[MD] Plato's Good

[X Acto]

Mark, Ant,Tuuka,all..
 
The Doctrine of ideas/theory of forms is essentially a Parmenidian tradition
Which really makes this conversation interesting because what we are looking 
at is basicly an older philosophic tradition than Plato's theory of forms. We
see it in Zeno's doctrines concerning motion and infinite regress.
We really have to start at the begining and do some research on our own
to really get why the ancient greek philosophers developed along the course
they did and of course we can'nt be telling each other "no you don't get it"
because that is a hinderence to our goal.
I for one, wish to take advantage of the extreme luck of having a PHD to discuss
this topic. Because "the good" is what drives the greek philosopic tradition from the
pre-socratics to late Platonism.
I would really hate to see this thread de-volve into the regular shit storm threads
like this do because of bad manners and arrogant contributions.
 
Having said that...
>> Ant:
>> By stating that the Good is an idea, Plato gives the impression that in the
>> World of Forms,
>> the static “template” of the Good can be found.  Conversely, Pirsig asserts
>> that
>> the Good can only be understood essentially through direct non-verbal
>> experience
>> hence why a baby can understand the Good even before it can string a few
>> words
>> together.
 
Ron:
Traditionally, Plato asserts that the ideas(forms) are fixed eternal and immovable especially
the form which all other forms descend from, the good. The reason why they believe this
is that the good has no distinction. But the idea of the "unmoved mover" is an old one
often asserted as love and desire and also the intelligible (Aristotle). Now, the questions
to ask is : are undefined better-ness and the un-moved mover similar ideas? 
the distintion of the one and the many and dynamic and static quality similar conceptions?
> 
> Mark:
> No Ant, Plato does not imply that.  Through Socrates, Plato states
> that the Good cannot be known (sound familiar?).  This is very
> different from what you think he is stating.  It is what creates form;
> it is the form of form.  Perhaps you have not read the appropriate
> discussion that Plato writes about.  If so, show me where Plato states
> that The Form of the Good is a static template.  It was after Plato
> that it became so.  We can say that it began with Plato, but it was
> done subsequent to him.  Plato was much too smart for that kind of
> nonsense.
 
Ron:
Mark, this is what I mean. Nobody can really say that this is what Plato really
meant. However what we can do is look at what he did say and then look at
how he was historically interpreted.
 
Tuukka:

Now this is pretty interesting. Pirsig definitely says Plato says Good is a fixed idea. But is he right?

As a philosopher, Pirsig has pretty prominent oddities in his work. Such as:

1. He doesn't use the word "ontology" in ZAMM and LILA.
2. He doesn't mention phenomenology when speaking of romantic quality.
3. He doesn't mention process philosophy, began by Heraclitus, when speaking of Quality and Dynamic Quality.

Ron:
Good questions. Lets address #3 first. The reason why the ancients asserted that the good was
immovable was that motion is a distinction made in experience. Therefore "change" is a kind of limit
imposed on the limitless.
 
I think once we trace the history then look at what Pirsig states about it we will find a greater
understanding of the matter.
 
thnx gentelmen
 
..