SOCRATES: Then let us seek the true beauty: not asking whether a face is fair, or anything of that sort, for all such things appear to be in a flux; but let us ask whether the true beauty is not always beautiful.
CRATYLUS: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And can we rightly speak of a beauty which is always passing away, and is first this and then that; must not the same thing be born and retire and vanish while the word is in our mouths?
CRATYLUS: Undoubtedly.
SOCRATES: Then how can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? for obviously things which are the same cannot change while they remain the same; and if they are always the same and in the same state, and never depart from their original form, they can never change or be moved.
CRATYLUS: Certainly they cannot.
SOCRATES: Nor yet can they be known by any one; for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other and of another nature, so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state, for you cannot know that which has no state.
CRATYLUS: True.
SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.
SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.
CRATYLUS: Very good, Socrates; I hope, however, that you will continue to think about these things yourself.
48 comments:
Mereological nihilism?
Cratylism.
Cratie's discourse seems mereological to me.
"If One is not, then nothing is.". Plato, "Parmenides. Plato was on the One is side...but I suspect it was by "choice" (not Reason).
The mereology of names would consist of the alphabet and syllables.
vibrations and etchings
True. The written word is merely an "imitation".... but an "artful" one.
You'd make a great post-modernist, Beamish!
Nah. Sokal's hoax proved pomo's are basically Zizek... bloviating bullshit artists.
Funny... it seems that way until you see the Lacanian 4 discourse methodology underlying the analysis... and its utility slams you right in the forehead.
:p
Funny how the IDF now uses Deleuze and Guitari's "10000 Plateaus" to teach and describe modern urban warfare, too.
:)
If it were just bs, why would they do that?
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/art-war-deleuze-guattari-debord-and-israeli-defence-force
:p
Has Israel actually fought a war in the last 50 years? Is there anyone still alive there that knows how?
Has the US?
That's the thing. Science requires testable claims and repeatable results.
Unless it's pomo science, in which science has more to do with the power of belief than the observation of reality.
Science can change a tire and be on its way while a pomo stands over a pothole shouting racism.
Indeed it can. But that won't explain "why" the pomo is blaming racism. To understand that, you'd need to understand the pomo's discourse. And until you did, you probably won't convince the pomo that his flat wasn't the racists fault.
...and in a democracy, that's kinda important.
Here we disagree. I don't have to shove turds up my nose to get to the nuance of why they stink.
Pomos don't debate honestly. They'd rather sidetrack a discussion into talking about how properly labeling them stupid offends them.
My opinion matters because it oppresses millions who ought to be oppressed ;)
https://youtu.be/MPojltjv4M0
Never nada nothing will ever be new under the sun.
witness the violence inherent in the system
Your problem, beamish, is that you are about to become a "minority" in your own country. And in a democracy, that means you've lost the "Master Discourse" to the pomos, and their crazed victimologies become "law". 2045 is the point of no return for mono-truthism. After that, Mr. Potter, "magical-realism" becomes the order of the day.
It's not enough to run around like Jordan Peterson screaming, "The PoMo's are coming, the PoMo's are coming!" The point is, since there's no stopping them, how do we extinguish their guiding light? And short of killing every post-modernist, you're going to need a mind-bullet that can convince the post-modernists that they'll lose power (access to the Master's Discourse) if they continue to pursue it.
...and Jordan Peterson isn't convincing ANY PoMo's as to the folly of their ways.
...especially in academia. Other's, like Jonathan Haidt are doing a much better and convincing job.
Demonizing post-modernism isn't going to win you any converts amongst the post-modernists. And Theseus will need the assistance of converts (ala Ariadne) if he's going to slay the Minotaur and take over the "labyrinth". Peterson can't just "cut the Gordian knot." He's no Alexander.
I rather like being up against opponents that fear being revealed as hypocrites more than anything. It's damned easier than being up against opponents with self-esteem.
In 2045, I will be 75 years old. In a country where you CAN insult your way to the Oval Office.
I'll be fine.
I'll be in Baja sipping Shirley Temples. I prefer corrupt dictatorship over evangelical progressive purists.
That's the thing. We're in the world of the #MeToo movement vs. "At least Donald Trump doesn't pay off hookers with taxpayer money."
When hunting dragons, take care that you do not become one. The left is making a run at being conservative (it's wrong to treat women like garbage, mmkay) and the right is in "grab 'em by the hoohoo" mode.
What about their tu quoque arguments?
"Help help we're oppressing ourselves!"
Women are not the weaker sex. You can tell be all the complaining. ;)
flawless victory
Pomos put the dickless in ridiculous.
Down with vagina made global warming.
I've got a feeling that in a few years you'll be occupying a cell next to Count Dankula, beamish.
Threaten me with free room and board and three meals a day?
It's not me celebrating an eunuch beating the shit out of dyke.
...even though it's hilarious as fuck.
Ap bappa gannyfanny poo poo pa do
Clonstecker darrylism agon daloo
Snotswirling hawksplutter rah rah shazzam
Assosculation dun markaju, Ma'am
Post a Comment