling it that.
I went backed and looked, and I understand the source of the confusion now.
Your original post on this topic was so garbled that the only thing I took from it was that you didn't think The Republic was just about a city. That was the notion with which I was agreeing.
Chez, are you always 10 pints deep when you post as though you were 10 pints deep, or is that just your regular/sober writing style?
I don't know where you got the idea that everyone here agreed with this interpretation. Searching for hidden meanings in ancient philosophy that are informed by modern notions of psychology and psychiatry seems dubious to me.
To give a more serious response.
I'm very well aware that people generally don't agree with my interpretation. I was responding to your sarcasm.
Far more important is the second bit. Sadly after 25 years or since last reading it I have to crib.
In ethics, the Republic’s main practical lesson is that one should, if one can, pursue wisdom and that if one cannot, one should follow the wisest guides one can find. This lesson is familiar from Plato’s Socratic dialogues: the philosophical life is best, and if one lacks knowledge, one should prefer to learn from an expert. But the Republic characterizes philosophy differently. First, it goes much further than the Socratic dialogues in respecting the power of passions and desires. Wisdom still requires being able to survive Socratic examination (534b–c), but it also explicitly requires careful and extensive habituation of spirited and appetitive attitudes (485a–486b, 519a8–b1), sublimation of psychological energy from spirited and appetitive desires to philosophical desire (cf. 485d), and continued attention to and maintenance of the desires that arise from the non-calculating parts of one’s soul
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato...
Again I'm well aware that most people focus on the city as the point far more than I do.
To give a more serious response.I'm very well aware that people generally don't agree with my interpretation. I was responding to your sarcasm.Far more important is the second bit. Sadly after 25 years or since last reading it I have to crib.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato...Again I'm well aware that most people focus on the city
shut the **** up, chez
Another key bit (imo) from the same link
Metaethically, the Republic presupposes that there are objective facts concerning how one should live. Much of its account of these facts sounds naturalist. After all, Socrates uses the careful study of human psychology to reveal how our souls function well or ill, and he grounds the account of what a person should do in his understanding of good psychological functioning.
Maybe I wrote this next bit
Some think that Plato does not intend the Republic as a serious contribution to political thought, because its political musings are projections to clarify psychological claims crucial to the ethical theory that Plato does seriously intend (Annas 1999, Annas 2000). Others think that Plato intends political lessons strikingly different from what is suggested by the face value of Socrates’ words.
Trump attempts to offer a foreign criminal safe haven
in the US, thereby thwarting his own immigration policies.
If the escape attempt had been successful he would undoubtedly given Bolsonaro a Cabinet position.
Trump attempts to offer a foreign criminal safe haven
in the US, thereby thwarting his own immigration policies.
If the escape attempt had been successful he would undoubtedly given Bolsonaro a Cabinet position.
LOL I was gonna post what is going on usually your posting Rachel Maddow links on DSNBC till I clicked it and the source is Rachel Maddow
I went backed and looked, and I understand the source of the confusion now.
Your original post on this topic was so garbled that the only thing I took from it was that you didn't think The Republic was just about a city. That was the notion with which I was agreeing.
I thought only a verbal communication can be considered 'garbled.'
According to the all-knowing internet, written communications also can be garbled.
This philosophy derail has been lame and lowered my estimation of most of you. Both the misinterpretations and willingness to belabor the discussion have been a chore to experience.
Spoiler
I agree that The Republic is about people, and what the best way for people to live is. And it wouldn't be wrong imo to describe the city as an metaphor. I would have described the metaphor differently than you did, but whatever. We certainly aren't miles apart.
This philosophy derail has been lame and lowered my estimation of most of you. Both the misinterpretations and willingness to belabor the discussion have been a chore to experience.
Spoiler
Just passing time. Happy to return to mocking mongidig.
Another key bit (imo) from the same linkQuote:Metaethically, the Republic presupposes that there are objective facts concerning how one should live. Much of its account of these facts sounds naturalist. After all, Socrates uses the careful study of human psychology to reveal how our souls function well or ill, and he grounds the account of what a person should do in his underst
A lot of people like interpreting things... it's what we do. I suggest just reading it though. Kinda works better if you want to understand something. 😀
Plato's Republic is just one big analogy for the soul of man. It's a masterpiece in respect to the multivocal dialectic used to tackle difficult aspects of humanity. I wish more people would read it.
A lot of people like interpreting things... it's what we do. I suggest just reading it though. Kinda works better if you want to understand something. 😀
Plato's Republic is just one big analogy for the soul of man. It's a masterpiece in respect to the multivocal dialectic used to tackle difficult aspects of humanity. I wish more people would read it.
^ Similar vibes to an evangelical discussing the Bible
Careful now
