Creativity and business. Heros and anti-heros. Etc.

[Senna Jawa]

It's good to have the Poets' Hangout. Before we get a little bit serious, I'll pass an anecdote, and let bogusagain take the floor first for real.

Here is the link:

The Time Mark Cuban Got Magic Johnson Kicked Off A Plane​

Mark Cuban is a Billionaire (upper case B I guess). Magic Johnson was at the time a basketball charismatic super-star. To make it more interesting, Magic played for Lakers (Los Angeles). Cuban had his own NBA team, namely Mavericks (Dallas). He also had a privilege of getting two 1-class airplane tickets at any time, for himself and anybody he would have for company, to fly wherever the plane would take him. This means that occssionally some people had to be kicked off a plane to accommodate Cuban. And that's what happened to the famous and already reasonably rich Magic. He got kicked off the plane.

BTW, another trivia. Magic's mother didn't like nickname Magic. She was deeply religious, and I guess Magic sounded too pagan to her.

OK, now bogusagain it's your floor, take it.

PS. A week has passed (the post was on March 9, and right now it's March 17. I like this topic so that I may continue.

PPS. There may or not more people joining this thread (please, why not). There may or may not be differences of opinions. As long as there are sill no such differences I will be editing my posts so that it will be possible to read this thread as an article. Once there is a discussion I will avoid any editing but for trivial typos and similar, so that the discusion thread would not be obscured.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Early ancient Greek heros and antiheros.

The great early heros were Eudoxes:

• Eudoxus of Cnidus, 408–355 BC
• Euclid of Alexandria, fl. 300 BC (yes, his birth and death dates are not knows)
• Archimedes of Syracuse, c. 287 BC – c. 212 BC

The anti-heros (that's a polite term) were:

• Plato, 428/427 or 424/423 BC – 348/347 BC
• Aristotle, 384 – 322 BC

 

[rotsak]

Oops, nothing to say.

 

[bogusagain]

I've just noticed the thread Senna and just acknowledging that. I'm going to give the question some thought and come back to it.

 

[Senna Jawa]

I've just noticed the thread Senna and just acknowledging that. I'm going to give the question some thought and come back to it.

Great, looking forward!

 

[Senna Jawa]

What about Socrates?

A good question. I suspect that he should be considered an anti-hero too. Here's a bare 1-line minimum about him:

• Socrates, 470/469 BC – 399 BC

Philosophers like to claim that they don't want to get involved in politics but they do. Certainly all three of them did: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Socrates was considering a dictatorship by philosophers. Not much is known about him, and not for a good reason, not because information about him got lost accidentally. It did but not accidentally. To a great extent it was Plato's doing. But also of Socrates too. They could be straight. Then we would know a lot about them. But these guys were not straight, and the things got muddy. It's impossible these days to know the Socrates views or the Plato's views, they are these days mostly what is left from the fiction left by Plato.

And you know, if you are not fooled by them then all this is not even that important. They: Socrates, Plato and Aristotel, were just about as intelligent as other Greeks, and far less profound than the three heros: Eudoxus, Euclid, Archimedes. Our anti-heros were good at grabbing recognition for achievements which belonged to the intellectual public domain of their time. On the top of it Aristotle is also on record for writing a lot of garbage. It's funny how philosophers today acknowledge that it was garbage but they still make for Aristotle huge excuses. Our heros E-E-A, for a contrast, didn't need any excuses, they made PROFOUND intellectual and practical contribution to science and technology.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Eudoxus_of_Cnidus (408–355 BC)--part 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I freely borrow from en.wikipedia articles.

Request: please, let me know about any typos, and orthographic and grammatical errors, so that I will be able to fix them.

*********************************************

Eudoxus made fundamental contributions to mathematics and astronomy. He also made contributions to philosophy. And relatively to philosophy, his input was fundamental once more (if nowhere as deep as his mathematical and astronomy achievements; philosophy and potato are just not such a big deal altogether).

Here is a non-complete list:

1. Definition of real numbers. At first the ancient Greek geometers assumed that for any two finite intervals A B there exists an interval D such each of A B is an integer multiple D. That's how rational numbers occur. Say A is 5 times as long as D, and B is 3 times as long as D, that the proportion of A : B is 5:3, so that we can say that the fraction of the lengths is 5/3. Now consider a square. Let A be its diagonal, and B--its side. One day a student of Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570 BC – c. 495 BC) proved that there is no D as described above!!! The diagonal and the side are not commesearable!!! Pythagoras promptly decided that this information is too dangerous to be passed to the public. And when another student shared the irrationality of the sq.diagonal / side quotient Pythagoras had hi killed. You may think that these mathematical things are just trifles but cost a human life. But what was Pythagoras suppossed to do? If you have intervals then you need to have the proportion but it didn't exist. The whole system and the whole knowledge had crumbled. The situation was safed about a century later by Eudoxus who had invented the real numbers (in a geometric language). Euclid recorded Eudoxus work. Archimedes developed it way further. Then more or less the basic Eudoxus construction got neglected and forgotten for centuries. But not completely. Isaac Newton (1642/12/25 –1727/03/20)--one of the ten sharpest minds ever--pioneered Mathematcal Analysis (Fermat and Descartes were precursors; and possibly Leibniz was a coinventor). However, during Newton's life and even for a while longer after Newton's death, Mathematical Analysis was missing a solid foundation. Thus Newton in his works on physics gave up on Mathematical Analysis, and went back to ancient Greek method, mainly by Eudoxus. It was only thanks to Richard Dedekind (1831/10/06 – 1916/02/12) and his mathematical generation that the real numbers were defined anew, and this time the construction was based on Set Theory).
2. Geometry. Geometers compare not just segments (intervals) but also areas and volumes. This is much more involved than working just with intervals. The topic is rich into possibilities. You get 2-dimensional polyhedra, circular discs, ... then 3-dimensional polyhedra (their face are 2-dimensional polyhedra), etc. To be fair to the 1-dimensional word, you get also a plethora of 1-dimensional objects called curves. Eudoxus proved that ares of (circular) disks or proportoonal to the squares of their radii: if disks A B have radii r s respectively then
   
   
   |A|/|B| = (r*r)/(s*s)​
   
   He also proved that the volume of a prism or of a cone is a 1/3 of a cylinder with the same base and the same altitude. This even today is a spectacular unobvious result, quite surprising. To obtain such results Eudoxus had to use his tool, namely his definition of the real numbers--that's just a tool, one of them; Eudoxus had to be ingenuous on the top of it.
   
   Let's get some appreciation of the problem of comparing the areas and volumes. Consider a symmetric trapezoid which has the parallel sides of length 4 and 2, and altitude 2. Then you may cut out a right triangle of altitude 2 and base 1 off one end of the trapezoid, and you may glue it to the other end up side down, so that you will end up with a rectangle with the same altitude 2 but the other side will have length 3--observe that 3 = (4 + 2)/2. This way you proved that the given trapezoid has the same area as the resulted rectangle.
   
   In the case of 2-dimensional polyhedra that's how you prove that two of them have the same are: you cut one of them into a finite number of polyhedral pieces, and you assemble the other polyhedron from the pieces. Great! Now you may consider a tetrahedron (i.e. a prism with a triangular base) and a cube of the same volume. So, one would like to cut the tetrahedron and to reassembler the cube. Except that in general this is not possible! This was proved by Max Dehn (1878/11/13 – 1952/06/27) in year 1900.
   
   Now imagine that you were in Eudoxus shoe. You get this wonderful and general method of cutting into pieces one item and reassembling it to the other one. It's natural to use this method. After all nobody had anything else. So you cut and cut and assembly and assembly the pieces and... nothing comes out of it. If you're persistent you may try for ten or twenty years. But Eudoxus found another way without waiting two millennia for Max Dehn to tell him that reassembling does not work.

 

[pelegrino]

A good question. I suspect that he should be considered an anti-hero too. Here's a bare 1-line minimum about him:

• Socrates, 470/469 BC – 399 BC

Philosophers like to claim that they don't want to get involved in politics but they do. Certainly all three of them did: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Socrates was considering a dictatorship by philosophers. Not much is known about him, and not for a good reason, not because information about him got lost accidentally. It did but not accidentally. To a great extent it was Plato's doing. But also of Socrates too. They could be straight. Then we would know a lot about them. But these guys were not straight, and the things got muddy. It's impossible these days to know the Socrates views or the Plato's views, they are these days mostly what is left from the fiction left by Plato.

And you know, if you are not fooled by them then all this is not even that important. They: Socrates, Plato and Aristotel, were just about as intelligent as other Greeks, and far less profound than the three heros: Eudoxus, Euclid, Archimedes. Our anti-heros were good at grabbing recognition for achievements which belonged to the intellectual public domain of their time. On the top of it Aristotle is also on record for writing a lot of garbage. It's funny how philosophers today acknowledge that it was garbage but they still make for Aristotle huge excuses. Our heros E-E-A, for a contrast, didn't need any excuses, they made PROFOUND intellectual and practical contribution to science and technology.

That's ok, SJ, if that's how you feel about them and about Greeks in general, (Your Heroes also belong to the same nation).
I note that all three never denied their involvement with politics, (why should they? It is not a crime), also that Socrates may have had a different "dictatorship" in mind to that of Plato's. No, they were not strait, the first two were bi-sexual, about Aristotle I don't know, but I am not interested in their sexual inclinations, all three had strait thoughts.
I wonder where we would be today without that "garbage" like Plato's ideas on the ethos of musical modes for example, or without Aristotle's "Politics" or his "Poetics".
I just don't know. I prefer to read them first hand before I read any other philosopher's views on them, whether they are favorable or not.

 

[Senna Jawa]

That's ok, SJ, if that's how you feel about them and about Greeks in general, (Your Heroes also belong to the same nation).

You're horribly misrepresenting what I write. You should never suspect me of any such ethnic prejudices. Just because the mentioned heros (including anti-heros) from a certain civilization age were Greeks gives you no right to write such nonsense about me.

 

[pelegrino]

You're horribly misrepresenting what I write. You should never suspect me of any such ethnic prejudices. Just because the mentioned heros (including anti-heros) from a certain civilization age were Greeks gives you no right to write such nonsense about me.

Ok, sorry if I have given your words a wrong interpretation, SJ, I can only go by what I read. Perhaps you could explain better. More to the point (if you are interested): Explain your views about those "not so profound" philosophers. The world is not interested in us but in them.
Why do you think they were such a bad lot?

 

[Senna Jawa]

I can only go by what I read.

No, you went AGAINST of what I have written.

 

[Tsotha]

...............

 

[pelegrino]

No, you went AGAINST of what I have written.

I don't understand, SJ, is it against the law to go AGAINST "of what you have written" ?
Anyway, please, do not make this personal and do not raise your voice, I am not interested in arguing trivial points and I am not in this conversation to discuss what goes against you.
If you could substantiate an argument against any idea of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, I would be genuinely interested to learn from your knowledge and the close familiarity you seem to have with classical philosophy.

 

[Angeline]

I don't understand, SJ, is it against the law to go AGAINST "of what you have written" ?
Anyway, please, do not make this personal and do not raise your voice, I am not interested in arguing trivial points and I am not in this conversation to discuss what goes against you.
If you could substantiate an argument against any idea of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, I would be genuinely interested to learn from your knowledge and the close familiarity you seem to have with classical philosophy.

What a lovely, rational response.

Y'know Senna, I realize there has been some goading and baiting going on (which I deplore no matter where it originates), but maybe he is not intentionally going against your words, but didn't understand what you meant. Yeah I know I should keep my big mouth shut lol, but sometimes I think we literally miss each other's meanings. I have done that here many times.

Not everyone here needs to like everyone. People should use the ignore feature if they feel they need to. But we can all be here. There is room for everyone and I do mean everyone. And if anybody wants to start a discussion thread here about forum rules or moving threads and raise questions, they should. But we all need to try to get along or use ignore. Goading and fighting just wastes time and energy.

Personally I think we need more women posting here again. (Now that statement will get me in trouble!)

 

[Tsotha]

"Sorry Angeline is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

Well, I did try.

but maybe he is not intentionally going against your words, but didn't understand what you meant.

And if he was going "against" Senna's words...? This is a discussion forum, is it not? A place where people discuss things? Where they are supposed to meet half-way, and draw conclusions from the process of discussing, not from what is shouted from the top of an ivory tower?

Personally I think we need more women posting here again. (Now that statement will get me in trouble!)

That is your opinion and, as such, not offensive, unlike your accusation of goading and baiting, aimed at an unnamed person only days after my "disagreement" with Senna Jawa. If not offensive, insensitive and undiplomatic. Are you sure you were trying to prevent this message? Because I sure feel "goaded" and "baited" (and pissed off), right now.

I'm forced to defend myself, In the off chance that you are indeed referring to me. I will point out that I did not make any unsubstantiated comment on Senna Jawa's work. Unlike his comment on mine, which was just an insult, I did my best to to explain why I thought his reduced poem was bad, and I did so despite his insults.

Speaking of things to deplore — it's deplorable to defend a grown up man who offends anyone who disagrees with him, and who throws a tantrum because somewhere in the world, someone thinks one of his poems sucks.

 

[Angeline]

"Sorry Angeline is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her."

Well, I did try.

Excuse me? Are you quoting yourself because I sure didn't say that or intend it. You are welcome to put me on ignore if you want.


And if he was going "against" Senna's words...? This is a discussion forum, is it not? A place where people discuss things? Where they are supposed to meet half-way, and draw conclusions from the process of discussing, not from what is shouted from the top of an ivory tower?

Yes it is a discussion forum and people are free to disagree. I was suggesting that the problem might be a misunderstanding rather than disagreement, a nuance you seem to have missed. You are misinterpreting me and drawing conclusions based on that misinterpretation.


That is your opinion and, as such, not offensive, unlike your accusation of goading and baiting, aimed at an unnamed person only days after my "disagreement" with Senna Jawa. If not offensive, insensitive and undiplomatic. Are you sure you were trying to prevent this message? Because I sure feel "goaded" and "baited" (and pissed off), right now.

I'm forced to defend myself, In the off chance that you are indeed referring to me. I will point out that I did not make any unsubstantiated comment on Senna Jawa's work. Unlike his comment on mine, which was just an insult, I did my best to to explain why I thought his reduced poem was bad, and I did so despite his insults.

I was trying to be discreet but I think there have been people here goading and goaded. Not one person. Maybe you should ask yourself why that makes you so angry instead of getting pissed at me. And you can safely assume that anything I say is my opinion, with which you can agree or not.

Speaking of things to deplore — it's deplorable to defend a grown up man who offends anyone who disagrees with him, and who throws a tantrum because somewhere in the world, someone thinks one of his poems sucks.

I am not one who is invested in drama. I don't need to feed off the drama of an argument or tantrum to post here or write poetry. I personally find it a huge waste as I said. I'm just trying to keep the focus on poetry, but people can reinterpret that however they like. If you want to discuss this further, please start another thread as I won't respond on this subject again in this one.

Good luck with the 30/30, Tsotha, and yes I mean that without rancor.

 

[Tsotha]

Excuse me? Are you quoting yourself because I sure didn't say that or intend it. You are welcome to put me on ignore if you want.

You cannot be put on ignore.

I was trying to be discreet but I think there have been people here goading and goaded. Not one person. Maybe you should ask yourself why that makes you so angry instead of getting pissed at me. And you can safely assume that anything I say is my opinion, with which you can agree or not.

What makes me angry is a moderator being "discreet" by making a completely uncalled for attack on me out of nowhere.

I am not one who is invested in drama. I don't need to feed off the drama of an argument or tantrum to post here or write poetry. I personally find it a huge waste as I said. I'm just trying to keep the focus on poetry, but people can reinterpret that however they like. If you want to discuss this further, please start another thread as I won't respond on this subject again in this one.

Indeed? I was minding my own business when you started this. I thought moderators were supposed to moderate, not start up shit.

 

[pelegrino]

Well, I think all this started in another "well moderated" , in my opinion, thread, and perhaps it should be continued there, or as Angeline suggested, start a new thread to discuss in general forum rules. A thread in which I would be interested in taking part and I think contributors like Angeline and Tsotha (not excluding anyone else of course) would be very valuable.
Now, coming back to the present issue of this thread:
I did understand Senna as far as he is coherent and comprehensible. As I said, I can only go by what I read, but in case I was wrong, I did ask him to explain better, which he did not. Now, if that is going against him, I cannot help it, and as I pointed out, going against him it is not going against the law.
Finally, I want to point out again that in this thread we should all be interested primarily in discussing one of its topics emerging, ie Should we substantiate arguments for or against classical philosophy or just make inane statements about it from the top of an ivory tower as Tsotha has so vividly pointed out?
(I liked that one, Tsotha!).
This is of more interest to me at present(in this thread), than our or anyone else's involvement with (probably) lesser matters.
I want to express my feeling that it would be a pity to "ignore". That facility is there, but we can use it only at our own peril.
I think from what I read that most of us agree that we should discuss and not fight. But sometimes the better tactic would be to expose rather than contain our opponents, (always in a polite manner of course).

 

[Tsotha]

Well, I think all this started in another "well moderated" , in my opinion, thread, and perhaps it should be continued there, or as Angeline suggested, start a new thread to discuss in general forum rules. A thread in which I would be interested in taking part and I think contributors like Angeline and Tsotha (not excluding anyone else of course) would be very valuable.
Now, coming back to the present issue of this thread:
I did understand Senna as far as he is coherent and comprehensible. As I said, I can only go by what I read, but in case I was wrong, I did ask him to explain better, which he did not. Now, if that is going against him, I cannot help it, and as I pointed out, going against him it is not going against the law.
Finally, I want to point out again that in this thread we should all be interested primarily in discussing one of its topics emerging, ie Should we substantiate arguments for or against classical philosophy or just make inane statements about it from the top of an ivory tower as Tsotha has so vividly pointed out?
(I liked that one, Tsotha!).
This is of more interest to me at present(in this thread), than our or anyone else's involvement with (probably) lesser matters.
I want to express my feeling that it would be a pity to "ignore". That facility is there, but we can use it only at our own peril.
I think from what I read that most of us agree that we should discuss and not fight. But sometimes the better tactic would be to expose rather than contain our opponents, (always in a polite manner of course).

Senna Jawa outright insults half a thread, and what happens? "Poor Senna Jawa, being goaded!".

Since I got here, I've made about 100 comments on new poems and I've commented on the poems of each person who has finished a 30 in 30. I've also commented liberally on poems in other threads, and wrote quote-reply poems. I invite anyone to find a single comment where I offend anyone. Hint: you won't.

The most offensive thing you'll find by me is a post where I say a poem by Senna Jawa is "bad". The hilarious part is that this comment is an exact copy of his on my poem (he says mine is "terrible"). Except, unlike him, I actually say WHY his poem is bad.

I've come to terms with the idea that nobody comments anything around here (nobody has any obligation), to the point it feels like writing to the walls. While it makes it harder to actually learn something, I also recognize that getting no comment is a comment in itself, and if my poems aren't very worthy of comments, they're just bad. I've been content to simply go ahead and comment others' work. Unlike some others here, I can actually be told that my poems suck without having an emotional breakdown. Case in point: on the first 30 in 30, months ago, Angeline picked poems from everyone, some ten people, except me. That tells me something about the quality of my writing (it sucks enough to be forgotten), and that's absolutely fine.

What I absolutely cannot stand is a mod going out of her way to offend me. "The rules exist to make all equally comfortable". Hah, right. Thank you, I'm feeling very comfortable right now. I haven't even been around this last week, and I come here to find this "discreet" slap to my face.

 

[Tsotha]

Yes it is a discussion forum and people are free to disagree. I was suggesting that the problem might be a misunderstanding rather than disagreement, a nuance you seem to have missed. You are misinterpreting me and drawing conclusions based on that misinterpretation.

"I realize there has been some goading and baiting going on, BUT maybe he is not intentionally going against your words"

I haven't missed any nuance — you are clearly saying that those going "against" Senna Jawa's words are doing so to goad and bait (your opinion). Here is where I disagree: people are going "against his words" as a direct result of how he behaves (he insults those who disagree, makes harsh criticism without concern for others' feelings — without even being able to take it, himself —, arrogantly dismisses those who try to painfully extract anything of use from his alleged treasure of knowledge, and so on, and so on).

 

[Tsotha]

I am not one who is invested in drama. I don't need to feed off the drama of an argument or tantrum to post here or write poetry. I personally find it a huge waste as I said. I'm just trying to keep the focus on poetry, but people can reinterpret that however they like.

I didn't say you are, and I hope you are not saying that I am.

Your opinion that I am goading and baiting Senna Jawa is obviously insulting to me. I said his poem was bad, he called me an idiot. My reaction afterward wasn't "goading and baiting", it was only natural. But that's in the past, now. I gave you no reason, of late, for you to make your new accusation. If insulting me was your intention, then fine: you've accomplished your goal. If, however, it wasn't, I do expect an apology, because I do not appreciate the implication of what you are saying. You can start your own thread if you wish; otherwise, I'll just assume that yes, you did intend to insult me.

 

[Senna Jawa]

The offensive statement

Quote:

that's how you feel [...] about Greeks in general.​

===

 

[Senna Jawa]

mod Queen Gertrude should say this:

That's what Queen Gertrude would say about T.:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.​

===

 

[pelegrino]

Quote:
The offensive statement

that's how you feel [...] about Greeks in general.​

===

That is a misquotation, SJ, try again. Here, let me show you how it is done:

That's ok, SJ, if that's how you feel about them and about Greeks in general, (Your Heroes also belong to the same nation).
.

or even better:

And you know, if you are not fooled by them then all this is not even that important. They: Socrates, Plato and Aristotel, were just about as intelligent as other Greeks, and far less profound than the three heros

Now, that's what an offending statement really is. Please don't try to evade the context of what is been said, either mine or yours.

By the way, don't duck the issue of giving a sample of your knowledge on classics. That is still our main issue and not our interpersonal storm in a tea cup. If, however you feel disinclined to do so, that is still ok with me.
Good luck to your thread and the content and definition you choose to give it.
Best regards.

 

[Tsotha]

That's what Queen Gertrude would say about T.:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.​

===

It's too bad that the post where you have a complete nervous collapse is missing. Oh well. We'll have another opportunity with this 30 in 30, as soon as I start reducing your poems, one by one.