Considering Socrates, as close as he can be understood through the likes of Xenophon and ect., Plato, and Aristotle which of the three in the teaching chain can be considered the "true master?" Which had the superior philosophy, and style?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
My personal preference is that I still view Socrates as the master. He taught plato and plato taught aristotle. But the true genius that was innate without a masterful teacher was Socrates. It all leads back to him.
He was a brilliant brilliant man who undermided so many things with his unique view of the world and his strange perspective allowed him to find the young talent of plato and foster it into something I can only assume was better than what he would have been without such an influince in his life. And then of course plato kept the line along (most likely utilizing his teacher's teaching methods) brought forth Aristotle who taught Alexander the great who is arguably the greatest military leader the world has EVER seen.
But it all stems back to the intelect and perspective of the great man Socrates. The only one of this long list of incredible minds that wasn't taught by a known figgure.
Considering Socrates, as close as he can be understood through the likes of Xenophon and ect., Plato, and Aristotle which of the three in the teaching chain can be considered the "true master?" Which had the superior philosophy, and style?
None.
Never will you, nor I, or anyone else, will ever understand what any of these men truly meant, no matter how much you try to "study" them. Therefore, none can be superior.
Vague as it is, I care not to continue on the subject, and odds are, I will be misunderstood in what I am trying to say, and that's my point.
That seems like a ripoff. Why would anyone play that when the next spell you cast will make your opponents draw a bunch of cards? It does not even look good for mill decks.
Considering Socrates, as close as he can be understood through the likes of Xenophon and ect., Plato, and Aristotle which of the three in the teaching chain can be considered the "true master?" Which had the superior philosophy, and style?
None.
Never will you, nor I, or anyone else, will ever understand what any of these men truly meant, no matter how much you try to "study" them. Therefore, none can be superior.
Vague as it is, I care not to continue on the subject, and odds are, I will be misunderstood in what I am trying to say, and that's my point.
You could take the arbitrary route thats for sure. Though you can look at overall influence in the world and somewhat measure how much their "intellect" or "philosophy" has changed the world. This is how I took the question and also by that method you would have to (at some degree anyway) give Socrates some credit for all of what Plato and Aristotle came up with as he was the original teacher.
Given how different the Socrates of Plato is from the Socrates of Xenophon or the Socrates of Aristophanes, I don't think any of us could make a valid judgment of Plato vs. Socrates in terms of how valuable their thought really was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Are you asking us who we think is the best of the three? Undoubtedly Aristotle. If you're asking who the most influential is, I can't even make an educated guess.
Quote from td90 »
None.
Never will you, nor I, or anyone else, will ever understand what any of these men truly meant, no matter how much you try to "study" them. Therefore, none can be superior.
Vague as it is, I care not to continue on the subject, and odds are, I will be misunderstood in what I am trying to say, and that's my point.
That human communication is irrelevant without mind reading powers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Considering Socrates, as close as he can be understood through the likes of Xenophon and ect., Plato, and Aristotle which of the three in the teaching chain can be considered the "true master?" Which had the superior philosophy, and style?
None.
Never will you, nor I, or anyone else, will ever understand what any of these men truly meant, no matter how much you try to "study" them. Therefore, none can be superior.
Vague as it is, I care not to continue on the subject, and odds are, I will be misunderstood in what I am trying to say, and that's my point.
So I take it you're into Continental philosophy?
Aside from the truly frustrating part of your post ("I care not to continue" - the idea of just dropping in to plant your words of wisdom and then pulling out of the conversation without even the possibility of discussing it seems antithetical to the purpose of this board, doesn't it?), there are a million things you could have meant by this. Some of them are genuinely interesting. And while it's conceivable that in some sense truly understanding what another person meant could be impossible, certainly better and worse understanding are possible (else your message would be no more decipherable than a grammatical string of words chosen at random, and it clearly is) and certainly we can influence each other. Seems like an interesting discussion to have.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
He was a brilliant brilliant man who undermided so many things with his unique view of the world and his strange perspective allowed him to find the young talent of plato and foster it into something I can only assume was better than what he would have been without such an influince in his life. And then of course plato kept the line along (most likely utilizing his teacher's teaching methods) brought forth Aristotle who taught Alexander the great who is arguably the greatest military leader the world has EVER seen.
But it all stems back to the intelect and perspective of the great man Socrates. The only one of this long list of incredible minds that wasn't taught by a known figgure.
None.
Never will you, nor I, or anyone else, will ever understand what any of these men truly meant, no matter how much you try to "study" them. Therefore, none can be superior.
Vague as it is, I care not to continue on the subject, and odds are, I will be misunderstood in what I am trying to say, and that's my point.
/Facepalm
You could take the arbitrary route thats for sure. Though you can look at overall influence in the world and somewhat measure how much their "intellect" or "philosophy" has changed the world. This is how I took the question and also by that method you would have to (at some degree anyway) give Socrates some credit for all of what Plato and Aristotle came up with as he was the original teacher.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
That human communication is irrelevant without mind reading powers?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
So I take it you're into Continental philosophy?
Aside from the truly frustrating part of your post ("I care not to continue" - the idea of just dropping in to plant your words of wisdom and then pulling out of the conversation without even the possibility of discussing it seems antithetical to the purpose of this board, doesn't it?), there are a million things you could have meant by this. Some of them are genuinely interesting. And while it's conceivable that in some sense truly understanding what another person meant could be impossible, certainly better and worse understanding are possible (else your message would be no more decipherable than a grammatical string of words chosen at random, and it clearly is) and certainly we can influence each other. Seems like an interesting discussion to have.
Aristotle, highly prolific, contributed a lot to the other sciences, but not so much in philosophy.