Notification [x]
Member since: 04/10/2006
Profile last updated: 04/10/2006
Current Status: Offline
1st handshakes

Browse Testimonials
Author Feedback Action
Dewey set out to show the harm which traditional philosophical dualisms were doing to our culture, and he thought that to do this job he needed a metaphysics--a description of the generic traits of existences that would solve (or dissolve) the traditonal problems of philosophy, as well as open up new avenues for cultural development. I think he was successful in this latter, larger, aim; he is one of the few philosophers of our century whose imagination was expansive enough to envisage a culture shaped along lines different from those we have developed in the West during the last three hundred years. (Rorty, Richard "Dewey's Metaphysics, Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays 1972-1980. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1982, P. 85)

There are many things to learn from Plato's "Symposium" on love. Love must come from the heart not from lust and wantonness. This is real love. We have all experienced puppy love or what the Greeks called Common Love, and we have all been disappointed at the end results. Love based on physical beauty alone is not strong enough to last. Attraction to physical beauty helps, but it is not real love. It is only the puppy love of adolescence. Adults need more than puppy love to feel satisfied. They need the Love of the older Aphrodite. Love that is based on Virtue, honor, and attraction to another's intellect. This is real love, true love, the other is common and as Pausanias says, inferior.
Socrates asserts that only he who is "by nature good at remembering, quick to learn, high-minded, graceful, and a friend and relative of truth, justice, courage, and moderation" (487a) qualifies to be a philosopher, and thus, a guardian. The question remains, if the "inferior masses" have a correct sense of justice, why must they remain pawns of the guardian and make no use of their own sense of justice, except to approve of the guardian? The obvious answer is that by Socrates' definition of justice, if a carpenter does anything but build, he is not being just.

Descartes has a clear distinct picture of God, which he cannot, and will not doubt. He believes all other truths can be doubted, but not God.
Dewey is not far off with his theory of a philosophical method. He just gets caught up in trying to develop a better version of metaphysics. In so doing, he is guilty of starting at an end-point (a vision of a better metaphysics or naturalistic metaphysics) and working backwards. It is like reconstructing the broken egg. It can not be done. Richard Rorty uses Dewey's method of criticism to develop a method in which Hegel and Locke can be combined into a useful method of reflection and criticism toward, better and more enhanced, meaning and value. Rorty states:

Socrates, however, consistently cites that the people of the kallipolis, raised in virtue, justice, and with a knowledge of what is good, will realize the justice of the kallipolis and act according to their sense of justice and for the good of the city. This argument is fine in and of itself. When you reach the political structure of the kallipolis, however, certain ideas are brought into question.