Wasn't Plato the one who thought only intelligent people were allowed to breed, except for a few random entries in the gene pool from a few thickies who won in the lottery. Probably that idea wasn't advertised so much, because it is going down the path of Nazism.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
Every philosopher has some strange ideas. To take any train of thought to it's logical conclusion is a one-way ticket to coo-coo ville. All of them had funky or extreme ideas of one kind or another. But the foundations of their thought were often unique and pushed people out of their comfort zones onto new paths of critical thinking, some of which helped improve the world.
May 5, 2015
0
#1084
I'd be more comfortable with saying that every philosopher is subject to misinterpretation from their readers
May 5, 2015
0
#1085
I had a Classicist tell me that many philosophers think Plato wasn't serious - he was posing the whole thing as a crazy hypothetical/joke.....but it certainly has been taken seriously over the centuries. But - yes - I agree with your sentiment TwoMove (and I usually cringe when something is compared to Nazism, but, in the case of the 'gold, silver, and bronze' breeding system, the comparison is pretty apt).
And Elubas, it's been a few years since I read Republic, but, as I recall, Plato's argument is that music inspires emotions, so he wants to control the emotions that are inspired - songs that encourage the military for example (the 'marshall tone' was the translation I read). Still, at the end of the day, it's like saying "We want the Beatles and no Metallica because Metallica doesn't inspire love" - and, as much as Metallica may be immature teenage boy drivel sung by middle aged men (you know it's true), banning things makes unnecessary heroes out of the banned. Also, the logistics of policing every piece of music that is performed would be as ludicrous in ancient Greece as it would be in the age of the internet.
Well then, better explanations are in order. For example, I'm not even sure anyone of his own time could understand half of what Kant was saying. His writing style was denser than the center of a black hole. The categorical imperative was also a bit extreme. Perhaps he meant it as a fashion designer means their haute couture as a model for more street wearable clothes. In any event,he was a real pissant. ;)
May 5, 2015
0
#1087
If you know your duty then you will do it. That seems to be the categorical imperative in one sentence. Not bad. A little more hopeful than experiential.
trysts wrote:
If you know your duty then you will do it. That seems to be the categorical imperative in one sentence. Not bad. A little more hopeful than experiential.
Sounds stoic. :) I'm all about the Stoics. A lot of people hate value ethics but it works for me. Yes, I realize that it can be taken to extremes too, but I just take what I like from it and use it as I wish. I'm a cafeteria philosophizer.
May 5, 2015
0
#1089
I agree. Love the stoics. And I love the phrase, "cafeteria philosophizer". The more choices the better;)
May 5, 2015
0
#1090
I actually kind of like Kant......I certainly did not at first - stodgy, dense, overly harsh stuff that didn't seem to leave a lot of room for nuance. But Kant figured out how to arrange a system of morality without G-D....which is nothing short of miraculous for most 18th century thinkers. Kant also gave us dispensation to say "It's OK to draw a line and say that X is actually just WRONG". If it were left up to JS Mill and Bentham (who I truly love and admire, by the way), we'd spend all day with adding machines trying to figure out whether we're doing 18 points of good and 17 points of bad (therefore - GOOD). From a philosophical standpoint, Kant's imperative is limiting and annoying, but, from the standpoint of practical ethics in cases such as treatment of criminals (something my darling Foucault pointed out very famously), Kant allows us to say 'majority be damned - it's not OK to treat these people like crap.'
Sophie: Men brains not laundry brains
Nice Sophie.
AlisonHart wrote:
I actually kind of like Kant......I certainly did not at first - stodgy, dense, overly harsh stuff that didn't seem to leave a lot of room for nuance. But Kant figured out how to arrange a system of morality without G-D....which is nothing short of miraculous for most 18th century thinkers. Kant also gave us dispensation to say "It's OK to draw a line and say that X is actually just WRONG". If it were left up to JS Mill and Bentham (who I truly love and admire, by the way), we'd spend all day with adding machines trying to figure out whether we're doing 18 points of good and 17 points of bad (therefore - GOOD). From a philosophical standpoint, Kant's imperative is limiting and annoying, but, from the standpoint of practical ethics in cases such as treatment of criminals (something my darling Foucault pointed out very famously), Kant allows us to say 'majority be damned - it's not OK to treat these people like crap.'
I agree. I'm still traumatized by the semester of Kantian ethics I took in my long-ago college days. As I was saying earlier, the gist is sound and in my opinion, as your own, was critically needed at the time. I mentioned Peter Singer earlier, there at Princrton, who back in the day was all the big rage for his pragmatism and animal rights train of thought, which was ok until he got to the it's all right to perform non-voluntary infanticide on severely disabled infants. Which..sorry, I just have a visceral reaction to that as a mom of two disabled children. He likes to get on this quality of life and contributing to society kick, which I hate, goes all yeah, this is for the greater good but then goes into, well...I, Peter Singer wouldn't want my health care premiums going up because of this kind of thing...greater good or your own pocket. Defacate or get off the pot. One or the other. Sorry, he just defended that position recently and it made me get all stabby.
May 5, 2015
0
#1094
That's exactly the kind of mess that Kant helps you steer around - because it's perfectly OK to pose that kind of thing in a paper or in a lecture as a hypothetical.....but then it comes to "OK, well, can I actually do this? Who makes the decision that I can?" At the risk of hitting on abortion (too late) it's pretty easy to draw those distinctions because the pregnancy exists in one body and that body's owner can be deferred to automatically (I don't want to get sucked into an abortion debate, so I'm leaving it there and not engaging further), but once the child is out there in the world, it becomes a communal interest, and there's no clear answer as to who should have the right to say X or Y about quality of life and all the rest - it's too complicated.
Incidentally, have you read Jean Baudrillard? That guy will really take you into the hall of mirrors if you let him!
I have no idea what you ladies are talking about. And I don't drink but the song is amusing 
SheridanJupp wrote:
I have no idea what you ladies are talking about. And I don't drink but the song is amusing
Oh, don't mind us. Womenz brains ain't philosophy brainz either.... LOL
Oh.
May 5, 2015
0
#1099
I rather like how this thread has basically just degenerated into the girls plus Elubas and Sheridan kitty talking philosophy - if we could just beam glasses of whiskey back and forth, it would be pretty perfect :)
AlisonHart wrote:
That's exactly the kind of mess that Kant helps you steer around - because it's perfectly OK to pose that kind of thing in a paper or in a lecture as a hypothetical.....but then it comes to "OK, well, can I actually do this? Who makes the decision that I can?" At the risk of hitting on abortion (too late) it's pretty easy to draw those distinctions because the pregnancy exists in one body and that body's owner can be deferred to automatically (I don't want to get sucked into an abortion debate, so I'm leaving it there and not engaging further), but once the child is out there in the world, it becomes a communal interest, and there's no clear answer as to who should have the right to say X or Y about quality of life and all the rest - it's too complicated.
Incidentally, have you read Jean Baudrillard? That guy will really take you into the hall of mirrors if you let him!
I have not read him, but I'll have to get on it. Yeah, I know the abortion debate is there somewhere, but as you said, that baby is an autonomous being and there is no debate at that point. He also talks about non-voluntary infanticide not just for infants, who for example, are born only with a brain stem and will die anyway, but also based on the probability of the child living to become a contributing member of society with a capacity for quality of life, whatever that means...as you have said. He was actually debating a woman who would have been someone he would have denied healthcare services to as an infant, based on the probability of her living.
Does the "women are less aggressive than men" thing apply to red heads? You see, I've never really had a problem with that. LOL