|
PLATO: things pre-exist in perfect form as ideas; we and everything we perceive is less than perfect, yearning for perfection; this led to Augustine/Thomas Aquinas' "Prime Mover" argument, that God exists prior to everything, a Perfect Being who generated...oh, Bush, WMDs, torturing prisoners, environmental pollution, the Declaration of Independence, 79 species of beetle, supernova, William Shakespeare...in short, everything. Everything is a lower-order manifestation of this ethereal, pre-existing Perfection.
ARISTOTLE: Hogwash! Look around you, study the evidence, classify and analyze what you see; build up your IDEAS from FACTS. START WITH THE FACTS, *NOT* with pre-conceived notions! (Well, not quite that extreme--he also employed Reason--but that's the general idea, study phenomena, as it is, and DEDUCE the laws of nature from how things really work.)
Plato led to Christianity (which borrowed much of its theological foundation from the PAGAN Platonists and Neo-platonists). Aristotle led to Science (as we know it today).
Bushites could be described as Platonists (sort of). But our world, our whole society, is built upon Aristotle--evidence, experiment, facts that LEAD TO hypotheses, what works in the REAL world.
To be fair to Plato, there are good Platonists and bad Platonists--kind of like Good Wizards and Bad Wizards. The idea is that certain people with superior knowledge have it all over the rest of us, and they should be the rulers. Plato really said this, that society should be run by "philosopher kings"--the wisest among us. Beyond that, though, he was very democratic--or, at least, a GREAT believer in education. His book, "Plato's Republic" is well worth reading. He believed that education would insure the production of GOOD philosopher kings. (And he did not exclude women--he called for the EQUAL education of girls! --way back then.)
You could make an argument that the evil cabalists of the Bush junta are "Bad Wizards" (i.e., Bad Platonists). They have great power, no question about it (however evilly acquired) and are using it for their own wealth and aggrandizement and to try to make people into stupid sheep (slave labor, cannon fodder). Typical fascists. And fascists are often drawn to "the occult"--to the secret wells of power that are believed to make some people superior and others inferior, and they of course are the superior ones.
It's kind of funny when you think of a doofus like Bush--but he nevertheless can certainly order people to their deaths, and to be tortured, and can do many powerful things. Why? Because "God ordained it"--or some such tripe. The Aristotle part of our brains causes us to look at what he actually does and who he actually is. And it just doesn't add up to "superior." Powerful and INFERIOR is what he is--a lesser being with much too much power! Bushites are definitely in dire need of some Aristotelian balance--a reality check.
Anyway, I think this is where Bushites are coming from. They are attached to pre-existing notions, and can't be shaken by the facts. They think of Bush as some sort of pre-existing "Father God" who--I don't know--has their best interests at heart? It drives the rest of us nuts, because it is SO unfactual. But that's what it is. Ergo: If Bush says there WERE WMDs, then there WERE. BECAUSE. Because He is the King, God, the Power, the Great Wizard. Because he makes the world go round. I do think that this is a tiny part of the population. And, also, some of these stupid people may be very nice people--may believe in fairness and tolerance, and may be generous themselves. They are not necessarily haters or hateful. They SEPARATE their Platonistic notions (Bush as Father God Protector--I know it sounds insane, but I think it's true of them) from their ACTUAL lives and behavior. In fact I know people like this. They IDEALIZE (Platonize) Bush. It has nothing to do with reality, and may be driven by deep emotional problems, lack of self-confidence, and fear (not of bogey-man "terrorists," especially, but fear of modern life, fear of change, personal fear).
And Plato led to the Dark Ages (or seems to). And Aristotle led to the Enlightenment (the foundation of the modern age of science and reason).
I think most of us are a mix of Plato and Aristotle--with Aristotle ("just give me the facts, m'am") prevailing in our age.
However, think about this: A scientist at a big corporation using his science to create, oh, depleted uranium, or genetically modified corn (to destroy poor farmers--and the fruitfulness of the earth). Is there not a pre-existing notion of ethics, morality, rightful behavior that we believe should be influencing him or her? What would move this scientist to set aside his/her personal interest, and corporate interest, to act for all humanity? Is whatever that is--an idea of right behavior--not Platonic? Another example: The U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. These were efforts to assert what could be called Platonic ideals--the "balance of power," equal rights--that are the "givens" of our society. (However, having established the "a priori" conditions for democracy--as "eternal principles"--Jefferson & Co.'s INTENT was to create a reason-based, nature-based, EXPERIMENTAL society, in which the variety of opinion, the variety of people, and the variety of experience would result in the best governance. From the details/facts of individual lives, as experienced in freedom, and democratically expressed, to the general: good laws, good governance, no illegal wars, no out-of-control king.)
Plato also believed in using "dialogue" to teach. In his other great book, the Dialogues, he reveals the method of HIS teacher, Socrates, who REFRAINED from imposing pre-existing notions on his students, and instead, LED them to carefully examine their ideas. THAT is how he taught--by teaching HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
Plato vs. Aristotle is a bit artificial. And Plato and that school (and especially how Platonism has been manifested through the ages) have been rather maligned in our modern age. Carl Sagan detested the Platonists and Neoplatonists and considered them little more than Voodooists (even though their mysticism, especially regarding mathematics, derives from some of the great mathematicians of all time, such as Pythagoras, and inspired mathematical discovery). Sagan was really arguing with the human mind itself, which is a strange mix of magic and reason.
So: The WMDs exist in Bush's mind. They are magically made manifest there. He intended for them to be there. He probably headed a major conspiracy to PLANT them in Iraq. And the Bushites have yet to get over their failure to manifest. What went wrong? Was it that CIA counter-proliferation network that they outed--that tripped them up? To them--to the Bushites--the WMDs still exist. They were SUPPOSED to be there. They couldn't NOT be there. Ladeen and Ghorbanifar assured them! They DID exist. They weren't Saddam's, but no matter--he WOULD HAVE had them, if he could have. So they existed in HIS mind, too. And now, in the minds of this tiny band of Bush-Father God believers. And the mind is a powerful thing. Things in the mind can cause tens of thousands of people to die horrible deaths, and to be tortured. Damn right, those WMDs exist. They pre-exist as the Platonic Ideal of the Perfect Lie.
(The Devil of it is, we seem to be having Neoplatonic elections--with PRE-ORDAINED results!)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
