Science topic

Ancient Philosophy - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Ancient Philosophy, and find Ancient Philosophy experts.
Questions related to Ancient Philosophy
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
33 answers
From antiquity, one of the first fundamental areas of the development of thoughts and considerations being precursory trends for the subsequent development of specific fields of science was logic and philosophy. Analysis of the development of various directions, theories, concepts, trends, and philosophical schools in the context of the history of philosophical thought can also provide inspiration for contemporary considerations over specific guesses, the search for solutions to complex problems, and the planning of complex research processes.
Many philosophical concepts and trends from the past, formulated in other epochs, are in principle still valid despite the technical, technological and civilization progress made. I believe that many philosophical concepts and trends from the past concerning the role of man in the surrounding world, in relations with the environment, including the social and natural environment, man as part of nature in a sustainable ecosystem, etc. is still valid. Human life has changed due to technological and civilization progress. The current technological revolution, known as Industry 4.0, could, however, change human life in highly developed countries so far that these may be already noticeable in contemporary trends and philosophical concepts concerning antrolope, social issues, etc.
On the other hand, modern philosophical concepts can also describe the role of science in the 21st century in the context of successively growing global social, climate and natural and economic problems.
In view of the above, the current question is: Do you know any theories or directions of philosophical thought that inspire you to carry out scientific research?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
Relevant answer
Answer
"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and end in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality" (Einstein, 1934/1954 p. 271)
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
141 answers
Rationality is itself an elusive term. There are debates on the definition and criteria of rationality. The primary assumption of the naturalized and non-naturalized rationality on normative conditions has been a puzzling issue.
Neither Naturalist nor non-naturalist able to provide universally recognized criterion like laws of physics.
Relevant answer
Answer
Rationality is a complex construction. Rationality includes logical inference and avoiding inconsistency, but it also involves judgements where the rational agent is trying to uncover truths or at least be sufficiently right to maximise chances of survival. It is tempting to say that rational agent will always try to follow a strategy to achieve some objectives. That may be true, but rationality requires more by requiring the rational agent to assess evidence in support of or against a judgement in a way that is verifiable by another rational agent. I think that the requirement of evidence assessment is normative; otherwise the rational agent could end up supporting a judgement that is not supported by evidence at all. But judgement is often a matter of subjective likelihood, and theories emerge when accounting for the evidence which do not meet the currently accepted norms for acceptance. Examples of this include in science include Galileo's theory of cosmology and Mendel's theory of genetics. Thus rationality is amenable to the imposition of norms, but the norms themselves need to be adaptable to revision in the light of new evidence and new theories which account for that evidence.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
6 answers
Hello all,
We know the ancient narrative, which emphasizes the gap between theory and practice as a division of labor between classes for example in the city state of Athens: free men were developing philosophical ideas in theory whereas slaves were obliged to carry out routine tasks in practice. Nowadays, the division still exists in many forms, like theory and practice in piano which are taught separately. We have pupils, students and even professionals who maintain that they are practically oriented, so we should not bother them with theory. Rarely vice versa.
My issue here is to find out what kind of relationships between theory and practice we see useful, valid and even necessary on different sectors of our culture and why. On the other hand, we may have means to deconstruct the oppocites between the concepts and develop the relationships further. Are you familiar with practice-theory for example, how practical and theoretically mature it could be?
Best regards,
Relevant answer
Answer
What a nice example! It reminds me of Aby Warburg's projects, namely Warburg-Bibliothek für Kulturwissenschaft and Mnemosyne Atlas. Wikipedia summarizes the relationships between the contents and structure of Warburg's collection, the heart of the Bibliothek, as follows "The institute is notable for its unusual and unique reference system: the institute's collection is arranged by subject according to Warburg's division of human history into the categories of Action, Orientation, Word, and Image."
Regards,
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
31 answers
What determines human behavior in daily life?
Relevant answer
Answer
The role of genetic factors should not be underestimated.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
24 answers
Many scientists lived who have milestone the world with his studies from past to present. Which scientist has been a role model for you through his studies or his/her behavior? Which have their properties, behaviors, inventions or principles, etc., leading to you or your studies? For example, "Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle Falsifiability" rules to me. Karl Popper is defining the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis by this principle.
Relevant answer
Answer
Prof Jordan Peterson, who is also an active member of Researchgate.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
10 answers
How to define an idea. What is that criteria?
Relevant answer
Answer
interesting discussion... I follow for more information
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
17 answers
Academic freedom. A Problem
The staff of the Britannica
writes:
"the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure. Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectualconcern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate. For students, the basic elements include the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and express their opinions....
What do you think about?
In your country, what role and rights have individual scholars?
Relevant answer
Answer
There can never be academic freedom when we work under ideological structures, well laid out structures of education, nationalism and producing knowledge to add to regimented fields of knowledge. Curiously to go beyond all these with all imaginations and ideas running free from fear is smashed.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
28 answers
What do you think about philosophy?
Do you think Philosophy is the sanctity of reason or a sort
of pure phenomenism, only methodologically helpful?
Do you think philosophy is the study of the logical deterministic concatenation at the basis of human action?
Does have philosophy a scientific significance, which implies that philosophy is a purely scientific approach?
Relevant answer
Answer
Philosophy is a focused attempt to clarify important issues, especially the discourse typically employed in conjunction with those issues. It is a discipline that seeks to identify and correct language that attends to discourse concerning such issues. It thus argues for or against certain positions, and supports rational argumentation with available facts or scientific findings. Its arguments are offered in consideration of the relevant history of philosophy and especially the history of the topics at stake. It is not, therefore, mere opinion.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
29 answers
Dear Scientists,
I had recently come across the new science (to me) known as collapsology. Promoted by a group of scientists and people who beleive on the soon coming of the end of the world- just as beleived by the religious believers- which they call the fall down of industrialization. They are already forming networks and strategies to cope and be prepared for the event. Are they confirming what the religious have been preaching long ago?
Please, your views on this is highly solicited, can you share.
Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
I did not say that there will be no end, however, the end will retroact as a motive for the present. The future, in order to be able to call itself a future, must be able to feed back into the motor for the present; therefore, in a completely theoretical way, what does not have a future cannot even be foreseen.
What will not be predictable is not predictable. Nothing physical we mean chemical or biological, pure principle of causality and knowledge. Only what is possible in the future is foreseeable. Confirm what the religious preached long ago? Evidently continuing to preach the end has not done so badly to the "development" of humanity. "Development" let us not be "progress". Fighting or dancing against the end of the world is the greatest and most wonderful refrain of humanity. Difo Voukang Harouna Thanks for the reply.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
4 answers
Dear all, I wonder where the notion comes from that individuals stop striving to improve (whatever), when they are satisfied. Or other way round: where comes the idea from that some degree of dissatisfaction is a good or even necessary impetus for activity or effort. On which theory is this view of man and human activity based? I am looking forward to your suggestions on where I could find the theoretical background of the idea of an inverse relation between happiness and effort.
Many thanks in advance. Susanne
Relevant answer
Answer
Surely Buddhism is one place to go-whereby every effort at gratification produces unhappiness-whether self-improvement, fulfilment of ambition, search for love-unhappiness is the result (not complete of course just in the sense of ideal love, ambition, etc). A very pessimistic viewpoint of which the only release is nothingness. I prefer living and grumbling.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
7 answers
That's the way Aristotle cited the Persian slave that brought philosophical discussions to the public place in Athens. Pericles was his student. He is also the one that first correctly described the eclipse phenomena.He was teaching the sun was metal in fusion and so get condemned to death for atheism but finally had to exile himself from Athens. Malediction still works against Anaxagore (5th c. BC), since 2400 years later, Lavoisier put his name on his words: "nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything transforms".
Relevant answer
Answer
Anaxagoras was hardly the first philosopher; after all, it is said that he went to Athens to study philosophy. Here is a chronology:
Nevertheless I would agree that given his unique or original views he can be considered as a "first" in some sense. His materialism seems strikingly modern and his views on the composition of heavenly bodies made a good start; his flat earth theory, not so much.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
7 answers
Using spotify's web API seems to be a viable and easy way to get several audio features for music, however I cannot find any documentation about what low-level features make up the given features like "danceability" and so on. Does anyone have experience with that?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hey Guys, if you are intersted in what you can do with Spotify's audio features, I conduced a sentiment analysis of European chart music using the valence Score from spotify in this blog post. https://paulelvers.com/post/emotionsineuropeanmusic/
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
5 answers
Organisational change authors often refer to the famous Heraclitus fragment, 'Everything flows. Nothing remains the same.' I am interested in identifying references to Heraclitus and other presocratic philosophers in published work on organisational change. These may relate to the above fragment, either drawing on the Platonic interpretation that this means that the world is in a constant state of change, or on alternative interpretations. There may also be references to other fragments of Heraclitus, such as those related to his theory of opposites.
Relevant answer
Answer
If you see the world as something constantly changing, you will be unable to to grasp the nature of things. Greek philosophers believe that time is a constant line of events. However this view is object-centered, meaning, that here we just take a look at the object and from this we try to say something about the history, present state and future. This is not a good idea and it tells us nothing about correlations and choices which have been made.
Events are rather like fields of influences. A plant only grows at daytime and when night comes the plant rests. When we only look at the plant we will never know why it grows. Likewise certain fields of influence allow growth, others do not. And other fields make it necessary to make changes.
In your own interest I would suggest to let the Greek view go and rather concentrade on a more Jewish view. The Greek view is outdated and also wrong in many ways. Heraklit was not able to grasp the deepth of the topic. Also did the available knowledge not allow him to translate his ideas into correct concepts sharp enough, but he stranded on the island he tried to build here up. The concept of wisdom goes way deeper (don't confuse it with the idea of wisdom like defined in a Greek way), but it needs to be studied extra. Lewin might be a good introduction, also he had problems too and was restricted. Then I also recommend to read the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (especially chapter 3). They talk about time rather like states, comparing it to seasons.
We need a complete other language here to describe a different concept. For this we must go back to the roots and take a look at what we have missed.
Also watch this to get a feeling for the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSqyvvoHmAw
For an overview about the books watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gab04dPs_uA
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
5 answers
Who is the scientist or researcher who used the topological term for the first time? and when it was specifically ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Baravan A. Asaad
Thank you for your excellent answer
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
20 answers
Historical Development of logic from Aristotle to George Bool.
Relevant answer
Answer
W. Kneale, M. Kneale, The Development of Logic, J. Lear, Aristotle and Logical Theory,, P. Thom, Syllogism, chapter on logic in the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, J. Łukasiewicz, Aristtotle's Syllogistic, J. Corcoran, Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretations
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
4 answers
In general, the eclecticism, a philosophy defined wise, practiced by the first men of genius long before to have a name, remained buried in oblivion until the end of the sixteenth century. Then, Nature, long time remained dazed and almost exhausted, made an effort and eventually fathered men loyal to the most beautiful human prerogative, freedom of thought; and they saw the rebirth of eclectic philosophy by Giordano Bruno, Francis Bacon, Tommaso Campanella, René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, etc. [...]
Examining the contents of the eclectic philosophy, we note, by consulting the Encyclopedia Laterza, that Denis Diderot recuperates the concept that, in the philosophical tradition, has almost always had a negative connotation, and that is still often seen as a synonym for lack of originality , more or less indiscriminate collection of other people's material. Eclectism, however, for Diderot, means to deal with the variety of reality without wanting to flatten necessarily in the homogeneity of a "system". It means working methodically to find the link that exists between the isolated "truth" and engage systematically in this search, following the path traced by the "freedom of thought", "experience and reason" and from which it is impossible to deviate.
The eclectic is a philosopher who, trampling on prejudice, tradition, antiquity, the universal consent, authority, in short everything that subjugates the soul of the common people, dares to think for themselves, go back to the general principles more clear, examine, debate, refraining them from admitting anything without the test of experience and reason; that, after having examined all the philosophies in unscrupulous and impartial manner, dare to make one of its own, private and domestic; I say "a private and domestic philosophy," because the eclectic aims not so much to be the tutor as the pupil of the human race, to reform not so much the others but as well himself, not so much to teach as to learn the truth.
The eclectic does not collect truths randomly; he does not leave them isolated; and even less he  persists in locating them in some given plan: when he has examined and admitted a principle, the proposition that immediately follows, in his focus, or is linked clearly to that principle, or does not link at all, or it is the opposite. In the first case he considers it true; in the second suspends judgment until intermediate concepts between the examined proposition and the admitted principle can either the connection or the opposition to such a principle; in the latter case it rejects it as false.
Philosopher Cicero composed many books, written mostly in the 'two-year period, between 46 and 44 BC when Caesar's victory forced him to stay away from political life and the death of the daughter Tullia urged him to seek in philosophy a medicine for the soul.
Consulting the portal ‘Philosophical thought’, until a few years ago you would answer the question of whether Cicero was an eclectic, that is, if he built his philosophy putting together pieces taken from various schools, asserting that the answer was very close to incoherence. In fact, Cicero seems to sympathize on several occasions with the various schools of philosophy, except cynicism and Epicureanism.
Cicero within his philosophical thought moves ‘testing the soil’ already tilled by the various schools of philosophy; he does it skillfully by exploiting the materials available, mainly of academic source but also stoic. For him, it's not so important to set absolute truths as to establish the foundations that can guarantee the action without worrying too much about the overall coherence of the individual thesis. The probabilistic approach naturally leads to the eclecticism of the sources, which are made all merge, with the only exception of Epicureism, in one project of ethical-political nature.
The eclecticism of Cicero, while tilting generally for the neo-academic probabilism of Philo of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon, admits in turn from the various schools, and especially from Stoicism single doctrinal elements. Hence arises the concept of eclecticism that characterizes Roman philosopher Cicero: moreover he adopts, each time the positions that appear valid and convincing, without adhering to a senile doctrine, but assuming towards all an open attitude, but also independent and critical. (GB Conte, 'Latin Literature', Le Monnier, Florence 2003, vol 2 p. 20).
 Cicero's philosophical eclecticism obey the requirements of a rigorous method, which seeks to establish a dialogue between the different doctrines from which be banned any polemical spirit. The author's philosophical works presuppose a vast domain of matter and have an original cut especially as regards the adaptation of the Greek thought to the situation in Rome.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Gianrocco, you are making a 21st century question to a 1st century BC man who was not a philosopher but a rhetorician and a lawyer, from which profession most of his moral treatises were written. It is not fair to ask this question to Cicero... In classical times most writers quoted freely without stating the source, probably because their readers were well acquainted with those great authors and could recognize them without the need of an explicit quote. I kind of remember that Plato did the same thing, according to all the concordances and loci found by present-day philologists who have dedicated themselves to gleaning the name and text of the omitted sources. 
Best regards, Lilliana
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
10 answers
WHAT are the main distinctions between Modern thought and ancient Greek traditions of philosophy.  What is our progress based on?  How different is our modern tradition compared to ancient assertions in argumantative form.  What are the main schools of thinking that have emerged either as a result of ancient Greek thinking or as a result of other cultural influences?  IE Sumarian Philosophy, Jewish Philosophical traditions, Chinese Philosophical traditions etc. etc.
Relevant answer
Answer
There is no difference between classical philosophy and modern philosophy. The process of thinking is on. The basic issue of philosophy is to solve the riddle of existence - the cycle of birth and death and ,according to some, rebirth. As civilization advanced, the issue of religion was added to philosophy. Until the 17th century, philosophy included all branches of education, and it is still there, e.g. Ph.D. denotes Doctor of Philosophy. Modern philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Marx, J.S. Mill have thought over the role of  'pure reason', ' humanism', dialectics, historical materialism, dialectical materialism, 'idealism' with its root in Pythagoras, globalism being the latest addition. All branches of positive sciences and normative sciences, including physics, chemistry, mathematics and even economics come within the scope of philosophy. This is a post in brief. 
Sibaprasad Dutta
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
58 answers
Irrationalism is that way of thinking in opposition to the doctrines that relate to reason as the only instrument which, through distinctions, definitions and deductions, is able to give a coherent, clear and distinct vision of reality.
At the end of the nineteenth century positivism and idealism were blamed for having formulated an abstract conception of reality as the result of a theoretical reflection that, based on the Absolute and scientistic fideism, ignored the reality of life.
In particular, the irrationalism of Schopenhauer's thought is found in the theory of life as a blind manifestation of an arbitrary and alternative principle to reason: an irrepressible will to live, unbridled and irrational, that does not  pursue any phenomenal purpose other than to increase itself. The will to live produces pain but not for itself or for an evil connotation, because it is pure "noumenon". Pain, in fact, is born when the will to live objectifies in bodies that - wanting to live - express a continuing tension, never satisfied, to that life which appears to them as always missing than they would like. The more you have lust for life, the more is the suffering.
"We delude ourselves constantly that the desired object can put an end to our will. Instead, the object wanted assumes, just when it has been reached, another form and under it reoccurs. It is true that the devil always teases us in new forms. "
The will, being irrational and blind, cancels any worldview as ideologically organized. Order and harmony give way to madness, irrationality and instincts dictated by the will which is the essence, the thing itself to everyone.
However, in contradiction with the inscrutable and inevitable character of its irrationality, from that there would be no way out without recognizing to man any chance of conscious choice, Schopenhauer asks man a rational and moral task of liberation from that there would be no way out without recognizing to man any chance of conscious choice, Schopenhauer asks man a rational and moral task of liberation from pain through self-denial of the will to live: asceticism.
"The identity of the subject of knowledge and that of the will appear here as a prodigy. In fact, can you never know the will? Can the will do that will? On the other hand, knowledge can guide the will, which is what drives, what creates the world? » Schopenhauer asks man a rational and moral task of liberation from pain through self-denial of the will to live: asceticism. "The identity of the subject of knowledge and that of the will appears here as a prodigy. In fact, you never know the will? Can the will do other than to will? On the other hand, can knowledge guide the will, which is what drives, what creates the world? »
Schopenhauer therefore, arguing that "only the elimination of the will of life in general can free us," not completely devalues the role of reason, conceived as a platonic expression of life itself that wants to know becoming self-conscious". The will is the thing itself of Kant; and Plato's idea is fully adequate and exhaustive knowledge of the thing itself, is the will as an object. "
This awareness coincides with the self-denial of the will, and thus allows to leave the senseless cycle of desire, death and rebirth.
Therefore, in relation to the above, there is to consider that the absolute irrationalism concerns teachings which insist on the absurd, senseless, without any purpose of reality.
Of this current an outstanding representative is Schopenhauer who considers nature, man, history ruled by a blind desire that haunts all creatures and unleashes a brutal, senseless, perennial and universal conflict. Also Schelling and Kirkegaard fight in the name of irrational instances, the ‘panlogism’ and the absolute reason of Hegel. Recently, irrationalism has reappeared with existentialism, a theme used by both the Nazis and fascism, as well as the Frankfurt School. The modern irrationalism seems lead to a radical awareness of the historical and theoretical limits of the Western ‘ratio’.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Gianrocco,
Two year before his death Husserl wrote the Crisis of ... and three year before the WWII which is a high point in the Crisis and not the last unfortunatly.  Husserl is then in a mode of evalutation of his whole life effort and tries to see what is happening into an historical philosophical perspective of the Eurepean modernity.  He is less in the mode of promoting his phenomenology than in the mode of focusing on what is wrong , what went wrong, what is the nature of the crisis.  He see that philosophy is not in this time of crisis providing the answers that would be necessary, that philosophy has retreated from giving these answers, that philosophy has even promoted the views that there is no answers to what really matter for humans, on the biggest questions that philosophy used to address and that christian theology used to address and now at the time of the storm it is now evident that  the house is built on  sand.  Three centuries prior to those time, at the time of a crisis of Western Christendom , the 30 years War , there was a group of Millenium reformed european christians who had a program for European humanity that might have avoided what has been our history, a general european secularisation.  Among them was the father of modern western education: Jan Amos Komenský (1592-1670) also known as Comenius.  Comenius then addressed the newly created Royal Society whose views then reflected those of Hobbes, Descartes and Spinoza that we should base education not only one book, the book of Nature i.e. the study of what is visible with the senses but on Three books: the book of Nature, the book of Reason (Man), the Bible (God).  By the book of Reason means the human Mind created at the image of God which provides us with providential intuition.  Like Pascal in the same period, he saw that the revelation in the Judeo Christian tradition as the reveletion of the same light as the one revealed in the other two book but this time through prophetic interpretation of history through the age.  So Comenius was a man of science, reason , and Faith and saw the three as coming from the same light and totally irreduceble to each other.  Comenius had a meeting of 4 hours with Descartes and Descartes commented that Comenius was wrong in trying to mix religion with science of Nature.  Comenius commented that only focusing on the book of Nature will lead to nihilism and  threat to the unity of knowledge. So our world is the world of Descartes, the world of parts, the world than fell apart because we did not choose then the world of Comenius, the world of the Whole/Panharmonia.  I find Pascal's catholic position much closer to Comenius reformist position than the position of Descartes the Jesuit catholic position.  Here we see a divided not located at the catholic protestant divided.  I see Kant's transcendalist idealism as a deformation of Comeniusm's book of Reason.  Kant honestly intended to save freedom and christian morality from the reduction of all to the Book of Nature and so constructed the second book of Reason, the a priori transcendal knowledge.  But while Comenius book of reason which was a platonist one was transparent to the light of God, the one of Kant was totally opac and was used as a road block to the book of Nature allowing morality to free itself.  But this opacity, the severing of the thing in itself created a crisis and this has created false way out in total relativistic freedom.  Goethe and Herder, and Maine de Biran are the first to find the way to link the different books but yet in vague ways.  Goethe is really the first phenomenologist before the letter.  Herder/Vico are the first to see the importance of history, culture , tradition , interpretation for access to the truth.  Husserl phenomenology is center subsuming scientific objectivisation into an experiential reason.  But contrary to Geothe delicate empicism it is not engaged and fully participatory.  His bracketing is passive very much like the experience of meditation.  I practiced meditation on a daily basis for 15 years and it naturally lead us towards a kind of distance towards what is experience.  The participatory phenomenology of Goethe is a art based approach to science where the scientist is not objectifying but is participating in the phenomena and get insight in this participation.  Here the book of reason and the book of nature are meeting.  I will close this rather long post here.
Jan Amos Comenius - the teacher of nations
Regards
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
23 answers
Any suggestions on the distinction between teleological and ethical conduct? The first dates back to Aristotle, the second to Kant. Is it plausible that the two converge?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Stefan,
 quite a remarkable synthesis of the ‘structure’ of the Socratic way of dialoguing!
 As known, Socrates dialogued with short questions and answers - the so-called ‘Socratic brachilogia’ (literally "short talk") - just to give a chance to intervene and object to a party that he respected for his views.
Another feature of the Socratic dialogue, which set him apart from the torrential discourse of the sophists, was his constant demand of what was saying the other party; it seemed that he went looking for a precise definition of the dialogue. "Ti esti", "what" [what you're talking about]?
To these questions, for example, the question "what is it cowardice?", the other party would always reply with a list of cases: coward is one who harms others, who behaves in a dishonorable mode... Socrates, however, not content of this sterile catalog, rather sought the definition of cowardice in itself and not merely in a series of examples.
This is the irony of Socrates that, not to demotivate the other person and to do so without impositions that he convinces himself, pretended not to know what will be the end of the dialogue, accepts the arguments of the interlocutor and takes into account, then bringing it to the limits of absurdity so that the speaker himself realizes that his thesis is incorrect. Those who dialogued with Socrates would attempt several times to give a precise answer but eventually gave up and admitted their ignorance. Socrates just knew that from the beginning: his was not annoying pedantry but need to show that the alleged wisdom of the interlocutor was actually ignorance.
The ongoing dialogue of Socrates, surrounded by young people fascinated by his doctrine and by important people in the streets and squares of the city meant that he was taken erroneously for a sophist addicted to attack recklessly and directly politicians. The philosopher, in fact, communicating with them proved as their vaunted wisdom did not really exist. Socrates was then considered a dangerous political enemy who challenged the traditional values of citizens.
For that, Socrates, who had crossed safe previous political regimes, who had always remained in Athens and that had never accepted political office, was indicted and put on trial, from which then would follow his death sentence.
Material cause of the process were two significant representatives of the democratic regime, Anito and Licone, who, using a nominee,  an ambitious young man, failed writer, accused the philosopher to:
corrupt the youth by teaching doctrines that advocated social disorder; do not believe in the gods of the city and groped to introduce new ones.
The accusation of "atheism", which falls into that of "impiety", condemned by a decree of Diopeithes in about 430 BC, was evidently a legal pretext for a political process,
Lysias volunteered to defend Socrates, but he refused, probably because he did not want to be confused with the Sophists and chose to represent himself. Described by Plato in his famous Apology, the process highlighted two elements:
that for those who did not know him, Socrates was confused with the Sophists considered corrupting morals of youth and that he was hated by politicians.
On the charge of corrupting the youth it is explained by the fact that Socrates had been a master of Alcibiades and Critias, two characters who in the democratic re-establishment enjoyed bad reputation. Were the relations that he had  as an educator of these two characters to lay the foundations of the charge of corrupting the youth.
Today the most careful criticism showed that the trial and death of Socrates were not an incomprehensible event directed against a man apparently negligible and not dangerous for the democratic regime.
As told by Plato in the dialogue of Crito, Socrates, knowing that he had been unjustly condemned, once in prison he refused the proposals of escaping  made by his disciples, who had organized his fugue by bribing prison guards. But Socrates did not escape his sentence because "it is better to suffer injustice than to make it." He will accept death that on the other hand is not bad because it is either a dreamless sleep, or gives the opportunity to visit a better world where, Socrates says, will meet the best interlocutors with whom to dialogue. Then, he will continue even in the next world to profess the principle to which it has complied in all his life: the dialogue.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
3 answers
The 'principle of identity' is defined also as a philosophical principle that generally indicates the equality of an object relative to itself.
In relation to other objects, identity is everything that makes an entity definable and recognizable, because it has a set of qualities or characteristics that make it what it is and, thereby, set it apart from all other entities.
The concept of identity thus connects with Aristotle and the concept of substance, a principle that allows things to remain identical to themselves in time and which causes two things to be identical between them because they have the same substance. From Aristotle's view it will result that in criticism to the concept of substance in modern philosophy, as in David Hume, it will be necessary to challenge the character of identity.
In philosophy starting from the eighteenth century with Christian Wolff, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten and Immanuel Kant it spreads the expression of "the principle of identity and non-contradiction" that was historically preceded by the "judgment of identity" which has a different meaning. Judgment, in fact, that is to report, asserting or denying a predicate to a subject, affirms that "one thing, if it is, can not be other than that which is. It denies the possibility of any judgment in which the predicate is different from the subject, that is not identical judgment. "If "Socrates is" the identical judgment will say that "Socrates is Socrates"; you will never make a judgment that says "Socrates is not Socrates."
Then when it comes to the principle of identity (A is A) that would re-awaken the useless judgment of identity if you did not link to the Aristotelian "principle of contradiction" whereby "or A is B, or A is not B" where the Eleatic contrast between being and not being is outweighed by the fact that to say "is not B" is not to deny the being of A, but simply that A (keeps being in that) is different from all the other things other than it . So the subject is at the same time itself (identity) and other (otherness) by anything else.
The "principle of identity and contradiction" is developed within Scholastica that puts together the Aristotelian principle of contradiction with the assertion, not Aristotelian of identity of subject and predicate
"A is A, A is not A"
in an attempt to reaffirm the Eleatic immutability of being in the identity of subject and predicate: The principle of identity of indiscernible.
Distinct from ‘principium identitatis et contradictionis’ is instead the special principium identitatis indiscernibilium mentioned in the age of ancient philosophy, medieval and modern art for which it is impossible that there are individual objects perfectly identical (in which case it would not constitute a plurality of reality but of a single reality) then you can only affirm the identity of an object with itself not we being able to grasp the distinction between objects absolutely identical, indiscernible among themselves.
Kant criticized supporting this principle as a multiplicity of actually completely identical to each other, however, retained their multiplicity which could be grasped by observing how these were at  a distinct and different mode in space.
The philosophy of identity belongs to those philosophical systems which, starting from the distinction between two heterogeneous realities then considers the same in relation to a higher reality to which the first two belong. An example of these doctrines is Schelling's philosophy where the two spheres of the real and the ideal imply each other since they are the two poles of which one is the power of the other and both are expressions of the Absolute to which two moments are essential: the identity and the difference, or in other words, units and opposition. The absolute is that which is defined as the identity of "identity and difference."
The introduction of the difference makes multiplicity possible. The explication of the absolute in the infinite multiplicity of the universe is really necessary because the time difference is as essential as that of identity. This activity occurs in a polarity of opposing forces, one positive and one negative (+ / -), but the positive (attraction) configures it as A, the negative (repulsion) configures it as multiple and polarized, such that each pole is in turn the union of a '+' and '-'. The One is found in many, and many are endless facets of the One.
The identity in the strict and absolute sense will be, according to Leibniz, when of two things, everything that can be predicated truly of the one can really be predicated also of the other, that is, when the name of the one is interchangeable with that of the other in all the judgments in which this appears, without altering the value of truth.
Logical thinking has taken the contemporary definition of Leibniz, but ruled that it is permissible to speak of identity in an absolute sense, because the identity is always relative to a determined linguistic set, that is, to a certain attribution of meaning to names. The principle of identity puts it this way: everything that is, is or also everything is identical to itself. Hired as a fundamental principle of logical truths with Kant, was a very important part in the post-Kantian philosophy, to Hegel, who took the paradoxical character, so it is effectively denied to every proposition in which subject and predicate are different terms, that is, from most cases of which it makes use (of the form "A is B"). For Hegel, however, the principle of identity must become the principle "of identity and non-identity," "preserving" and "overcoming" at the same time the contradiction.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hard to something new to counter the brilliant philosophers of antiquity. We can improvise and create a cadence in philosophy, but the basic melody has eternal.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
3 answers
"Bernard's highly-refined rhetorical skills and legendary ability to persuade at their best."
(Sancti Bernardi Opera, eds. J. Leclercq, C.H. Talbot, H.M. Rochais (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957-77) 4:59-116).
Relevant answer
Answer
I also found the bibliography in Le Coat's The Rhetoric of the Arts 1550-1650 (Peter Lang 1975) fun exploring.
Karl
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
10 answers
How does this relate to causation in his work?
Relevant answer
Answer
The target of your question is somewhat unclear, as is indicated by the rather diverse reactions of other respondents. Are you asking for a "simple definition" of dynamis (δύναμις),: the term that Aristotle uses for potency, potentiality, capacity, power, where the translation (into English, say) depends upon the context? As you list your topic as "metaphysics", dynamis would be the most likely candidate for the thing for which you hope to find a simple definition. If so, then there is no one simple definition to be found, but there are several definitions, as is so often the case for Aristotle's key systematic terms, since these are, according to him, typically polysemous. The normal place to start looking is in Metaphysics V — Aristotle's own "dictionary" of key terms. That doesn't always provide what you want, since the dictionary is not always in accord with what Aristotle says elsewhere. Moreover, the definitions provided may be difficult to fathom without reference to the larger discussions where the terms in question are deployed. But, if you are in fact interested in "power" in the sense of dynamis, then you will find Aristotle's own definitions in Metaphysics V, beginning at 1019a15. What he says there, in Tredennick's translation, is this:
- - -
[1019a] [15] "Potency" [δύναμις] means: (a) the source of motion or change which is in something other than the thing changed, or in it qua other. E.g., the science of building is a potency which is not present in the thing built; but the science of medicine, which is a potency, may be present in the patient, although not qua patient. Thus "potency" means the source in general of change or motion in another thing, or in the same thing qua other; [20] or the source of a thing's being moved or changed by another thing, or by itself qua other (for in virtue of that principle by which the passive thing is affected in any way we call it capable of being affected; sometimes if it is affected at all, and sometimes not in respect of every affection, but only if it is changed for the better). (b) The power of performing this well or according to intention; because sometimes we say that those who can merely take a walk, or speak, without doing it as well as they intended, cannot speak or walk. And similarly in the case of passivity. (c) All states in virtue of which things are unaffected generally, or are unchangeable, or cannot readily deteriorate, are called "potencies." For things are broken and worn out and bent and in general destroyed not through potency but through impotence and deficiency of some sort; and things are unaffected by such processes which are scarcely or slightly affected because they have a potency and are potent and are in a definite state.
Since "potency" has all these meanings, "potent" (or "capable") will mean (a) that which contains a source of motion or change (for even what is static is "potent" in a sense) which takes place in another thing, or in itself qua other.
- - -
And there is more of interest in the immediately following text. However, if you seek really to understand Aristotle's idea of a dynamis in the sense of a power to affect (or, for that matter, to be affected ) then you will want to look at his insightful discussion in Metaphysics IX, starting at 1046a1.
If you want to connect up the notion of a "power" with larger issues of causation and agency, you might like to read (among other things) my article, "Agency and Patiency — Back to Nature?" (Philosophical Explorations 5:1 (2002) pp. 59-81). At any rate, a "simple definition" of dynamis will not, by itself, get you all that far.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
3 answers
The philosophical system of Hegel falls within logical idealism or panlogism since reducing all reality to rationality, it excludes and represses the individual aspects, and particularly the emotional ones, of human existence and therefore opens to a totalitarian world.
Dialectics is the process through which Reason is implemented. This process is divided into position, negation, negation of the negation - passing and preservation, unification of the two opposites in a higher determination, in which the first two, taken in isolation are abstract. Each synthesis is "temporary" because it becomes a position of a next triadic process.
Hegel claims the cognitive value of dialectics, indeed as the supreme form of knowledge. Compared to the classical dialectics he reforms it in a dynamic sense. Because reality is ‘becoming’, it is movement and dynamism (for Hegel a static concept, because being static it can not be true) the dialectical movement can not be other than a circular or spiral movement with a triadic rhythm.
Hegel explains the particular reality deducing it from an absolute principle, considering the subject of knowledge not the facts and actual individuals, but the categories and abstract principles.
Moreover, Hegel says: absolute is not static, it is not substance, but it is in the making. What does it mean to be in the making? That can not be grasped in its essence by a punctual intuition, but through a discourse, that is, through reason.
At this point we must refer to the distinction between intuition and discourse. Intuition, which philosophy mostly limits to the sensible, is an act of knowledge, is a unique act of apprehension, stationary in time: seizing this glass in hand or seeing it with a single glance I have an intuition of this object . Intuition mostly confined to the sensible, is an act on time, it does not have a development over time. Schelling extends the concept of intuition to the supreme knowledge of the absolute which is a point of distinction of I and non-I and is caught with an intellectual intuition, similar to the aesthetic one. Hegel, instead, argues that the absolute, being ‘becoming’, can not be captured by a single act of intellection, but must be understood as a series of acts, that is, by reasoning, by a discourse.
The absolute can not be seized immediately, but only through the sequence of mediations in which it develops. "Mediation" seems an abstract term, strange, but it is present in all reasoning. Every argument implies starting from a premise and develop precisely the threads of the discussion through intermediate terms - hence the word "mediation" - to come to prove its own point.
The speculative-dialectical process, namely the formation of thought gives rise to concepts. The procedure consists in discussing not only what follows by a certain premise, but also what follows from the opposite one. And this corresponds to the principle of dialectic overcoming, by which the conduct of the self-development of the concept does not stop at its immediate location, but raises also the take off of this and move on to the opposite, to remove also this other, and so return in itself. On the contrary, any knowledge of single determinations taken by itself, ends always with the result that "each of them pierces into its opposite ', since in this way one stays at the one-sided consideration of negation for itself (as it would in skepticism) .
The resolution of the contradiction is in fact only a moment of self-development of the concept, because all the movement is caused by constant contradictions, which always renew themselves. Of course each of them is always exceeded, but then in the next category it rises again, to be overcome and then recur and so on. What is certain is that you never return to Non-Contradiction, either temporarily or, a fortiori, definitely. The resolution, however, is always a return, in the "return to self", but in such a way to protects the "switch" that, as Hegel says literally, "is the" essential ", and that is the reverse of the mutual opposites.
Relevant answer
Answer
I think that it may be presumptuous to think that there are definite "correct" solutions to the conflicts between theses and antitheses in Hegelian dialectic. In the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel identifies examples of contradictions at various levels, and shows how reason can avoid the contradictions and lead to higher understanding in which the the truths behinds the thesis and the antithesis are taken  in a synthesis which avoids the particular contradictions, only to find within the particular solutions other contradictions. However,  there may be more than one way of transcending the contradictions, each of which do actually resolve certain contractions, but may not resolve all the possible attendant contradictions; and the new syntheses can all be discovered to lead to new contradictions.  I suppose the meaning of the claim that the "Absolute is always sleeping" is that given our finitude and subjective standpoints, we will never arrive at Absolute Knowledge, even though the examinations of the dialectic of reason gives us a characterization of what Absolute Knowledge entails.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
4 answers
Bernhard of Chartres says in his Glosses on Plato, that such an ideal state cannot exist in this world. Is this now his own opinion, or does he refer to Republic IX 592ab? Because: As far as I know there was no copy of the Republic in his time, only Calcidius' Timaeus. So how could he refer to the Republic in such a detailed way?
Relevant answer
Answer
The answer to your question is most probably that Bernard is referring to a passage in the Republic that he does not know directly but has seen quoted in one of the many authors listed in the previous answer. If I were trying to find the exact source, I would refer to the work of Stephen Gersh and Peter Dronke. Here are two starting points.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
22 answers
Like Rowe, in his paper "The meaning of φρόνησις in EE", argues that Aristotle uses the term φρόνησις in the passages 1215b2, 1216a11 and 1216a37 as wisdom, without making it clear whether it is practical or theoretical wisdom. This would reveal a non-technical use by Aristotle in EE and would have several implications in the Aristotelian conception of ethics at this time, thus leading to the possibility of ethics still be seen as a theoretical science, approaching the EE of Platonic influence on Aristotle. 
I don't "buy" the complete Rowe's interpretation, but I have to admit that the meaning of φρόνησις in those passages is very ambiguous.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Ferenc Hörcher:
"On the whole I think Aristotle's practical philosophy makes sense only if distinguishable from his mater's one. However, I go with Gadamer, who claims that there are strong Platonic building blocks in this theory"
Of course, as soon as one wishes to determine the relationship between Aristotelian thought and Platonic philosophy, one runs immediately into two fundamental problems. The first is that each author seems to have left us diametrically opposed, or at least opposite, literature. For Aristotle, we have something akin to his lecture notes: material intended for the Academy and students. We lack the more formal composition that was "literature" vs. letters, mandates, court scripts (Antiphon's likely fictional oratory I'd count as literature, but in general prepared defenses that come down to us I wouldn't as they were not meant to be and were not considered to be).  For Plato, all we have is his literary works (and maybe a couple of letters admit the pseudepigrapha. Aristotle himself was one of the first to demarcate writings into genre and analyze the importance and nature of each category (περὶ ποιητικῆς αὐτῆς τε καὶ τῶν εἰδῶν αὐτῆς/”concerning literature both itself and the many forms it has…” Poetics 1447a). Plato not only dealt with genre but with the dangerous power literature and/or oral history/tradition had. I think that their recognition of genre as in some sense a medium both fixing and dictating the content of composition renders the distinctions between the 'kind of writing left to us by each all the more important when it comes to interpretation.
Then there's the Socratic problem. Whatever influences Plato had on Aristotle, Aristotle's works were his own. On the most superficial and inaccurate interpretation, Plato just repeated the teachings of Socrates. This is, I think, clearly wrong, but it is quite likely that Plato didn't just use Socrates as a mouthpiece, especially in his earlier works.
So we have Aristotle writing a different kind of literature for a different kind of audience, and the works of Plato which are not only literary (Aristotle was first tell us of τούς Σωκρατικούς λόγους as a genre of sorts), but also tied quite directly to what Socrates taught in ways that are impossible to wholly separate.
In short, I guess I would just agree that such a broad view of both philosophers' thought can't be of much help here. It is within the text and secondarily the corpus that we have our best chance of understanding the usage here. The problem then becomes partly a matter of the Greek language (not that Greek was or is alone here). In the Romance languages (even Latin itself to some extent) and English that we find (like the use of a numerical "alphabet" which differs from the written) a large influx and coining of technical terms using classical languages. One need look no further than German to see what a difference this can make. Greek is harder, as technically there weren't any technical words. Just technical contexts. 
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
5 answers
The term appears in the first sentence of Topics VIII 5: "are evident now which should be (στοχαστέον) the goals / objectives of the respondent." And then Aristotle introduces a disjunction: every proposition put by the questioner must be either generally accepted (and that "generally" seems to appeal to the justification / rationale of the respondent) or generally rejected. After that follow the consequences of accepting or rejecting a proposition, namely that if the respondent accepts or rejects, must also assume that there is a total acceptance or total rejection, ie, it must stand as a kind of "universal respondent". After Aristotle also discusses the relationship between acceptance, rejection and relevance of propositions. My question is about the beginning of discussion to establish some normative way of thinking about the goals of the respondent.
Relevant answer
Answer
Either I desperately need to brush up on my Greek or I am getting something else confused here. The line Φανερὸν οὖν τίνων στοχαστέον τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ, εἴτε ἁπλῶς ἔνδοξον εἴτε τινὶ τὸ κείμενόν ἐστιν begins part 6 (159b 36).
More interestingly, we have in this line two important and scarcely analyzed aspects of Greek grammar in this one line. Pheneron, the lexeme beginning the line, is one of several words commonly used in Greek in impersonal constructions ("it appears...","it seems", etc.). Impersonal constructions have, alas, received too little attention in General, let alone in analyses of classical Greek. An exception (of sorts) is Bauer's Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French, which aims to demonstrate that PIE was a language of the active type. One piece of evidence proffered concern the relative ubiquity of impersonal constructions in IE language (Es gibt, c'est, il est, there is, etc.) compared to their absence, at least in any readily comparable way, in non-IE languages. In Classical Greek, impersonal constructions are tied into a sort of fledgling modal system and show tell-tale signs of grammaticalization. For example, some common impersonal verbs appear only as such or almost always do: δεῖ, χρή, and ἔξεστι.
Both –τέος/  τέον are modal inflectional affixes which “experiment la modalité de l’obligatif, où l’exécution de l’action verbale est présentée comme obligatoire" (Duhoux's Le Verbe Grec Ancien). They two are part of a Greek modal system and in particular one that I have come to refer to as prepontic modality (indicating/denoting suitability, propriety, and frequently blending with modal domains concerning obligation or necessity).
It should be understood, then, that στοχαστέον cannot be adequately treated as a lexeme, as it is far more schematized and appears as an impersonal construction within another impersonal construction, both creating epistemic distance (profiling he statement as true/fact independent of the author). I would argue that the line is better translated as something close to "it is clear how the answerer should reply", treating στοχαστέον as semantically bleached. Perhaps this is taking it too far, but the important point is that the double impersonal modal constructions must be interpreted via the modal domains they construe. The force of the opening clause is not simply what is evident or apparent but what is clearly required or obviously necessary.
The rest is fairly straightforward, as we have a list of rules concerning when a premise should be responded to as such. The first rule ("ἢ ἔνδοξον εἶναι ἢ ἄδοξον ἢ μηδέτερον") is not general acceptance vs. non-acceptance, but a tautology. Either the statement is accepted, or it isn't, or neither. Non tertium datur doesn't even hold here, as Aristotle is concerned with covering all possibilities. This is not true of the next condition which necessarily holds: relevancy. Either the premise is or isn't relevant and now there is no third way. And so on.
But the opening line uses grammatical (or highly schematic/schematized and at least partially grammaticized) means to convey the necessary/obligatory and obvious state of affairs the answerer finds herself or himself in give any premise.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
9 answers
There are several instances that when an event occurs the effect is seen to be positive on one individual while the same has a negative effect on the other. It is difficult to really understand as what is good and what is evil or bad either. In fact I feel they are the two sides of the same coin, where the side of the coin that we see is taken as an understanding with respect to an event, law, culture or in general every aspect whether materialistic, abstract, spiritual, etc that form our life and world while the other side is either ignored or remains unobserved. I hope to have a better enlightenment from various scholars.
Relevant answer
Answer
A very good question indeed. Its structure involves metaphysics, ontology and ethics. I am recently working on some very important texts of Neoplatonism and Early Christian thought, namely the treatise of Proclus, the great Athenian Neoplatonic philosopher of the 5th century, 'On the Existence of Evils' (English transl. by J. Opsomer & C. Steel, Bloomsbury 2013) and the treatise 'On the Divine Names' of Dionysius the Areopagite (English transl. by C.E. Rolt, London 1920), a Christian author of an ambiguous origin, a text widely agreed to be dated in the beginning of the 6th century). I would suggest as a very fruitful brainstorming to take a look on both of them. 
Well, from the greek philosophy point of view, we could in general say -of course exemptions exist- that evil does not exist. From Plato onwards, and this line is maintained by all his successors -even by those who are somehow remotely regarding the core of Platonic philosophy, evil exists only with reference to the good. But this should not lead us towards manichaistic dualism; It is clear the evil exists only as privation, lack, absence of the good.
Already in the Platonic and Neoplatonic (pagan) philosophy the good is almost identified with God (in many dialogues, i.e. Theaetetus, Republic, Timaeus, Plato does everything possible to make clear that evil should not be connected with the divine). However, it is the Christian philosophy of late antiquity within which becomes mostly sharp that good is whatever derives from God. Thus, the entire creature is good, and in general, everything that exists is good, since good and being are almost equivalent notions, allow me to say so. (This idea is also responsible for the paradoxical argument: if we accept that evil exists, then, given that all existence derives from God and hence is good, it should be also good. 
Now, what starts to become more consciously clear during the evolution of the Christian late Antique and Byzantine philosophical tradition is that we should rather turn towards the faculty of the will to locate evil, than to invent metaphysical principles. Evil is opposed to God and to God's goodness not as essence (here is crucial to underline that God's essence remains unknowable in the entire Christian philosophical and theological tradition) but as the decision to oppose to God. For this tradition, the power that creates, produces, maintains and sustains the world is God's divine energies (activities). Therefore, opposition to God implies opposition to the presuppositions of life. From this point of view, evil 'substantiates' as corruption and destruction.
If evil is connected to the will, then one, because of the freedom that has been granted from God and that allows him to act even against God, is free to decide to act against God's Word (the Word of God must not be understood as an ethical commandment for a morally accepted life, but as the ontological foundation of the cosmos). Hence, evil appears as that which opposes to God, who is the Good.
From this point of view, evil is introduced to the cosmos only through beings that have the ability to use their freedom in order to act against God. Therefore, evil appears when a rational being decides to act against his creator, against his creative algorithm. In the hierarchical understanding of cosmos, an understanding developed already within Neoplatonic philosophy, rational beings are not only the humans but also the angels, the demons, the souls. The loss of humbleness of some angels prompted them to think that they can reverse the parameters of the(ir) creation, namely to replace him who created the world. It is extremely interesting to deepen into the mystery of the human being and see, or understand somehow, how this corruption affected not only the angels, but also the human soul and mind, so that the human being believed that can become God in the place of God and without God's help.
From this point of view, the differentiation between good and evil is very simple: evil does not exist. We can speak of evil as the absence of the good. Ontological, so to say, evil does not exist. This is very well understood by many major Greek philosophers and theologians, as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, and all of them argued on evil by starting from the good and ended up to the good. For, they had very clear in their mind that they couldn't speak of evil as such. Even Proclus, who tries to define evil as such, uses all the qualities of the good, structuring what I could call the non-ontology of evil.
There are many things that can be said. I just tried to write down what the question prompted me to think. As for the practical side of the question, I think that since the good is, as it comes out from the above, inherent to the human beings, each one of us has somehow a sort of inner information of what is good to act and what bad.
I don't think I could agree with the idea of the two sides of the same coin; what I tried to imply in the above is that there is an asymmetry between good and evil. We cannot think and speak of evil the way we do for the good. For the latter is, while the former is not.  
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
24 answers
Like Aristotle's four causes, what are the different types of reasons?
I'm thinking there are one's based on sentiments, passionate and computational. That's as far as I've gotten. I'd love to hear comments additional ones. Also, here are just a couple stumbling blocks I've come across:
For example, what kind of reasoning did Gödel use to liberate himself from the very limitations which he argued were characteristic of sufficiently developed computational devices?
Or what about poor Gretchen in Goethe's Faust. She commits infanticide, yet she is the symbol of innocence throughout the epic. What kind of reasoning did she use to commit her action? Here we get into the very importance of law with the different types of reasoning.
Can anyone else elaborate or add to this small list of the different types of reasoning? 
Relevant answer
Answer
There are four basic forms of logic: deductive, inductive, abductive and metaphoric inference. In deduction inference leads fro true propositions to true propositions. In induction we can infer from cases to generalizations, which get conformation from premisses. In abduction one can infer causes from effect, thus going backward from "conclusions to premisses". Abduction is also called diagnosis. In metaphoric inference  we transfer knowledge from  one area to another area, say we study economy in terms of evolution theory. 
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
27 answers
Many scientists differentiate the hard physical sciences from philosophy, some even say "that's not science its philosophy". Are they missing the point in a big way?
Relevant answer
Answer
There are philosophies that apply to all sciences (e.g. how to define, design and conduct a field experiment to test a hypothesis X, whatever the research domain; e.g. Hurlbert 1984; Ecology, Psychology, Human Sciences, Ethology, Political Sciences, Behaviour, etc.....) and there are philosophies that are specific to each research domain (e.g. how to define, design and conduct a playback experiment to test the messages and meanings of bird song in a single model species; Behavioral Ecology, Ornithology).
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
8 answers
I am currently studying the art of Barnett Newman and his theories upon Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy in his artwork. Do you think that there should initially be a justification to tragedy being found in the visual arts? Nietzsche believed that tragedy was born out of music. How would you go about justifying that the visual arts can also produce tragedy? Are there any contemporary philosophers that have written upon the subject and attempted explanation?
Relevant answer
Answer
This is actually getting amusing - scholars disagreeing about the role of translation in interpreting the writings of Nietzsche, who himself as a philologist was highly concerned with translations of ancient languages...
Could everyone agree on a non-extrimist position? Yes, we should as scholars always - if possible - refer back to the original text. But this can only serve as an argument concerning a specific passage in question. As an overall critique ("he did not use the original text") it remains superficial.
@Emily: My answer to your question would be yes, of course it can be related to the visual arts. The apollinic state of mind is "building order", Nietzsches paradigm being the dream. The dionysic state of mind is "giving up order", the paradigm being intoxication.
These differences spread across all the arts, while some art forms in certain times in history might focus on bringing out one side stronger than the other. In ancient greece, there was apollinic music - e.g. the practise of the kithara, in its intervalls showing the perfect order of the cosmos (spelled out by the pythagoreans). And there also was more dionysic music, like the wild dances of peasents, using the detyrambus rhythm. The attic tragedy incorporated both states of mind.
I see no reason, why those differences in the depicted or incorporated states of mind should not apply to the visual arts (unless one disagrees fundamentally with Nietzsche's framework).
Your project sounds really intruiging. It would be quite interesting to e.g. compare Newmans interpretation of Nietzsche to some eminent Nietzsche scholar and bring out the differences directly in interpreting Newmans work...
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
7 answers
Take the average person you meet - how do they make decisions? What about evolution - has the scientific method ever had any influence on genetic mutation, or has any other aspect of evolution had any influence on living beings?
Relevant answer
Answer
At its core, the scientific method is asking a question based on some observation you made, positing a possible answer, and then testing out that possible answer (your hypothesis). As practicing scientists we take it to an extreme level, focusing on statistics and peer-review, but at its heart, the scientific method is something that all people and probably most animals use every day, instinctively. The lion cub observes a porcupine, wonders if it's edible, and then tests that hypothesis of edibility. If her experiment falsifies her hypothesis (a mouthful of porcupine quills probably will!) she has her answer, and probably won't need to repeat the experiment. But that's the scientific method in action. I think it is as inherent to living creatures as is the ability to learn: not every species has it, but it's far more common than we might think, from our typical anthropocentric viewpoint. This ability to posit and answer questions would most certainly confer an evolutionary advantage to the actor.
  • asked a question related to Ancient Philosophy
Question
26 answers
Consider the following facts.
1) Any learning process starts from ignorance. For instance, when a human begins learning to play violin, he only produces bad sounds. From the first bad sounds he can go toward virtuosity.
2) When a new word is read, frequently one assigns a bad meaning to it. After reading the same word in different contexts, the proper meaning can be deduced.
3) For our ancestors Earth was plain. Now is almost a sphere.
4) Each truth is the limit of a sequence of corrected errors.
5) Even preserving the same books, dogmatic thought changes as time runs.
Relevant answer
Answer
"Give me the fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself."--Vilfredo Pareto
"Benjamin Franklin once said, “Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late”. Reflecting on my life, the lessons I have learned and the insight I have gained throughout the years, I can certainly see the truth in Mr. Franklin's adage.
My Seed of Truth is an attempt to do something about this dilemma I see in life. I believe by having people all around the world share a truth (something important to know in life), I can create an opportunity for many people to learn from one another. Maybe I am naive, but I believe the world can literally teach the world how to live.
I want to create a book of collective understanding that's universal and fundamental on what's important to know in life and make this book available to the world for FREE! I believe the more we know about the human experience, the easier it can be to create a better life for ourselves and others!" -David Rivera, My Seed of Truth