10 March 2012

Behaving as we do..

Something that caught my attention this evening..

Learned people have always been interested in learning. 2400
years ago, Plato believed that we all had a soul which knew
everything. He thought this knowledge was available to us through our
"mind's eye" via introspection and reasoning, not observation. His
student, Aristotle, disagreed; he believed we learned through
observation and thinking to discover the "laws of nature." For instance,
Aristotle observed and concluded that ideas were associated in certain
ways; namely, ideas that are similar, opposites, frequently paired, and were originally experienced together tend to occur together. So,
observing events lead to ideas, then ideas lead to other ideas,
according to these "Laws of Association."


  1. I've never been too fond of Plato (though thankful he was an admirer and chronicler of Socrates). Scientists (of which I am one) tend toward toward the Aristotelian, but there is plenty of room for inspiration and contemplation.

  2. Maybe they were both half right? Ideas come from outside, but how we process them is an internal and introspective affair. :)

  3. Given only the parameters of these two ideas as you stated, I tend to lean more toward Plato, if he was referring only to all things metaphysical, Angie. Although, if by "everything" Plato meant everything in the physical world, I would tend to disagree with him.


  4. wellll, yes there's the two you mentioned... but we can't forget the founder of 'western philosophy'... good ol' socrates...

    <- read one of plato's books way back in college. but it wasn't about what you're talking about here.. so onward...

    went tube-searching a bit... and one vid 'bout all three of 'em was a guy yapping on and on.. eight minutes.. he seemed a bit too much of a show-off cam ho, so won't post that... and then found one of two teens in kentucky, also long... they were role-playing aristotle n' plato whiiiiiiiiiiiile playing a game of croquet.. it was creative, them discussing ideas, but sound-quality was lacking.. soooo, on to this one... it doesn't get into the differences 'tween pla n' ari that you spoke of, but does give a good overview of their importance (along with soc's) as to the development of western thought,...

    near the end it says how ari said the earth's the center of the universe.... and i thought... whaaaaaaaaaaaat a dumbass! he could've googled it on his toshi and realized it ain't!

    and hey, there's a sweet groove song to go with the text of those three greek contributors.... so enough of this dumbass typing on n' on n'....

  5. Do these "Laws of Association" include the Offsode Rule?

  6. Hello again "Bryce.." its nice to see you again. Your a scientist? Any information regarding your field of expertese would be greatly appreciated. (as in, what is it that you do ?)

    I must confess to knowing nothing about Socratese, Plato or Aristotle.. I never studied any of them during my time at school.

    The part about being born with our souls knowing everything was quite an interesting one.. much like that of the Ancient Greeks believing that our fate was mapped out for us the day we were concieved.

  7. G'day abbagoochie..

    I would think that we need the external influence/ experience to be able to have the ability to internally process any line of thought. What we previously have learned would definately have some affect on the outcome of any thoughts.

    Quite an interesting thought ..

    "Ideas come from outside, but how we process them is an internal and introspective affair"

  8. Manfred, my understanding was that Pluto was meaning everything in the physical world

  9. G'day Dave(id)..

    that was a very interesting video.

    As I said in one of my comments earlier... I have never studied anything about any of the three. To think that Socates was put to death for his teachings.. I knew that centuries ago there had been scientists put to death but had never learned who any of them were. Such a loss to the world.

    Nathan has said that he would be interested in studying Philosophy .. it would be a fascinating study

  10. I'm a protein crystallographer by trade, which means I grow crystals of proteins of one sort or another and then solve their - I'll call it 'atomic' but it is really more of a 'molecular' - structure using x-ray diffraction. I like it because I get to use fancy graphics software and computers, a bit of math, a dash of physics, a dollop of molecular biology...a little bit of everything.

    My attitude about philosophy is that it is interesting, but you have to take it with a grain of salt or it can drive you crazy. Years ago I read Plato's Apology and Death of Socrates (or Sookrates, as Bill & Ted called him in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure). Socrates, at least according to Plato, was convicted of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and sentenced to death. He died by ingesting hemlock.

    Wll Durant's The Story of Philosophy is a decent general account; Frederick Copelston's History of Philosophy is more technical - and considerably longer at 9 volumes.

  11. all too confusing for me...