ELEPHANT TO CHRIS:
RE MY PRESUMPTIVE COMMENT ABOUT READING PLATO CHRIS WROTE:
> what you seem to fail to understand (re your comment 'few years behind the
> times') is that as we learn more and more about the
> neurological/psychological functions of 'in here' so we need to review past
> attempts at analysis.
ELEPHANT:
We always need to reveiw past attempts at analysis. But it seems to me that
this is precisely what neuropsychology is invented to avoid doing, by
inventing something more interesting to talk about instead (changing the
subject). Because a "reveiw" can only come about when a first attempt at
forming a veiw has born fruit. You speak as if it where all agreed about
what it was Plato had to say, and that we only have to look again at whether
he was right ("reveiw"). In fact, almost everyone with a few honourable
exceptions agrees that he is wholly wrong, but then disagree vehemently
about what it was that he was wrong about, thus indicating that they haven't
yet reached any definite understanding of what they are so keen to dismiss.
A "Reveiw" isn't the half of what we need. What we need is to stick with
the first attempt at a 'veiw' until it comes up with something we can agree
that Plato actually meant. Perhaps you'd care to say what your "veiw" on
Plato is, before we go on to the advertised "*re*veiw"?
Pzeph
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST