Philosophy

[Lorentzson]

Is it spelt like that? Philosophy?

Nevermind that´s not the point for this thread.
My reason is this stupid homework in Philosophy(?) where im supposed to write about different Philosophers and their ways of handeling things. For instance: What is knowledge - and how do we conquer it? and im supposed to write about how Plato and Aristoteles would handle this question, and then im supposed to give my own opinion on the question.

Anyone into these guys? Anyone have any good info on how these guys think? And most importantly, what do You think knowledge is? And how would You conquer it?

[Loppfessor]

I don’t think knowledge is gained by having other people do your homework for you….You’re grounded young lady! Go to your room!

[Lorentzson]

Dang, you got me...

Cmon dudes, its due tomorrow and i didnt have time to do it because it had to go see a chick I like!

[hellojello]

IT is philosophy and I'm pretty sure you mean Aristotle. That might help for a start.

Those guys wrote before and during the enlightenmentment period so I guess you should start by suggesting that during that era knowledge was considered to be from God, and/or the Godly deciples. However dominant philosophers of the time were developing the concept of what's now known as modernism which is ultimatley the ideal of the 'rational (hu)man'.
Aristotle had a theory he called 'phronesis', based on Cicero's latin ideal of 'prudence' (the ability to evaluate the immediate and long term consequences of any decision) which became the fundamental framework of his notion of 'pratical wisdom'. Look into that it should give you a basis of the foundations of knowlegde according to Aristotle at least.

Why do we have to conquer knowledge anyways that seems like a kind of redundent question to me.

Rembered Nietzche - those who know everything know they know nothing (from Human, all too human)

[chrisd]

knowledge is not wisdom. knowledge is an amount of facts. This amount can be conquered by the citizen of the city. To conquer it one must be independant, neither a specialist nor a slave. Plato would differentiate between facts and ideas. Ideas are the things of the philosopher. Aristotle knows of the essence of something and also of it's best life.

[hellojello]

knowledge is not wisdom. knowledge is an amount of facts. This amount can be conquered by the citizen of the city. To conquer it one must be independant, neither a specialist nor a slave. Plato would differentiate between facts and ideas. Ideas are the things of the philosopher. Aristotle knows of the essence of something and also of it's best life.
to have wisdom is to have knowledge.
how many wise idiots do YOU know?
edit: furthermore the concept of the 'fact' only developed after the enlightenment a time which preceded Plato and Aristotle.

[Lorentzson]

And also, I dont know who said it, but: Id rather be a happy pig than be allknowing but unhappy. Which kind of sums up your thought of knowledge. You´d rather be the happy pig, am i right?

Thanks for the help.

[chrisd]

the idiot can't be wise but neither can the konwledgable man because he lives like the idiot (the idiot lives like the beast)

[hellojello]

the idiot can't be wise but neither can the konwledgable man because he lives like the idiot (the idiot lives like the beast)
Doesn't that contradict what you said about knowledge being able to be conquered? Because if the knowledgable man is a beast, how is he knowledgable at all? Modernity pronounced man and the known world to be rational, after the enlightenment it was believed that with reason everything could be understood. That is what separated man from beast.

People that live like beasts are not rational in that sense because the rational man was considered the supreme beings out of all living things on earth.

[Lorentzson]

What about newborn children? Do you think like the rationalists, that we at birth have a rich thinking ability and that we learn from logical thinking or do you agree with the empirists, that we are born an unwritten page and that we learn by experience?

[hellojello]

Well I am not taken by Kant and Plato's ideal that there is a pure and timeless reality that exists outside the realm of human perception.
I'm much more convinced by Foucault's claim that our reality is conceptualized only by and through the context of the social discourse under which we live. As Foucault said, language and life experience play a pivitol role in how we come to understand the world in which we live. Reality is subjective to our experience.

Essentially we are all born as a blank canvas.

This has absoloutly nothing to do with your essay,
goodluck with it, it's time I slept so perhaps I can do some of my own work at some stage.

[Drederick Tatum]

your mum's a blank canvas.

[Tammeloeki]

"Essentially we are all born as a blank canvas."

Thats not true, our genes are influenced by the things our parents and beyond experience in real life...Thats been proven

[Tammeloeki]

edit: furthermore the concept of the 'fact' only developed after the enlightenment a time which preceded Plato and Aristotle.

The enlightenment is a 19 th century phenomenon

[chrisd]

language fights the cure. the soul yearns to be taken a few times more. rest not upon old rocks, this will know itself and beauty is forever fixed in front

[chrisd]

to be right is not a category of philosophy, living good is. Being right is a category of science. Problems is not a phenomena of philosophy, but of science. Thus philosophy is not there to solve problems.