From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 09:50:05 GMT
Hi Squonk
Indeed you have not been rude to me, I was thinking of your comments to
Matt.
I think the area of elenchus/irony/dialectic is one where we agree on the
substance. We could get involved in some detailed exegesis but I see no
point. Let's say that Socrates used elenchus and Plato developed dialectic
from it, would you agree?
However, you say that "Socrates was not so much interested in definitions of
ethical terms as showing no one has them." That is an interpretation - a
perfectly valid one, lots of people agree with you - but it's not one that I
share, for reasons that I've gone into before.
Sq: For Socrates, life is preparation for death. That's a bit Upanishadic
isn't it?
All that I know about the Upanishads is what I have gleaned from Pirsig. I
have made no separate study of them.
Would you say that Plato had a positive view of the emotions?
Sam
"I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my
side, if you understand me... And there are some things, of course, whose
side I'm altogether not on; I am against them altogether." -- Treebeard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 09:48:50 GMT