It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Still no matter how or what tool you choose to utilize...the technology is great but if you are lousy in skills.....well the skills still need to be maintained, refined, even nutured.
THank you for your educational background..in your courses you are taking.
In some arenas of this field...education ...people have chosen to sacrafice thier children for ease and relaxation. For a lifestyle. For this fingerprint I vote no confidence in modern education. [snip] Not real survival training and thinking.
However the learning in our lives actually never ends...there comes a time for us when school is out. YOu must put it into practice. With this actual utilization comes confidence and the intimate knowlege that the instincts/training are correct. The training/schooling is and was correct. WHy..??? Because school is out and you are now in the field actually putting what works into practice...not theoretical..but actual.
Class room education and actual field experience are often related but in practicality quite different. The basics apply but are often applied differently from the very sanitary convenient theoretical labratory conditions of classrooms.
Yes understand about your courses...this also accounts for your usage of the term.."your bubble." No problem here. I myself choose to live in much of a bubble. Hence my positing earlier that I am very antisocial with those I choose to be so. I am particular about the company I keep.
Originally posted by Anok
It's like the old proverb...
If you see your friend getting beaten up by a dozen people, you wouldn't join in cause you couldn't do anything about it.
Originally posted by Diseria
As far as the differences between the Aristotillian method and the Platonic method, I shall have to do further research. I'm familiar with Aristotle, because the Logic that I am learning is based on his teachings, as well as my understanding of Virtue Ethics. I'm aware of plato/socrates, but I haven't actually dug into much of his/their work.
However, your thoughts on the methods' connections to mysticism intrigues me. Would you elaborate?
I have been taught that the two areas of philosphy involving the scientific community stem from two sources with often two different results due to the methods. These are from a begining point of logic Aristotlian origins and Platonic origins.
What I have also been taught in methods and I found very amusing was that in the scientific community in their wilder speculations and philosophys, if you were to read some of thier material before it was cleaned up their wilder speculations or begining points would look something to the effect of.....
"A long time ago in a galaxy far far away......"
This is the mystical part...the philosophy part.
I have also been taught that there are two different types of scientist/thinkers at work here. The pure scientific types ...pure logic Mr Spock. Speculative thinkers, number cruncher types.
And then there are the practical scientist/engineer types...who look for ways to use all this speculation and turn it into workable practical every day solutions to problems.
Truth be known we need both to get things done. I am also told that they often make fun of each other..where the public cannot see it openly.
But we do need both parts. To my knowlege the sequence of events is such that some deep philosphical thinker who in actuality can hardly tie thier shoes without messing it up...comes up with an idea and then often years and years later when enough hardware and techniques have been mastered by the practical scientists this early philosopher/scientist's ideas can be brought to frutition.
This can reach mystical almost Holy proportions when a breakthrough is made on earlier work.
I do find it intresting history to read the sequence of events of inventions and patterns of thought which have been turned into products which today make our lives easier and more comfortable. Most peoples have no reason at all to seek this information or pattern of thinking but I find it fascinating.
If I may ask (and maybe you've answered this and I am simply failing to remember), what is it that you do? ...especially that required 2 years of schooling?
I probably did not exactly state this correctly ....2 years of schooling and training.
I am a machinist with a special qualification as a nuclear fueler.
Gotta go get ready..long shift tonight.
"the meek shall inherit the earth" this translates to "the women shall inherit the earth"
Division of Philosophy
The different parts of philosophy are not distinguished by Plato with the same formal precision found in Aristotelean, and post-Aristotelean systems. We may, however, for convenience, distinguish:
* Dialectic, the science of the Idea in itself;
* Physics, the knowledge of the Idea as incorporated or incarnated in the world of phenomena, and
* Ethics and Theory of the State, or the science of the Idea embodied in human conduct and human society.
Source (and helpful guide to logic, although somewhat confusing)
As Jonathan Lear has put it, "Aristotle shares with modern logicians a fundamental interest in metatheory": his primary goal is not to offer a practical guide to argumentation but to study the properties of inferential systems themselves.
First, Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes of things and a thing's ultimate extinction. Forms are not causes of movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation.
Second, forms are equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of particular things. For, to have knowledge of a particular object, it must be knowledge of the substance which is in that things. However, the forms place knowledge outside of particular things.
Further, to suppose that we know particular things better by adding on their general conceptions of their forms, is about as absurd as to imagine that we can count numbers better by multiplying them.
Finally, if forms were needed to explain our knowledge of particular objects, then forms must be used to explain our knowledge of objects of art; however, Platonists do not recognize such forms.
The third ground of attack is that the forms simply cannot explain the existence of particular objects. Plato contends that forms do not exist in the particular objects which partake in the forms. However, that substance of a particular thing cannot be separated from the thing itself.
Further, aside from the jargon of "participation," Plato does not explain the relation between forms and particular things. In reality, it is merely metaphorical to describe the forms as patterns of things; for, what is a genus to one object is a species to a higher class, the same idea will have to be both a form and a particular thing at the same time.
Finally, on Plato's account of the forms, we must imagine an intermediate link between the form and the particular object, and so on ad infinitum: there must always be a "third man" between the individual man and the form of man.
Originally posted by darkelf
No idea why I was banned, but thanks to Skeptic Overlord, I've been reinstated. Thanks for all the kind words. I really appreciate the sentiments. It's kind of like looking down at your own funeral.
In sit x, you will be at war. It will be up to you to determine who the enemy is. In warfare, it is not considered pre-emptive to kill the enemy before he is aware of your presence, it is considered self-defence.
(taken from 'Double-Effect', linked in previous post) (emphasis mine)
However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”
To kill a person whom you know to be plotting to kill you would be impermissible because it would be a case of intentional killing; however, to strike in self-defense against an aggressor is permissible, even if one foresees that the blow by which one defends oneself will be fatal.
Originally posted by whitewave
WELCOME BACK! Darkelf. Good to see you again and to have you sharing your sagacious insights on this thread.
It is lawful to fight someone even to the death in defense of another (say, your child, spouse, total stranger getting beat up on the street). It's a tricky legal situation.