One more point (on topic).

I don't see how "learning vs remembering" is the same as "nature vs nurture". The two seem similar but entirely different conceptions.

The concept of "remembering" suggests an active God/agent.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Plato argued that everything is inherent, and that everything you can ever "learn" you actually alread know. Because of this he calls "learning" remembering (in some translations), for you are merely remembering something that was inherent in you at birth, but that you've forgotten while on the earth.

Aristotle argued that everything you know, you know from experience or you "learn."

So the question is do we know and are able to relate to the world around us by experiencing it, or by experiencing reality are we moving back towards our essence. Instead of growing beyond what we already were, are merely growing into what we used to be.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

A reasonable outline of Plato and Aristotle's views on the nature of 'learning'.

This is not the same as "nature vs nurture".

Plato's invocation requires a God. It is not for nothing that Platonism (and neoplatonism) are often called "Christianity for educated people".

This seems rather 'mystical'.

Nature vs nurture is a genetics argument - not a godly one.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

In that framework, I'm very much in agreement with Aristotle. I think that observable changes in the brain in reaction to sensory input validate the idea that knowledge is acquired rather than remembered.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

Well, it requires an external force, but not a god. After reading The Republic it's fairly clear that Plato himself didn't beleive in the gods. He did obviously beleive in something beyond humans, but I believe it is more accurately called the essence, or something along those lines.

It's not the same as nature v. nurture, but then again it is. Plato would just be argueing for a specific kind of nature.

My question then is this: is there an idealized form we should be trying to live up to? Should we be trying to capture the essence? Or are we just a collection of our experiences, and is our essence an individualized standard that each individual should strive to live up to within themselves?

Or is this whole thing just bullshit? Should man even strive to be great, or should man just survive reproduce and then die?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Same difference.

After reading The Laws or Timeus, it is fairly clear that Plato himself did believe in a god-like creator of the universe.

Plato wrote many dialogues spanning a great deal of time. His own views appear to change over time and this is evident in the progression of dialogues. The Republic is a relatively 'early' work. The Laws and Timeus are 'later' works.

Which is very different from the specific kind of nature (genetics) that is meant by the expression "nature vs nurture". Ergo, they are not the same.

You appear to be asking if God exists.

Its up to you.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Agreed.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Not really, I'm fairly sure where I stand on this issue, I'm trying to solicite the views of others. Also, you can argue that objectivity exists and that there are ideals that could be established through a means other than God. Espeically other than the christian/islam/Jewish god, so you are misunderstanding the statement.

Ultimately, I'm asking if, in your opinion, there is an objective standard (The Good, The Beautiful, and The True) that can be striven for. Is there objectivity, in general, but also in relation to the human experience.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

I do not accept the independent existence of ephemeral ideals or forms.

Definitely no. All such "objective" standards are subjective, relative and the tool only of tyrants.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]