Subject:
Re:
Reply
to "Oracle of Delphi" - Parts I and II
Date:
Wed,
01 Sep 1999 20:35:18 -0400
From:
"Prof.
Dr. Franz J. T. Lee / Jutta Schmitt M.A,"
Wed. 8.30 PM
Dear Carl,
When I am finish with Socrates, this will be at the week-end, because tomorrow Jutta's father celebrates his 60th birthday, and they leave for Germany on Sunday, only thereafter, I will be able to attend to these most interesting questions, and also tell you definitely about a next chat; also the preparations for classes, which commence next week, will keep Jutta and me a bit busy during the next days.
Dont worry, we will attend to everything, as usual, as soon as we
have a breathing space.
Warmest Greetings,
Franz.
CARL'S REPLY:
Dear Franz:
How did the "powers that be" react when the Oracle of Delphi's predictions proved false, e.g., when battle plans failed or when a love affair went sour? Did word spread of these failures, so most people no longer consulted the Oracle? How did the Ancient Greeks manage credibility gaps and damage control? Was the Oracle used as a scapegoat for bad decisions?
Equivalents of the Oracle in modern major religions usually predict events in the "afterlife" or in an unforeseeable future. Tough to criticize predictions that cannot be tested.
Other issues:
Did Ancient Greek Civilization collapse mainly due to the disunity
of the city states, and irresponsible preoccupation with fantasies such
as the Oracle? Did these weaknesses make it easy for the Romans, through
relatively greater unity, responsible behavior and
objectivity, replace Greek Civilization?
Similarly, today, disunity (intense, senseless competition) and irresponsibility ("Bread and Circuses" cover-ups of mistakes and wrong-doing) are major weaknesses of exploitative systems. I think that unity and responsibility can facilitate the substitution of emancipatory systems.
I welcome your messages on Socrates.
Regards.
Carl
Sunday, 5th September, 1999 12.50 PM
Hello Carl!
Just a brief reply to one of your many extensive questions:
"How did the 'powers that be' react when the
Oracle of Delphi's predictions proved false,
e.g.,
when battle plans failed or when a love affair
went
sour? Did word spread of these failures, so
most
people no longer consulted the Oracle? How
did
the Ancient Greeks manage credibility gaps
and
damage control? Was the Oracle used as a
scapegoat for bad decisions? " (Carl)
What is true or false, this formal logics, ruling class logics, socialization and ideology decide.
Any prediction can be twisted how it pleases the rulers or ideologues. Two and Two Makes Four; next time, according to Newspeak, see Orwell: Two and Two Makes Five!
Today the Earth is flat, tomorrow it is a globe, and the day after tomorrow it will be a round peg in a square black hole. Who really cares what is "true" or "false"? As long as the rubels flow, anything can be "correct", "false", "valid", "right" or "wrong". It just depends on what the consumers want to hear, and how ideology wants to falsify it, wants to reflect it inadequately, or wants to make it foggy or obscure.
Studying formal logics, especially the section about propositions, we can clearly see what is meant here. Below, we will give an excellent example of how a "true" prophecy of the Oracle of Delphi can be fallacious.
Firstly, look at these excellent fallacies:
A:
Today chain-smokers are rapidly disappearing.
Franz is a chain-smoker.
Therefore, today Franz is rapidly disappearing.
Also:
B:
All Red Indians wear a wig (pigtail or plait)
Mozart wears a wig.
Therefore, Mozart is a Red Indian.
C:
All Human Beings are the "powers that be",
are dominant rulers.
Carl and George are Human Beings.
Therefore, Carl and George are the "powers
that be", are dominant rulers.
Clearly what is intended in the first premise above is that the class
of chain-smokers is becoming a smaller class, not that the
individuals in the class
are undergoing any change.
Similarly, the class of Red Indians wears a wig (pigtail or
plait),
not the individual Mozart or Winnetou. Also, the class
of dominant rulers are human beings, not the individuals, Carl and
George.
The following is a well-known, classic example of
prophecies or reasoning about "when battle plans failed", which,
generally, are based on an ambiguity arising from the deliberate grammatical
construction employed, the so-called amphiboly.
Carl, this should answer your question in its logical core.
In the 6th century BC, Croesus,
King of Lydia was considering invading Persia. He decided to consult
Pythia in the Oracle at
Delphi. As prophecy, from her, he received the following reply:
"If Croesus goes to war with Cyrus (the king of Persia), he will destroy a mighty kingdom."
Of course, having a "positive attitude", Croesus inferred that his campaign would be successful, but in fact he lost the war, and consequently his own mighty kingdom was destroyed. These were the type of prophecies received at Delphi. The fallacy above consists in the non-specification of the term "he" - it could refer either to Croesus or to Cyrus. (Hence, we better be careful to whom the term "human being" refers.)
Gods, whether divine or of human flesh, never err; they never say "so" or "otherwise", so that nobody can say that they said "so" or "otherwise"! People just do not care about the 'veracity' of oracles; for this very reason, nearly every daily newspaper has a horoscope section; it sells better this way, and millions believe in the predictions; some demonstrate a real horoscophobia!
Well, Carl! I "hope" that you enjoyed my concise reply!
Greetings,
Franz.
Subject:
Re: Plain
Text! Franz's Answer!
Date:
Sun, 05 Sep
1999 23:11:50 +0000
From:
Carl Zimmerman
<czfz@bellatlantic.net>
To:
"Prof. Dr.
Franz J. T. Lee / Jutta Schmitt M.A,"
<franzjutta@cantv.net>
Hi, Franz:
Thank you for this insightful answer. It is in sync with the following
quotation from Lionel Trilling's "Introduction"
to George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia":
"The essential point of Nineteen Eighty Four (by George Orwell) is ... the danger of the absolute power which mind can develop when it frees itself from conditions, from the bondage of things and history."
This is applicable to "Big Brother" or any other ruling class.
Regards.
Carl