Gregg:

Exactly!  What survives from Aristotle is generally presumed to be his  
"class notes," whereas what we have from Plato are his "dialogues."   
Which one is your favorite?  Timeaus?  You seem like a Timeaus sorta  
guy . . . <g>

It should be noted, however, that Plato's dialogues, employing the  
method of "enenchus," are typically thought to be "destructive" of the  
personalities Socrates encounters.  No one survives, as Socrates  
illustrates -- via dialogue -- how every one of them is  
self-contradictory and generally ignorant about their own most  
"closely held" commitments.  Rat-a-tat-tat.  Shoot them all down.

Perhaps it is worth noting that Plato's mentor, Socrates, was  
"democratically" murdered for his "dialogue" approach and that Plato  
spent the rest of his life trying to "engineer" a society that  
wouldn't do that to himself.  Aristotle, on the other hand, wasn't  
Athenian and, therefore, had very different concerns.  He was  
"banished" and his school banned after his death -- by Athens.  Out  
with the trash!

In philosophy, these differences are typically called "realism"  
(Aristotle) and "idealism" (Plato.)  And, importantly for psychology,  
the "mind-body problem" is an *idealist* phantom -- born of the  
supposition that the "mind" can be "perfected," whereas the body  
cannot.  Cogito ergo sum!  This has now led to the fantasy of  
"down-loading" minds into computers -- facilitated by your "map" with  
"processing" at the center -- so that the "body" can be continually be  
replaced with new-and-improved models.

Aristotle, on the other hand, invented psychology in such a way that  
there isn't any such problem.  His "Hylomorphism" is a metaphysics  
that doesn't allow the mind and body to be separated.  The *soul* is  
the "form" of the body of every living thing.  Thus our "Life and  
Death" seminar.

If death (i.e. quantum or post-quantum physics) is taken to be the  
"ideal," then you get "complexity science."  Mathematics and physics  
have this same "idealist" quality.  So does "method" and, in terms of  
the "Classical Trivium," about which McLuhan wrote his PhD, so does  
"dialectics."  On the other hand, in "trivial" terms, *grammar*  
corresponds to "reality," always opposed to how we'd like the world to  
"ideally" behave.

Modern psychology is Plato (thus its "transcendental" emphasis.)   
"Universal good" is Plato (thus, *utopia* and, of course, its  
evil-twin dystopia.)  LSD is Plato (thus John Horgan &al.)  "Save the  
cheerleader, save the world," is Plato (thus TELEVISION and its  
story-telling "heroes.")  "Information" is Plato (thus all the  
"ideals" that can never exist in reality.)

But the question is will DIGITAL *life* be Plato (and embedded in that  
question lies the future of the West and, potentially, humanity in a  
world filled with robots) or will it be something else?  Maybe  
Aristotle . . . ??

Mark

Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark,
>
>  Thanks for these reflections. The primary difference between us, as  
> I see it, is that you tell people what they are and I dialogue with  
> them about it.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 7:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Plato vs. Aristotle
>
> Gregg:
>
> Yes, "slightly different."  Your approach is Plato.  Mine is  
> Aristotle.  And, as it turns out, those are pretty much the only  
> choices -- in the Alphabetic West (where, to be sure, some have  
> abandoned the West altogether and instead opted for primal Eastern  
> "chaos").
>
> Like Plato in his "Republic," you would like to "engineer" humanity  
> towards an "ultimate good."  Needless to say, that approach has a  
> long history and, alas, it ain't a pretty one . . . <g>
>
> Newton was an "alchemist," for whom mathematics was just a side-show  
> to his real concerns about the timing of the end-of-the-world, which  
> is why he spent so much of his life trying to find the "secret  
> messages" in the Bible.  He was an "Arian" (or what we might today  
> call a "Unitarian"), since the Trinity wasn't "perfect" enough for  
> him.  That's how Platonists think.  Parfait, n'est pas?
>
> Leibniz, on the other hand, was an Aristotelean (and a Lutheran) --  
> pointing to the real basis of their conflict, not the typically  
> cited ones.  When Leibniz was satirized as Dr. Pangloss by Voltaire  
> (on behalf of Newton &al), this might as well have been another  
> classic "drama," complete with masks and a Greek Chorus.  Oh, wait,  
> that is what Leonard Bernstein provided!
>
> The problem is that Plato never had a "psychology."  Actual human  
> beings -- not the "ideal" creatures in need of "dignity" engineering
> -- cannot be manipulated into becoming "good."  Instead, psychology  
> was invented by Aristotle, which he could do because he dealt with  
> the actual world -- not the make-believe one Plato had imagined.   
> Rarely read, Plato's "Laws" (his last dialogue) might be an  
> interesting exercise for those interested in where this all takes us.
>
> Modern psychology set out to remake humanity, in full-blown Platonic  
> splender (apparently ignorant of Aristotle's understanding of the  
> "psyche").  The simple fact is that it has utterly failed.  Yes,  
> that could be because it doesn't "make sense" and a new "Plato"  
> needs to emerge to set things straight (gee, I wonder who that might  
> be?)  Or, alternately, it could be because it was a bad idea in the  
> first place and could never be achieved, any more than Plato's  
> Republic.
>
> Once-upon-a-time, I too was a "Platonist" -- which in my case meant  
> a "Trotskyist" in cahoots with Lyndon LaRouche.  In 1978, Lyn  
> published a fascinating essay titled "Secrets Known Only to the  
> Inner Elites,"
> in which, in his own inimical style, LaRouche rambles on about the  
> age-old battle between Plato and Aristotle's followers (getting most  
> of the details quite wrong.)  Perhaps some of you will also be  
> amused by its "engineering" potential.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wlym.com_archive_PDF-2D77-2D85_CAM7806.pdf&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=iufnU6VpFkHn6Mk9T_bEfqQwOvWXS2ME4hlqwThz4fk&s=e6-Gs2p_cX-kT30p6eS_sOqTnCKWg-M6Rd1ph6KYTQc&e=
>
> For a rollicking account of the Plato vs. Aristotle in Newton's  
> times, I'd recommend Neal Stevenson's trilogy "The Baroque Cycle:
> Quicksilver, The Confusion and System of the World."  I particularly  
> recommend the final book, in which Newton and Leibniz fight it out  
> across the roof-tops of 17th-century London.  Quelle surprise!
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_System-2DWorld-2DBaroque-2DCycle-2DVol_dp_0060750863&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=iufnU6VpFkHn6Mk9T_bEfqQwOvWXS2ME4hlqwThz4fk&s=TgyPxtGwXQ16Ka7Cy33bclhN_SOzqkTPHVfn7_RDKwY&e=
>
> As it turns out, my "godfather," Norbert Wiener, was a devotee of  
> Leibniz.  Furthermore, Leibniz was quite important in the failure of
> Europe to deal with China -- only now beginning to be reconciled.
> When I first left Wall Street (after taking AOL public in March,  
> 1992) and decided to build my own library, one of those I focused on  
> was Leibniz.  Like Aristotle, most of what is taught about him is  
> inaccurate (perhaps deliberately so.)  A thoughtful biography has  
> only just been published in English.  I also highly recommend it . .  
> . !!
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_System-2DWorld-2DBaroque-2DCycle-2DVol_dp_0060750863&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=iufnU6VpFkHn6Mk9T_bEfqQwOvWXS2ME4hlqwThz4fk&s=TgyPxtGwXQ16Ka7Cy33bclhN_SOzqkTPHVfn7_RDKwY&e=
>
> Alas, a "new metaphysics" isn't possible.  It has *all* been done  
> before.  The only question is whether DIGITAL psycho-technological  
> environment will favor Plato (as did ELECTRICITY and, before that,
> PRINT) or Aristotle (who had a pretty good run under SCRIBAL  
> conditions)?  Or, alternately, the West might just collapse and the  
> East could take over.  Or, maybe the robots are coming?
>
> May you live in interesting times -- a Western proverb, often  
> mistakenly attributed to China.
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Thanks for the questions Waldemar! Defining science, mind,
>> consciousness (and behavior and psychology) is very much where the
>> action is at as far as I am concerned. I have a slightly different
>> version of reality than Mark's Aristotelian techno-constructivist
>> view. But there is clearly a lot of validity here.
>>
>> Let me say that I ended up asking, "What is psychology?" because I
>> wanted a coherent way to help my clients "design" better lives. That
>> is, much like Mark's point that science relates to human needs for
>> engineering, I saw psychotherapy as essentially a form of human
>> engineering, and I needed a scientific description of my subject
>> matter (i.e., distressed human persons experiencing maladaptive
>> psychosocial patterns) so that I could operate much like a modern
>> engineer who uses physics to design bridges or a modern medical doctor
>> who uses the bio-physiological sciences to design medical
>> interventions. (Psychotherapy is a formal professional relationship
>> with the goal to foster psychosocial well-being) . . .
>>
>> Re science, I think of basic, modern science as "empirical natural
>> philosophy." Modern science obtains its firm foothold in the pantheon
>> of human knowledge with Newton, of course, building on folks like
>> Galileo. Although not often characterized like this nowadays, Newton
>> offered a different space time metaphysics than Aristotle (especially
>> regarding the concept of inertia) and developed calculus to map
>> behavioral change and formulated his laws of motion (i.e.,
>> macro-physical behavior). And that was a game changer in human
>> understanding. (After Newton, then there was
>> light!) It gave people the fantasy that you could empirically map the
>> world mathematically, without any human knower components.
>> (Ultimately, the anti-subjective knower problem is at the root of many
>> of modern science's core difficulties, from quantum mechanics to
>> consciousness to post modernism).
>>
>> Here is my bottom line. Modern scientific psychology needs a language
>> game that actually makes sense. "Behavior and mental processes"
>> clearly is fallacious. If we can all agree that the modern textbook
>> definition of psychology is obviously wrong (i.e., conceptually
>> confused and unworkable), then we should also agree we should be on
>> the lookout for a new way to go, and studying various proposals
>> accordingly . . .
>>
>> Let me conclude by saying I find it useful to be able to engineer my
>> life toward the ultimate good (i.e., Aristotle's eudaimonia), which is
>> found on my signature line. It is my ultimate justification, and it is
>> how I position myself when I do therapy.
>>
>> Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>> Professor
>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>> 216 Johnston Hall
>> MSC 7401
>> James Madison University
>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1