Eaglerising:
I was in agreement about Tesla in respect to consciousness and the mind, based upon what you quoted him saying. I didn't realize it was your interpretation of his quote.
There seems to be some confusion here. Nick quoted something that is credited to Tesla but a) I have found no credible source that attributes this quote to him, b) the quote says nothing about consciousness, and c) I have offered no interpretation of Tesla, just straight quotes with references to where he said them.
Nick may have called his misrepresentation of Tesla an “interpretation”, but if he did so it must have been via a PM since there is no record of it here.
I have always had difficulty with people presening a quote as being original when it isn't. If someone modifies or alters another quote, they need to take OWNERSHIP OF IT by expressing it is their interpretation.
I am in agreement and that is why I have called him out on this with regard to the alleged Tesla quote for the second time. But it is not an isolated occurrence, and unless one known the authors or works in question one might not even suspect that this is occurring.
Although we may differ with regard to interpretation, there are standards that should be honored. A plausible interpretation should shed light on the work as a whole and make connections between the parts and how they function within the whole. A plausible interpretation must not ignore things an author says because they undermine one’s interpretation.
If, for example, Nick says:
… heart knowledge is the center of [...] Socratic philosophy …
Then he must provide evidence in support of that claim. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Socratic sources - Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon, or Aristotle say anything about “heart knowledge”. What is paradigmatic of Socratic knowledge is the ability to give a reasoned account. ‘X’ is not considered to be true or likely to be true or considered to be an acceptable opinion as to what might be true because one “feels” it to be true. In fact, Plato’s Socrates is critical of the poets because they cannot give a reasoned account of what they say. He dismisses their claim that they are the conduit of the gods.
Nick_A:
F4, Compare these two quotes. The first, if nothing else, is attributed to Tesla …
You are attempting to gloss over the fact that it appears that it is wrongly attributed to Tesla. If you cannot provide evidence that he actually said it then you should not be attributing it to him.
Plato said roughly the same as did Simone …
Whether or not he did, and I think it quite clear that he did not unless, of course, one practices selective blindness and ignores the whole in favor of isolated parts taken out of context, the shift away from Tesla serves only to confuse matters.
The great Ways suggest Man has the potential to fall under conscious influences as well from beyond the observable and become conscious beings.
And here, in a paragraph that begins with a discussion of Tesla, you insert your own beliefs as if you were explicating both Tesla and Plato.
Tesla wasn’t concerned with this.
So why bring it up? Earlier you claimed that Tesla said the brain received consciousness. Rather than admit you were wrong (and you already knew that since we had this discussion on another thread) you bring in all kinds of things including consciousness as if it were all part of the same and then say that Tesla wasn’t concerned with this. It sure does look like you are trying to obfuscate.
The brains of all animal life are receivers and instruments of interpretation. Tesla would agree but you insist on arguing.
The issue is whether he was making a claim about receiving consciousness.
I’ve learned by experience that academic philosophy is parroting.
And what is the extent of that experience? Anyone with truly representative experience of academic philosophy knows that there is a wide variety of approaches, methodologies, and goals, depending on instructors and schools, and that the ability to construct, defend, and analyze arguments is a necessary skill that has nothing to do with parroting.
The Socratic dialogue with the help of an experienced facilitator allows a group to experience a universal through the sharing of personal opinions and experiencing their limitations.
What is that universal that is experienced? If one reads on a superficial level it might be something like that there are eternal unchanging truths Plato calls Forms, but that is not an experience, it is information. If one reads at a deeper level one begins to experience the aporetic nature of philosophy.
Academics would teach chess by teaching the laws of the game and what the great masters said about the game.
Some do, some don’t. That depends on the teacher. As with any subject or activity, there are different approaches and methodologies. You really do not have either the knowledge or experience to make such a definitive statement, do you?
Once a person escapes from the rigidity of the academics they learn how to play the game
There may be notable exceptions, but most grandmasters have extensive education in chess and were taught the laws, as well as what the great masters said and did.
Academic philosophy teaches what to know to satisfy academic opinions and Socratic philosophy teaches how to know and experience what philosophy attracts us to: how to play the game.
It may seem that way to someone with little or no experience and knowledge, but what occurs in academic philosophy is quite a bit more complicated than this caricature, and Socratic philosophy does not teach us “how to know”. It can make us aware of what we do and do not know. But some mistake Plato’s mythology for Socratic philosophy. They ignore the aporetic center. The dialogues almost always lead to to a recognition that whatever else was said it remains the case that we do not know what the philosopher desires to know. Socratic philosophy is not about the transcendence of human human wisdom. To believe that humans possess what he called divine wisdom is ignorance of ignorance.