T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Since I’m one of the sundry posters who mentioned Plato and Aristotle and their utility, it might interest people to know the CONTEXT of why I recommended their study to Spock.
The particular subject, as I recall, was that Spock had stated that if HE (Spock) thought there was only WAY to do something, or to respond, then there WAS only one way. (When I had asked him if he was sure that the ONLY way that he could become convinced of the truth of Christianity was to have God make himself known to Spock in what SPOCK determined was the way he would feel ASSURED of God’s existence).
He simply did not seem to understand that just because he (Spock) thought “this is the only way I will accept something” did NOT necessarily mean that it WAS the only way; there could in fact be other ‘ways’ that he was not aware of, or the way he THOUGHT was correct might not in fact be correct, or even that Spock’s ‘requirement of assurance’ being 'necessary for him" might NOT in fact be necessary at all even if he THOUGHT it was.
And it was for this reason that I brought up the study of Plato and Aristotle because they understood that this kind of thinking was self-limiting.
However, this thread is useful because I see that Spock is approaching the subject of Plato, at least, in the same way he is dealing with the subject of Christianity --that is, he is deliberately searching out for what he thinks of as ‘contradictions’ or ‘falsehoods’ (according to what he chooses to believe is ‘reason’ or ‘truth’. . .picks them out of context, and makes a parade of trying to show how ‘worthless’ or ‘wrong’ something is (and by implication, how STUPID the person who recommended the things would be.)
In order to learn a subject, let’s take literature for example, one has to read many examples of good literature (which is delightful), some examples of mediocre literature (because at one time they were ‘popular’ or in order to demonstrate how various literary techniques utilized failed to achieve full potential), and even some examples of BAD literature (so one recognizes what to avoid).
IF a person had never studied literature and went into a 4 year program and picked out the one course on “literary criticism” which happened to have a preponderance of mediocre and bad literature because they were being used to analyze what people were doing wrong. . .
and that person started ranting about how literature study was garbage and full of rotten work, and used those examples of mediocre literature to ‘prove the point’. . .
Most people would study the CONTEXT of the ENTIRE course of study and say, "Dear sir, don’t you realize that it is by learning the ‘limits’ and how to correct them and to go beyond them is how one learns to appreciate and understand the BEST? That you can’t just start ‘right at the top’ unless you have a foundation that shows you how to get there?
Alas, I fear it is easier to take ‘cheap shots’ than to actually study and learn. . .
The particular subject, as I recall, was that Spock had stated that if HE (Spock) thought there was only WAY to do something, or to respond, then there WAS only one way. (When I had asked him if he was sure that the ONLY way that he could become convinced of the truth of Christianity was to have God make himself known to Spock in what SPOCK determined was the way he would feel ASSURED of God’s existence).
He simply did not seem to understand that just because he (Spock) thought “this is the only way I will accept something” did NOT necessarily mean that it WAS the only way; there could in fact be other ‘ways’ that he was not aware of, or the way he THOUGHT was correct might not in fact be correct, or even that Spock’s ‘requirement of assurance’ being 'necessary for him" might NOT in fact be necessary at all even if he THOUGHT it was.
And it was for this reason that I brought up the study of Plato and Aristotle because they understood that this kind of thinking was self-limiting.
However, this thread is useful because I see that Spock is approaching the subject of Plato, at least, in the same way he is dealing with the subject of Christianity --that is, he is deliberately searching out for what he thinks of as ‘contradictions’ or ‘falsehoods’ (according to what he chooses to believe is ‘reason’ or ‘truth’. . .picks them out of context, and makes a parade of trying to show how ‘worthless’ or ‘wrong’ something is (and by implication, how STUPID the person who recommended the things would be.)
In order to learn a subject, let’s take literature for example, one has to read many examples of good literature (which is delightful), some examples of mediocre literature (because at one time they were ‘popular’ or in order to demonstrate how various literary techniques utilized failed to achieve full potential), and even some examples of BAD literature (so one recognizes what to avoid).
IF a person had never studied literature and went into a 4 year program and picked out the one course on “literary criticism” which happened to have a preponderance of mediocre and bad literature because they were being used to analyze what people were doing wrong. . .
and that person started ranting about how literature study was garbage and full of rotten work, and used those examples of mediocre literature to ‘prove the point’. . .
Most people would study the CONTEXT of the ENTIRE course of study and say, "Dear sir, don’t you realize that it is by learning the ‘limits’ and how to correct them and to go beyond them is how one learns to appreciate and understand the BEST? That you can’t just start ‘right at the top’ unless you have a foundation that shows you how to get there?
Alas, I fear it is easier to take ‘cheap shots’ than to actually study and learn. . .