Don't Call it a Comeback: I've been here for years ...or... Plato: Reality vs. Mental Stability (487 hits)
Category: HumorRating: -1.1 on 14 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Mad Scientist (View user info) at 2008-09-23 06:34:31 EDT
Hi all:
I've been a member of Ubersite for a few years, and have been (mostly) inactive for while. I wrote the following essay for a Humanities 101 class, and thought that I would share it before I turned it in. Let me know what you think...
Plato is not worthy of the praise given to him by scholars, history books, or the general public. His idea of what is "real" is obtuse, and actually contradicts itself. Second, other people throughout history have had similarly far-fetched ideas, and are not heralded by scholars, history books, or the general public, and lastly, the mere fact that he was a "thinker" lends no credibility to his ideas.
To paraphrase Plato: "Nothing is real, because nothing is perfect. That which we think is real is not real. If we have an idea for something, the idea can be perfect, but the actual creation of that idea is not real, because the creation itself cannot be perfect." This sounds to me like senseless double-talk, rather than an enlightened thought. According to Plato's logic, if the idea (which is real- because it is perfect) could be created, and the product of the idea (the "form") could precisely imitate the idea, then it could be real. However, being that we are people, our creations can never be real, because we are not perfect, and as a rule, we cannot create anything that is perfect, and that which is not perfect is therefore not real. By this same logic, people are thought to be created by "the gods". If "the gods" are perfect, as they are most always thought to be, and "the gods" created people, then why are people not real? After all, we are the idea and the creation of a perfect being. By his own definition, an idea can be perfect, and a person that is perfect can create something perfect from a perfect idea- that would make people real. This, in itself, is a contradiction to his own idea regarding what is "real", and lends more credibility to the fact that Plato's thoughts are the senseless rambling of a borderline schizophrenic. It is beyond me how these thoughts were somehow recorded in history, and subsequently studied throughout time as if they were the rational, complete thoughts of a mentally stable person.
The mere fact that Plato was "a thinker" lends no credibility to his ideas. While it is admirable that Plato was pondering such complex issues regarding life, truth, and reality, this fact alone does not make his ideas credible. By this twisted logic- a man that attempts to solve an algebra worksheet could be called a mathemetician. A woman that thinks about her own health would be regarded as a doctor, and a boy assembling a model rocket could be called a rocket scientist. Simply thinking about a topic, or trying to answer questions in one's own mind does not make a person an expert in that field or one whom should be held in high regard for their thoughts regarding the matter. Plato is no different than the boy with model rocket, or the man with the algebra worksheet. He made no measurable progress in his field- he merely thought about an issue, and gave the world his absurdly nonsensical opinion. This, in itself, does not make him great.
Throughout history, other "thinkers" have had ideas that are as similarly far-fetched as Plato's. In recent history, there was a "thinker" with a doctorate in mathematics, who had a theory that technological advances would be the downfall of western civilization. His far-fetched idea, while plausible, was not embraced by scholars, history books or the general public, so this "thinker" set about acting on his idea by himself. After mailing a series of explosive devices to various university professors, this "thinker", otherwise known as Dr. Theodore Kaczynski, was arrested, and subsequently sentenced to life in a federal correctional institution without the possibility of parole. Similarly in recent history, there was a "thinker" with a revolutionary idea about the the creation of man. This fellow felt that earth and mankind was the creation of extra terrestrial bodies, and planned a mass suicide for himself and his followers to coincide with the Hale-Bopp comet's passing of the Earth. The "Heaven's Gate" cult, as they were called, were found dead in a rented Mansion in California, wearing identical athletic-type track suits, all with a five-dollar bill and three quarters in their pockets. These far-fetched and admittedly silly concepts lend no credibility to any of the parties- including Plato. It's a shame that during Plato's time, there was no one with enough sense to see that, like Kaczynski's ideas, Plato's ideas were the product of a person with a distorted sense of reality that needed to be confined to a concrete cell for the rest of his existance. Likewise, it is also a great dissapointment that Plato's ideas didn't include a suicide pact, like Heaven's Gate, so that the world wouldn't have been subjected to so much of his rambling, incoherent tomfoolery.
In conclusion, you can see that Plato is not worthy of the admiration of so many due to the fact that at least one of his ideas is a contradiction of itself, as well as the fact that hatching some far-fetched, silly idea does not make a person a great thinker, and the mere fact that one thinks about a specific subject does not make that person an expert in the field.
User Reviews
Submitted by MadScientist (user info) at 2008-09-30 17:46:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I got an "A" on this paper....
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-09-23 09:48:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
That was fucking torture, man! Look, everybody knows that Plato isn't a planet anymore. It has an elliptical orbit, and it's moon -Shirley- is half it's mass.
Why are we beating the subject into the ground? Just let it go. Reality doesn't change because of your denial.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-09-23 09:03:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argument is invalid.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-09-23 08:57:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bring on the Cheez Whiz!
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-09-23 08:49:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I think you will find that few people give a flying fuck
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-09-23 08:33:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'M MADDER THAN HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
Submitted by MadScientist (user info) at 2008-09-23 08:28:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, Method- you completely missed the point. Dont sit there and pretend that you are enlightened, and understand Plato and his theories, while I do not, because I am so lesser lifeform. That is not the issue here.
I'm tired of professors/teachers/educators force-feeding this garbage to people. Why is this bullshit that Plato came up with so widely accepted? It is what it is- bullshit. If you introduced this to a room full of people, with no prior knowledge of Plato, or his theories, and then asked them what they thought about it, they'd tell you that the person needs mental help.
But, since Plato is so widely renowned as a great thinker, everyone buys into it, fearing that if they dont also buy into it, that they will be thought of as un-enlightened, uneducated, or too stupid to understand the theories. Then, it snowballs into a vicious cycle.
Well, the buck stops here. It's crazy talk. I call it like I see it.
Submitted by Dimenhydrinate (user info) at 2008-09-23 07:43:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No one man is worthy of praise. We all suck, and we all perceive through our own personal fucked up perspectives. Real is real, there's nothing beyond that. Our mission is to fuck, and to keep ourselves alive for as long as humanly possible.
My opinion sucks.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2008-09-23 07:33:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You completely missed the entire concept
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-09-23 07:17:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You know what, Humanities 101: until it's examined closely, a sphere appears to be just a circle.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-09-23 07:14:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Was Plato the fella that died when an eagle flying above mistook his bald head for a rock and dropped a tortoise onto him so as to crack the shell?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-09-23 07:11:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Plato's concept of forms has persisted down through the centuries.
He was a bald bugger too.
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-09-23 06:39:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I wrote an essay with the question: 'Do Socrates' arguments for obedience to law in the Crito clash with his unwillingness in the Apology to obey an order to give up philosophy?' when I was at Uni.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2008-09-23 06:38:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
filename