3.1 As Cytowic notes, Plato and Socrates viewed emotion and reason as in a kind of struggle, one in which it was vitally important for reason to win out. Aristotle took a more moderate view, that both emotion and reason are integral parts of a complex human soul--a theory proposed by Aristotle in explicit opposition to Platonism (De Anima 414a 19ff). Cytowic appears to endorse the Platonic line, with the notable difference that he would apparently rather have emotion win out.
I am trying to "create a image" that will use the one above. It is important that the select quoted comment below is understood. This can't be done without some reference.
So while the exercise may be going on "inside" things are happening on the outside. Scientists have never been completely honest with themselves, while some may concern themselves with whose name said what?
I use Plato as a namesake obviously, because of what I saw of some of our influential minds speaking, all the while making inferences to Plato. When ever you read something that resonates with you, it is of value because it correlates to something that you already know. This is what I tried to get across in the previous post, about what is "self evident." Little do some people recognize that while I may have inferred the point of some philosophical foundations, it is not without recognizing that the "qualitative phrases" have to be reduced as well to a logic. To reason.
How do you do that? Well I'll tell you what I found and then you can think whether I understood reason in it's proper format. Whether I understood the "shadows of Plato" to mean something other then what could have been interpreted as being wrong. What is that analogy of the Cave really mean?
Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.
Yes I did not enter the halls of higher learning in the traditional ways. You can converse for many years, does not mean you become devoid of the lessons that spoken amongst the commentors. How is it you can think that while listening to scientists you cannot uncover the the processes they use? If I had given thirty years to study, what exactly had I studied? I am a doctor of nothing.:)
This is a torus (like a doughnut) on which several circles are located. Unlike on a Euclidean plane, on this surface it is impossible to determine which circle is inside of which, since if you go from the black circle to the blue, to the red, and to the grey, you can continuously come back to the initial black, and likewise if you go from the black to the grey, to the red, and to the blue, you can also come back to the black.
My quote at Backreaction on this and that, reveals not only part of the understanding gained through this "infinite regress," but also the understanding we have with the world around us. Some would be better served to see the image of the Klein bottle, but I wanted to show what is going on in a "abstract way" to what is happening inside of us, and at the same time, what is happening outside.
I had used the brain and head as a place of our conscious awareness within context of our environment, our bodies. The topological explanations of the numbers above, and used them in the next paragraph. There will be confusion with the colour lines, please disregard that.
While I talked of the emotive and mental realities. I included the spiritual development in the end. The way this interaction takes place, is sometimes just as the mental function(yellow). Other times, it is the emotive realization of the experience. It is coloured by our emotion(red).
While we interact with our environment, there is this turning inside out, continuously. Sometimes we may say that "1" is the emotive realization, while the number 2 is seen as a mental extension of the situation. While the areas overlap each other, an outward progression may mean that the spiritual progress is numbered 4, while the interaction of the emotive, mental and spiritual progression may be number 3. Ultimately the spiritual progression is 4 (Violet). All these colours can mix and are significant in themself. They reveal something about our very constitution.
While some may wonder how could any conceptualization ever integrate the "Synesthesia views" of the world when it sees itself presented with such a comparison? The journey of course leads to the "Colour of Gravity." Discard your body, and one will wonder about the "clear light." What it means, in the "perceptive state of existence." If one is prepared, then one shall not have "to much time on their hands" getting lost in the fog.
Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.
Rafael has Plato pointing up and Aristotle gesturing down to indicate the difference in their metaphysics. For Plato, true existence is in the World of Forms, in relation to which this world (of Becoming) is a kind of shadow or image of the higher reality. Aristotle, on the other hand, regards individual objects in this world as "primary substance" and dismisses Plato's Forms -- except for God as a pure actuality, without matter.
However, when it comes to ethics and politics, the gestures should be reversed. Plato, like Socrates, believed that to do the good without error, one must know what the good is. Thus, we get the dramatic moment in the Republic where Plato says that philosophers, who have escaped from the Cave and come to understand the higher reality, must be forced to return to this world and rule, so that their wisdom can benefit the state. Aristotle, on the other hand, says that the "good" is simply the goal of various particular activities, without one meaning in Plato's sense. The particular activities of most human affairs involve phronésis, "practical wisdom." This is not sophía, true wisdom, for Aristotle, which involves the theoretical knowledge of the highest things, i.e. the gods, the heavens, and God.
Thus, for philosophy, Aristotle should point up and would represent a contemplative attitude that was certainly more congenial to religious practices in the Middle Ages. By the same token, Aristotle's contribution to what we now think of as science was hampered by his lack of interest in mathematics. Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.
Therefore, caution is in order when comparing the meaning of the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle with its significance for their attitudes towards ethics, politics, and science. Indeed, if the opposite of wisdom is, not ignorance, but folly, then Socrates and Plato certainly started off with the better insight.
It is good that you go to the top of the page of the linked quotes of Kelley L. Ross. You must know that I developed this site without really understanding the extent Mr. Ross had taken this issue. There is much that is familiar, and with him, an opposing view too.
Intuitively Balanced: Induction and Deduction