[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi John and Arlo,
Just read this, I hope I am not too late.
One comment below.

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:43 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
[SNIPPETY-SNIP]
>
> John:
> I'm not sure  what point Arlo is making with Toynbee/Campbell's "reborn",
> except that its just a process that occurs naturally as cultures create
> civilizations which grow old and die and there's really nothing to be done,
> in the end.
>
> Ron:
> Thats what prompted my question of whether or not philosophy is worth
> persueing in the light of this realization.
>
>
>> [Arlo]
>> Arnold Toynbee makes the same point, as quoted in Campbell's Hero with a
>> Thousand Faces. "schism in the soul, schism in the body social, will not be
>> resolved by any scheme of return to the good old days (archaism), or by
>> programs
>> guaranteed to render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the
>> most
>> realistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating
>> elements.
>> Only birth can conquer death—the birth, not of the old thing again, but of
>> something new... Peace then is a snare; war is a snare; change is a snare;
>> permanence a snare. When our day is come for the victory of death, death
>> closes
>> in; there is nothing we can do, except be crucified—and resurrected;
>> dismembered
>> totally, and then reborn."
>>
>> Ron:
>> Sounds then, that it is a question of developing certain values and our
>> reasons
>> for holding them, which brings up the Socratic dialogs about the meaning
>> of wisdom.
>> It then begs the question on the wisdom of philosophy,
>> Does being a lover of wisdom, make one wise?
>>
>>
> John:  I'd say unequivocally yes.  Always.  Loving wisdom, makes one wise.
> Loving the reputation for being wise, however, leads to foolishness.
> That's the intellectual / social conflict.
>
> Ron:
> Which I believe the topic of the Socratic dialogs of Plato delves into,
> particularly
> concerning the Sophists. We first begin to see the term Philosophy emerge
> as a distinction from Sophistry as a better approach to wisdom.
>
>
[Mark]
I think the sophists were into creativity for creativity.  They used
rhetoric to prove any point they wanted.  Politicians loved them and
paid them well.  Anything could be turned into an argument, and
disproved or supported.  So, they were good lawyers.  Do you think
that lawyers care about truth?

With the change in philosophy, it would seem that the academics were
then pursuing Truth, like it was something hiding under a rock.  This
for me is a difference between MOQ and much of Western philosophy.  I
think therefore I am, gotta be true, right?  So if that is true, what
else is true.  This is a creative process, not an investigative one.
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>