Quote from "Phaedo" by Plato

btw - an article by Doyle C. brought this to mind:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976972600#comments

I had not heard the bit about the coins before. Very interesting.

Ah, the Greeks! What would we have done without Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

Even in down to earth is proved to be true: Money can be inflated, houses can break down, but the knowledge of one's craft can mostly keep one over the water. In sense of comunication, it sounds even obvious, at least in every day exchanges. At another level, that of the philosphers, I guess, it is also obvious that if one does not know of what one is taling about, there is not much to deal with and to exchange ... But is knowledge relative or absolute? Is knowledge just an aquisited once concept or one has to turn around and go inside out and keep on doubting and wondering and wandering? Comes this nearer the wisdom?

I don't know that all people can achieve the same levels of wisdom-but if they have the same levels of knowledge, at least they have a chance.

Knowledge = having facts
Wisdom = ability to use knowledge

great points, Alkistis

Interesting.

Then Jane you talk from a blacn and white point of view, from the point of view of a detective officer? Often black and white drives us astray.

I think both knowledge and wisdom are relative...as knowledge changes, then the way we use knowledge through wisdom must also change, because we are better informed. So, it doesn't seem black and white. Gotta head out the door - thanks for your comments. jean

Great quote. Phaedo's concept of wisdom, I suspect, is a having a knowledge of what is true and right coupled with a fair and just judgment as to action. Your simplified version seems accurate and consistent.

Without knowledge, there can be no wisdom. But wisdom also requires qualitative aspects outside of knowledge . . . like fairness and justice. True knowledge, when understood . . . . SHOULD reflect on the bearer by an understanding that fairness and justice are requisite . . . and that would result in wisdom. Lacking a sense of fairness or justice not only means that wisdom is not present . . . but it means that the knowledge is lacking as well.

Very intriguing.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"Yet the exchange of one fear or pleasure or pain for another fear or pleasure or pain, which are measured like coins, the greater with the less, is not the exchange of virtue. O my dear Simmias, is there not one true coin for which all things ought to exchange?-and that is wisdom; and only in exchange for this, and in company with this, is anything truly bought or sold, whether courage or temperance or justice. And is not all true virtue the companion of wisdom, no matter what fears or pleasures or other similar goods or evils may or may not attend her?"

What is value, if not to be with the worth of one's goal and justice within their action and intent. For value is measured by the merits of their actions and what they purchase with the friuts of their life and life goals.

Doyle - you are IMHO exactly right - if someone uses their "wisdom" for a bad act - then it's not wisdom.
Dan - did you recall the entire quote from memory? wow!
Napoleon - you are sweet and funny!

Doyle, Jean, I'm not sure I agree. If I understand correctly, you speak of fairness and justice as absolutes, but I think ultimately, they are relativisms--despite our desire for them to be otherwise. Looking back at history, at differing cultures, we see that what one people viewed as just or fair is relative to that society. We still see this today: our political situations, our religious dogmas, our entertainments all bear witness to this.
And yet, I do not mean to say we should not strive for fairness or for what we perceive as just; rather, we should recognize the value of such conditions as relative to the cultures or to the individuals that wield them. Ask a Christian, an atheist, a Buddist, a Bahai, a Pagan and a Muslim what is fair and just and I submit that each would offer similar definitions in terms of concept but quite contrary designations of appropriate action when situationally applied.
If knowledge is power, then wisdom is skill. Knowledge is a tool. We can know a great deal about ourselves, our neighbors, our enemies, yet without the ability to analyze and effectively employ that information we are inept.
I believe we should strive to hone our "skill" more effectively in order to better employ whatever "tools" we think we possess.

Actually I looked it up. I copuld not remember the full quote, and hate to comment on partial quotes. So I looked it up to get the full gest of what was being said.
I wish I could recall every quote I found important, it would really be nice. :)

Dan - thank you for responding a second time. "made you look!"

Miles - this was an answer I was looking for: "If knowledge is power, then wisdom is skill. Knowledge is a tool. We can know a great deal about ourselves, our neighbors, our enemies, yet without the ability to analyze and effectively employ that information we are inept."

Skill - so wisdom is a skill...........no one has attempted to answer that question yet, and I couldn't fill in the blank. Kudos

Now I know why I'm crazy---thanks jj for supplying the white jacket---what I get out of what you said is a class system or his thinking that each gets according to someone idea of each person self-worth.

Ronnie ~ you are not crazy, nor or you in my white jacket - it is mine and mine alone, lol.
Will explain in email - forthcoming.

I must have missed something Miles . . .

JEAN: "I think both knowledge and wisdom are relative..."

DOYLE: "If I understand correctly, you speak of fairness and justice as absolutes, but I think ultimately, they are relativisms--despite our desire for them to be otherwise."

MILES: "Doyle, Jean, I'm not sure I agree." & "If I understand correctly, you speak of fairness and justice as absolutes, but I think ultimately, they are relativisms--..."

So I'm gonna go with . . . "Huh?" How did you decide you weren't sure you agreed and then repeat me verbatim . . . giving examples to prove my point? I'm missing something.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

hello all, very nice quote, i am big fan of the greek mythology.

Hi Daniel R. glad you dropped in

Strange . . . mythology being used as a synonym for philosophy.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

and, it's also okay Doyle - there are some people who think Socrates didn't exist - I'm not one of them, but..........to each their own.

I think actual existence doesn't go to the merits of the words. The words exist whether or not the speaker does, yes?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

very true Doyle

But, Doyle,
philosophy can also be used to great measure for evil ends. "Utopia" and Shangri-la as examples;
there would be great thinkers, philosophers at their studies (we all know we'd be one of them) but then there would be the slaves to serve the great thinkers!

Pragmatism, the unique American philospohy also led to black slavery - with no hope of securing freedom as had been possible in most other cultures prior to our peculiar institution.
Pragmatic reality: the black skin would identify the slave anywhere he/she escaped to.
How quickly philosophy, religion, and science of the day jumped to the defense of establishing black slavery.
A shorter jump occurred in 1930's Germany, too.

The best summation as to how and why to always fight for what is right was given by Lincoln, cutting through the philosophy, the law, the religion and the science of his day; "As I would not be a slave, neither can I be a slave holder."

Dang, but isn't it a narrow path!

James,

While I am not sure that I disagree with your conclusion that some philosophical doctrines might sometimes be used toward evil ends, I do have two definitive points of disagreement.

First, philosophy as a dialectical method ought to lead us toward some progress as it is attuned toward revealing invalid conclusions, weak inferences, and false or distinguishable premises. As a method, there is nothing inherently evil about it.

Second, with respect to Pragmatism, again I take issue with the notion that Pragmatism, the unique American philosophy, led to black slavery. Simply as a matter of timing and history, this has to be false. Slavery as an enterprise was imported to the colonies, long before those colonies became American, long before American's began to mold any distinctive philosophy of it's own, and long before the father's of American pragmatism put their mark on American thought.

Most scholar's trace what might be considered anything resembling something distinctly American or resembling pragmaticism to Emerson. Emerson's renowned The American Scholar and dubbed by Oliver Wendell Holmes as the "National Intellectual Declaration of Independence," was written in 1837 long after slavery was well established. It might also be noted that both Emerson and Margaret Fuller were both heavily involved in the abolitionist movement. Emerson made clear not only his opposition to slavery but also his opposition to particular legislation, like the Fugitive Slave Law which was reinforced by Henry Clay's compromoise bill of 1850.

But, in many ways, Emerson was only a precursor to the real father of American Pragmaticism. Many consider Charles Sanders Pierce to be the true father of Pragmatism. Here, it should be noted that most of his important works were not published prior to Emancipation. The term pragmatism itself wasn't really coined until William James took what Pierce started and further developed it. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking wasn't published until 1907.

So, to suggest that American Pragmaticism jumped to the defense of establishing slavery is quite a leap indeed.

What you might find if you look more closely at American philosophers who pursue the pragmatic tradition is that they too cut through notions of traditional philosophy, law, religion, and science of the day. In Emerson's words:

"This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.

The literature of the poor, the feelings of the child, the philosophy of the street, the meaning of household life, are topics of the time....I ask not for the great, the remote, the romantic...I embrace the common, I explore and sit at the feet of the familiar, the low. Give me insight into to-day and you may have the antique and future worlds."

Well, no, it's not so narrow after all.

As to the original topic, what I find strange and intriguing about the Phaedo, is the concept of achieving the soul's independence. The idea that the life of thinking itself is a progressing purifying of intelligence from the alien elements of the body. Almost like a moral imperative: where thought 'ought' to be directed to fitting ourselves for the full fruition of 'eternal' good beyond the limits of our temporal existence. Seen in this light, the practice of philosophy is a kind of purification of belief, necessary in order to receive a clearer view of reality and a higher sense of equality.

"And if we acquired this knowledge before we were born, and were born having the use of it, then we also knew before we were born and at the instant of birth not only the equal or the greater or the less, but all other ideas; for we are not speaking only of equality, but of beauty, goodness, justice, holiness, and of all which we stamp with the name of essence in the dialectical process, both when we ask and when we answer questions. "

Ah, but to regain the feelings of a child in the morning.

Jean,

Thanks for the Plato quote. You no doubt knw that the likely reason that Plato got deeply interested in Philosophy arose when the Athens' citizens basically condemned Plato's mentor Socrates to death. It was then that Plato construed this action, arising out of the acts of the then thought-to-be democracy called Athens, as totally UNwise . Plato's 9th letter makes it appear that Plato was very angry with the citizenry and the system that was badly designed and operated.

Plato had been interested in 'politics' before that event, and turned his attention toward in depth thinking about philosophy and attendent inquiries of importance to REAL people, The needs for human authenticity (as I see the intent) became for him, a major interest. Hence inquiries into WISDOM and its creation in selves.

Wisdom seeking and then installation in selves is and seems to have long been the major path toward human AUTHENTICITY. Subsequent philosophers and theologians have taken this human aim and then linked proper educational methods to the later growth of interest in our human politics and religions centuries later.

We humans still have a long way to go to shape ourselves properly. Thanks for the fine assist! I've never read Phaedo.

Dick