I had a very tough time with mental health issues when studying this at my university. I wrote an essay on this topic despite not having been to lecture for the above reason. I watched this video twice during my research and came out with a first on the essay. Cannot thank you enough, fantastic lecture.
Parabéns professor. Sou professor universitário no Brasil e tenho iniciado a leitura de Platão recentemente (sou de outra área, mas tenho necessidade de voltar aos Clássicos). Li 16 diálogos, as Leis e a República. Quando cheguei em Parmênides, a coisa ficou feia! Tomei uma surra do texto! Suas explicações claras e exemplificadas encurtaram um pouco o caminho! Bravo!
Thank you for the lectures (this one and all the others). 1:06:28 - Words can be a great illusionist often making truths & falsehoods appear where none exist. They can also hide what should be obvious or obviously false. I'll try to avoid this trap with my own words... I don't think many folks have worked out, systematically, from first principles what "large" means. "Large" is another way of saying "greater than". And "greater than" is just another way of saying "NOT equal". In other words, the terms "large", "small", "bigger", "smaller", "greater", "lesser", "more", "less", "tiny", "fast", "tall", "hot", "cold" etc. are relative terms which all fundamentally mean "not equal". Unless I'm mistaken, the forms are hierarchical - there cannot be "large" without "equal". Hierarchy suggest that the notion of "participation" has more nuance to it than simply "shares in" - specially when it is not clear how the realm of the forms is different from the realm of the particulars. That said... If you think of a Platonic form as a "blue-print", and a building built according to the blue-print as a particular, we know (or we think we know) what we meant by, "the building is like the blue-print", yet the building is clearly not the blue-print itself - it's a building and not a sheet of paper with ink on it. "Participation" should really be taught as, and thought of as an analogy - meaning, "A is to B as C is to D", putting focus on the "equal thing" between (A/B) & (C/D) but noting that A, B, C & D are distinct (not-equal to one another) - much like the building and its blue-print. I think the "Parmenides" is a challenge one is meant to overcome to reach the forms, rather than only a challenge to the forms.
This is great I recommend in the future that you get the person filming to take a photo or film the whiteboard so we can see clearly what is written as that would be very helpful.
Thank you for a brillant lecture on this complex text. Im workk g on Adorno and his critique of idealism. Kants dialectic of time and logic works this and Hegel almost broke the dialectic. Hegel said Parmenidies was a synthetic a priori the object of philosophy dualism draped in dialectic opens the binary to diversity dimensions. Thanks for your clear mind on the nature of contradiction.
Likeness and unlikeness have a common essence of comparison. Consider when A is compared to B, and the relation is one of likeness ( B is like A). D can be compared to C, and the relation is one of unlikeness( D is not like C ). But both A is compared to B, and D compared to C. This process of comparison is the same in both cases, with different results. What each ( and all) comparison implies is the possibility of at least two terms, and a priority given to one ( considered the standard) and the other term ( considered that to which the standard is compared to). The Eleactics would not grant this assumption, as from their principle there can only be one term.
Regarding if whether or not particulars participate in the Form in part or in whole. I think that the way the lecture conveyed participation had it backwards. It’s not that a particular is participating in part of the form or in the entirety of the form. It is that the form allows for various particular manifestations of itself. So for example, a circle is a two dimensional shape that all lines drawn from the center towards the boundary of the circle are equidistant. This definition of circle is one but allows for every conceivable Particular instantiation of circles. So it’s the one giving rise to the many not the many aggregating to a one
1:05:00 - isn't that Paradoxon of self-predication based on a set-theoretical account of the forms/ideas? When you, Prof. Rosenfeld, say that 'largeness' includes all the large things, isn't that a distinctive different account of forms than the 'partaking' one? A set theoretical account would change the ontologic-causal direction so that the large particulars constitute the 'largeness' - instead of the large particulars being large due to them partaking in 'largeness'
Question: would a Herecletian infinite plurality be susceptible to the criticism directed against monism in Plato's Sophist? That it does not admit negation?
Self-predication is a tautological relation, that is, it is given in the proposition "it is not the case that a subject 'p' has its opposite, 'not-p', as its predicate" - "~(p . ~p)'". The subject is the predicate and vice-versa. So, if one can say that greatness is predicated of the idea of greatness, then that which the particulars that are great participate in is the predicate 'greatness' itself, there being no need for another greatness to be 'over and above' this collection of great things together with greatness, and which they all partake in. Logically speaking, be 'T' the tautology, and 'p', 'q', 'r', etc. things that participate in the tautology, that is, 'p', 'q', 'r', etc imply 'T' - "(p . q . r...) -> T" - and they do so tautologically - since any proposition tautologically implies the tautology. Hence, there is no 'third man' at all.
Although Plato was an idealist I think his argument was a necessary step in the right direction. The theory of the forms tries to bridge the gap between monism and pluralism and to explain how monism can still lead to the apparent plurality of the world we experience. Our modern materialist outlook explains that the world is fundamentally monistic at its core, consisting only of one substance i.e. matter, and the way this matter is organized is what gives rise to the apparent plurality. The plurality of different objects, and even the duality between "matter and spirit" are only apparent, superficial. At the core everything is one but it appears in many forms.
True. Oneness can come in many forms, but because oneness in essence is so divided (like matter) it doesn't really mean that everything being one matters at all. You can categorize everything as having come from the Big Bang, but what significance does that actually hold?
Hi, In Parmenides, the passage (154-d): "Q: If we add an equal time to less or more time, will more differ from the less by an equal or a smaller fraction? - A: A smaller". Can you interpret this statement, please! Is this based on idea that time as it has a beginning and an end? so whenever the "more" steps ahead in time so it goes shorter related to the end to time?
Hi Is it necessary to study the books which are assumed to be plato's but we are not sure Does it prevent me from understanding other philosophers in future if i dont read these books? I would really be grateful if you answered me Thanks Best teacher ever
it is fair to say u wont understand any philosopher post plato without reading him. u dont have to but you'd save urself alot of reading if u just read plato. most of the questions we discuss today from stated by plato. most of academic work (focused on epistemology) start from platos dialog's.
I got a good question. Could the 3rd man dilemma be solved simply by stating, that Logos, is the form of forms? For example, Logos as lets say Capital K knowledge, could easily be as Knowledgeable, as the participants? O.o
Is it good for a beginner who don't know about Plato and philosophy, or is it necessary to know the concepts of philosophy first to understand this curse ? Thanks
I am convinced that Plato was actually a Sophist who employed Socrates as his "veil". Plato admits to this when he appears as the "Stranger" in his Sophist dialogue. ("Reverse irony" was employed in the introduction of the Stranger.) Failing to put Plato's works in the correct context makes any effort to understand them futile. The Sophists employed allegory to make it appear that they were discussing one topic when they were actually talking about something else. This is the true context behind Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Plato's Cratylus is very useful in deciphering this allegory. Simply apply the "correctness of names" concept to the various participants in Plato's dialogues and you will begin to see a pattern. For example: Plato = Pluto.
It's certainly true that any text must be placed in context to be understood, but I get a bit nervous when we drift too terribly far from taking the text at face value. This is a big issue for reading Plato, whose use of irony always has us guessing what is earnest and what is ironic. To that end, I've got a very different reading of Sophist than your comment is suggesting. The evidence throughout a wide range of dialogues for Socrates/Plato's antipathy towards sophists and sophistry is pretty difficult to overlook. Perhaps a more plausible reading of the aporia in Sophist is that it is exceedingly difficult to pin down the distinction between a philosopher and a sophist (rather than reading Socrates as a secret sophist).
The apparent antipathy towards Sophists is only part of the game. My conviction is based on a deciphering of Sophist allegory, which I could not have done this without the assistance provided by Plato's works. Allusions to Plato's writings are found throughout the Sophist created Gospels. For example, the name Plato is said to mean "wide" so the phrase "...wide is the gate..." is a reference to Plato. (Plato's works are metaphorically a "gate" since they aid in the interpretation of allegory.) In Plato's Theaetetus, there is this comment by Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.” This comment was certainly the inspiration for Mark 4:10-12: "When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" Then there is the link between the Sophist and the "Angler" in Plato's Sophist that suggests that Sophists are "fishers of men". The Messianic Secret is also an attempt to portray Christ as a Sophist attempting to conceal his identity. Even the "tradition" of Veronica of the Veil serves as an admission that the "true image" of Christ is a "veil". Plato's Ion provides an archetype for Philo who is identified as "John" the Apostle in the Gospels. And "tradition" again links John to Ion's home town of Ephesus. (Towns serve as metaphors.) Also, the literal context that Plato provides is that he is simply the recorder of Socrates conversations with others. To give Plato any status as a great philosopher is to ignore the literal context. I would consider this a significant drift away from the face value since it is assigning greatness to a scribe. I believe that this effort to transfer Socrates ideas to Plato was guided by Sophists who knew that Socrates never really contributed to Plato's work. I am sure that you will disagree with my approach, but the next time you find something in your work that does not make sense, consider this context.
@@warrensmith8161 It is suspected that Plato was using Socrates as a narrative device and not so much as a source. You've hedged there, hitting him for both possibilities. You are also twisting your entire argument to fit an attack on Christianity, so you aren't exactly judging Plato on the merits. At the time of the Council of Nicea, the attendees were certainly very influenced by Plato and Platonism, as well as the development of Middle Platonism. To say that Plato is diminished by the association is to put the cart before the horse. If anything, Christianity was bolstered by the incorporation and was able to use Plato and Aristotle to adapt over time. Do not mistake 19th and 20th century Catholic philosophy for what came before. The current Church is handcuffed to a 13th century outlook due to the Aeterni Patris. It could even be said that without Christianity, Plato and Aristotle would not have survived. Throw in Islam and it is almost irrefutable. Plato and Aristotle are then what drove the Renaissance.....literally. How is that a black mark?
@@KaiTakApproach In Plato’s Theaetetus, the Sophist Protagoras is described this way: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.” And in Mark 4:10-12 Christ is portrayed this way: When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" I don't care how others explain this "parallel". For me, the portrayal of Christ as following Protagoras' practice was intended as a deliberate allusion designed to identify Christianity as a Sophist veil. I also consider the story of Veronica of the Veil as a parable which confirms that the "true image" of Christ is a veil. I would say that without Sophism, there would be no Christianity.
@@warrensmith8161 If you really don't care what other facts or arguments are then you aren't a philosopher. You are a person of your own brand of faith. Do you have your own construct or are you just focused on attacking that of others?
Hello Adam, first of all thank you for your lectures! I have a question regarding the forms being completely intelligible/abstract and not sensible. This leads me to think that they should exist regardless of the human senses. Yet, if say tallness is a form, then there is no way to perceive it without senses, right? As something can be perceived as tall only by looking at it, hence only by sight. Or is it maybe that senses are the means to perceive the forms? Even in that case, I wouldn't be able to perceive justice, as one of the students pointed out. If you ever read and have the time to reply to this, thanks in advance! Your lessons make my day.
You have an interesting style of Lecturing! Parmenides was a fictional character inwhich we only have the smallest of fragments of his philosophy which are incomplete. We do not have any first-hand evidence that he existed at all. We don't have any evidence that Plato existed. Plato and Socrates lived a hundred year apart if you're using The Republic's Chronology? We have Platonic and Socratic Methods which are very fluid at best. You do not mention the Arabic translators of The Republic, why not? Also that the Printing Press wasn't invented for another thousand years. The Republic has more author's than the Bible! BTW its Monism, NOT Moanism, its singular. Well I've had my moan! Lol
I had a very tough time with mental health issues when studying this at my university. I wrote an essay on this topic despite not having been to lecture for the above reason. I watched this video twice during my research and came out with a first on the essay. Cannot thank you enough, fantastic lecture.
That's great.
What would you say is Parmenides explanation for why we experience motion and change?
Parmenides is my favorite dialogue. And I thought your lecture was really great. Thanks for sharing.
Parabéns professor. Sou professor universitário no Brasil e tenho iniciado a leitura de Platão recentemente (sou de outra área, mas tenho necessidade de voltar aos Clássicos). Li 16 diálogos, as Leis e a República. Quando cheguei em Parmênides, a coisa ficou feia! Tomei uma surra do texto! Suas explicações claras e exemplificadas encurtaram um pouco o caminho! Bravo!
Thank you for the lectures (this one and all the others).
1:06:28 - Words can be a great illusionist often making truths & falsehoods appear where none exist. They can also hide what should be obvious or obviously false. I'll try to avoid this trap with my own words...
I don't think many folks have worked out, systematically, from first principles what "large" means.
"Large" is another way of saying "greater than". And "greater than" is just another way of saying "NOT equal".
In other words, the terms "large", "small", "bigger", "smaller", "greater", "lesser", "more", "less", "tiny", "fast", "tall", "hot", "cold" etc. are relative terms which all fundamentally mean "not equal".
Unless I'm mistaken, the forms are hierarchical - there cannot be "large" without "equal". Hierarchy suggest that the notion of "participation" has more nuance to it than simply "shares in" - specially when it is not clear how the realm of the forms is different from the realm of the particulars. That said...
If you think of a Platonic form as a "blue-print", and a building built according to the blue-print as a particular, we know (or we think we know) what we meant by, "the building is like the blue-print", yet the building is clearly not the blue-print itself - it's a building and not a sheet of paper with ink on it.
"Participation" should really be taught as, and thought of as an analogy - meaning, "A is to B as C is to D", putting focus on the "equal thing" between (A/B) & (C/D) but noting that A, B, C & D are distinct (not-equal to one another) - much like the building and its blue-print.
I think the "Parmenides" is a challenge one is meant to overcome to reach the forms, rather than only a challenge to the forms.
Nice lesson, I learned a lot from this!
Thanks for uploading this piece of fine philosophy.
This is great I recommend in the future that you get the person filming to take a photo or film the whiteboard so we can see clearly what is written as that would be very helpful.
This is fantastic. Thank you very much for posting it!
This was a great lecture-- thanks for sharing. It really helped me!
To quote Heraclitus: “what’s up with the short fall break? i mean, come on!”
Great lecture! Thank you, Adam.
Thank you for a brillant lecture on this complex text. Im workk g on Adorno and his critique of idealism. Kants dialectic of time and logic works this and Hegel almost broke the dialectic. Hegel said Parmenidies was a synthetic a priori the object of philosophy dualism draped in dialectic opens the binary to diversity dimensions. Thanks for your clear mind on the nature of contradiction.
Likeness and unlikeness have a common essence of comparison. Consider when A is compared to B, and the relation is one of likeness ( B is like A). D can be compared to C, and the relation is one of unlikeness( D is not like C ). But both A is compared to B, and D compared to C. This process of comparison is the same in both cases, with different results. What each ( and all) comparison implies is the possibility of at least two terms, and a priority given to one ( considered the standard) and the other term ( considered that to which the standard is compared to). The Eleactics would not grant this assumption, as from their principle there can only be one term.
Interesting point - sounds pretty Pythagorean!
Regarding if whether or not particulars participate in the Form in part or in whole. I think that the way the lecture conveyed participation had it backwards. It’s not that a particular is participating in part of the form or in the entirety of the form. It is that the form allows for various particular manifestations of itself. So for example, a circle is a two dimensional shape that all lines drawn from the center towards the boundary of the circle are equidistant. This definition of circle is one but allows for every conceivable Particular instantiation of circles. So it’s the one giving rise to the many not the many aggregating to a one
1:05:00 - isn't that Paradoxon of self-predication based on a set-theoretical account of the forms/ideas? When you, Prof. Rosenfeld, say that 'largeness' includes all the large things, isn't that a distinctive different account of forms than the 'partaking' one? A set theoretical account would change the ontologic-causal direction so that the large particulars constitute the 'largeness' - instead of the large particulars being large due to them partaking in 'largeness'
Good lecture. Thank you.
Sounds like Heraclitus’ metaphysics matches nicely with Nagarjuna and the Emptiness of Madhyamaka
Question: would a Herecletian infinite plurality be susceptible to the criticism directed against monism in Plato's Sophist? That it does not admit negation?
Self-predication is a tautological relation, that is, it is given in the proposition "it is not the case that a subject 'p' has its opposite, 'not-p', as its predicate" - "~(p . ~p)'". The subject is the predicate and vice-versa.
So, if one can say that greatness is predicated of the idea of greatness, then that which the particulars that are great participate in is the predicate 'greatness' itself, there being no need for another greatness to be 'over and above' this collection of great things together with greatness, and which they all partake in. Logically speaking, be 'T' the tautology, and 'p', 'q', 'r', etc. things that participate in the tautology, that is, 'p', 'q', 'r', etc imply 'T' - "(p . q . r...) -> T" - and they do so tautologically - since any proposition tautologically implies the tautology.
Hence, there is no 'third man' at all.
Although Plato was an idealist I think his argument was a necessary step in the right direction. The theory of the forms tries to bridge the gap between monism and pluralism and to explain how monism can still lead to the apparent plurality of the world we experience. Our modern materialist outlook explains that the world is fundamentally monistic at its core, consisting only of one substance i.e. matter, and the way this matter is organized is what gives rise to the apparent plurality. The plurality of different objects, and even the duality between "matter and spirit" are only apparent, superficial. At the core everything is one but it appears in many forms.
True. Oneness can come in many forms, but because oneness in essence is so divided (like matter) it doesn't really mean that everything being one matters at all. You can categorize everything as having come from the Big Bang, but what significance does that actually hold?
That was interesting, thanks. But I still don't get why a being can only know Knowledge or knowledge which you covered towards the end of the lecture.
could the third, fourth, fifth etc man problem collapse (internally, viscerally in the person thinking) at the Event Horizon of the form itself?
Hi, In Parmenides, the passage (154-d): "Q: If we add an equal time to less or more time, will more differ from the less by an equal or a smaller fraction? - A: A smaller". Can you interpret this statement, please! Is this based on idea that time as it has a beginning and an end? so whenever the "more" steps ahead in time so it goes shorter related to the end to time?
@@saltech3444 Really thanks, this interpretation is helping me solving the puzzle.
Ty
Hi
Is it necessary to study the books which are assumed to be plato's but we are not sure
Does it prevent me from understanding other philosophers in future if i dont read these books?
I would really be grateful if you answered me
Thanks
Best teacher ever
it is fair to say u wont understand any philosopher post plato without reading him. u dont have to but you'd save urself alot of reading if u just read plato. most of the questions we discuss today from stated by plato. most of academic work (focused on epistemology) start from platos dialog's.
I got a good question. Could the 3rd man dilemma be solved simply by stating, that Logos, is the form of forms? For example, Logos as lets say Capital K knowledge, could easily be as Knowledgeable, as the participants? O.o
Is it good for a beginner who don't know about Plato and philosophy, or is it necessary to know the concepts of philosophy first to understand this curse ? Thanks
I am convinced that Plato was actually a Sophist who employed Socrates as his "veil". Plato admits to this when he appears as the "Stranger" in his Sophist dialogue. ("Reverse irony" was employed in the introduction of the Stranger.) Failing to put Plato's works in the correct context makes any effort to understand them futile.
The Sophists employed allegory to make it appear that they were discussing one topic when they were actually talking about something else. This is the true context behind Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Plato's Cratylus is very useful in deciphering this allegory. Simply apply the "correctness of names" concept to the various participants in Plato's dialogues and you will begin to see a pattern. For example: Plato = Pluto.
It's certainly true that any text must be placed in context to be understood, but I get a bit nervous when we drift too terribly far from taking the text at face value. This is a big issue for reading Plato, whose use of irony always has us guessing what is earnest and what is ironic.
To that end, I've got a very different reading of Sophist than your comment is suggesting. The evidence throughout a wide range of dialogues for Socrates/Plato's antipathy towards sophists and sophistry is pretty difficult to overlook. Perhaps a more plausible reading of the aporia in Sophist is that it is exceedingly difficult to pin down the distinction between a philosopher and a sophist (rather than reading Socrates as a secret sophist).
The apparent antipathy towards Sophists is only part of the game. My conviction is based on a deciphering of Sophist allegory, which I could not have done this without the assistance provided by Plato's works.
Allusions to Plato's writings are found throughout the Sophist created Gospels. For example, the name Plato is said to mean "wide" so the phrase "...wide is the gate..." is a reference to Plato. (Plato's works are metaphorically a "gate" since they aid in the interpretation of allegory.)
In Plato's Theaetetus, there is this comment by Socrates:
“In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common
herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own
disciples.”
This comment was certainly the inspiration for Mark 4:10-12:
"When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around
him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
Then there is the link between the Sophist and the "Angler" in Plato's Sophist that suggests that Sophists are "fishers of men".
The Messianic Secret is also an attempt to portray Christ as a Sophist attempting to conceal his identity. Even the "tradition" of Veronica of the Veil serves as an admission that the "true image" of Christ is a "veil".
Plato's Ion provides an archetype for Philo who is identified as "John" the Apostle in the Gospels. And "tradition" again links John to Ion's home town of Ephesus. (Towns serve as metaphors.)
Also, the literal context that Plato provides is that he is simply the recorder of Socrates conversations with others. To give Plato any status as a great philosopher is to ignore the literal context. I would consider this a significant drift away from the face value since it is assigning greatness to a scribe. I believe that this effort to transfer Socrates ideas to Plato was guided by Sophists who knew that Socrates never really contributed to Plato's work.
I am sure that you will disagree with my approach, but the next time you find something in your work that does not make sense, consider this context.
@@warrensmith8161 It is suspected that Plato was using Socrates as a narrative device and not so much as a source. You've hedged there, hitting him for both possibilities.
You are also twisting your entire argument to fit an attack on Christianity, so you aren't exactly judging Plato on the merits. At the time of the Council of Nicea, the attendees were certainly very influenced by Plato and Platonism, as well as the development of Middle Platonism. To say that Plato is diminished by the association is to put the cart before the horse. If anything, Christianity was bolstered by the incorporation and was able to use Plato and Aristotle to adapt over time. Do not mistake 19th and 20th century Catholic philosophy for what came before. The current Church is handcuffed to a 13th century outlook due to the Aeterni Patris.
It could even be said that without Christianity, Plato and Aristotle would not have survived. Throw in Islam and it is almost irrefutable. Plato and Aristotle are then what drove the Renaissance.....literally. How is that a black mark?
@@KaiTakApproach In Plato’s Theaetetus, the Sophist Protagoras is described this way:
“In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”
And in Mark 4:10-12 Christ is portrayed this way:
When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
I don't care how others explain this "parallel". For me, the portrayal of Christ as following Protagoras' practice was intended as a deliberate allusion designed to identify Christianity as a Sophist veil. I also consider the story of Veronica of the Veil as a parable which confirms that the "true image" of Christ is a veil. I would say that without Sophism, there would be no Christianity.
@@warrensmith8161 If you really don't care what other facts or arguments are then you aren't a philosopher. You are a person of your own brand of faith. Do you have your own construct or are you just focused on attacking that of others?
Hello Adam, first of all thank you for your lectures!
I have a question regarding the forms being completely intelligible/abstract and not sensible. This leads me to think that they should exist regardless of the human senses. Yet, if say tallness is a form, then there is no way to perceive it without senses, right? As something can be perceived as tall only by looking at it, hence only by sight. Or is it maybe that senses are the means to perceive the forms? Even in that case, I wouldn't be able to perceive justice, as one of the students pointed out. If you ever read and have the time to reply to this, thanks in advance! Your lessons make my day.
I wish I had watched this before I took the quiz. My BAD!!
I really dig your lectures. You reveal the keys to life with your teachings. Your effort is largely lost on the young.
15:44 bookmark
You have an interesting style of Lecturing! Parmenides was a fictional character inwhich we only have the smallest of fragments of his philosophy which are incomplete. We do not have any first-hand evidence that he existed at all. We don't have any evidence that Plato existed. Plato and Socrates lived a hundred year apart if you're using The Republic's Chronology? We have Platonic and Socratic Methods which are very fluid at best. You do not mention the Arabic translators of The Republic, why not? Also that the Printing Press wasn't invented for another thousand years. The Republic has more author's than the Bible! BTW its Monism, NOT Moanism, its singular. Well I've had my moan! Lol