Modern Day Socrates.

[Agent Intellect]

I've recently read a bit about Socrates (for my philosophy class), and it explained that in the time of Socrates, he was somewhat of a staple in downtown Athens. If one took a walk through town, they were likely to see Socrates, disheveled, dirty, and willingly impoverished out in the street arguing with sophists and expanding the minds of his pupils.

Socrates didn't have a central dogma that he taught, but instead, used the Socratic method to get people to think critically and see the contradictions and dissonance in their own thinking. People either thought he was great, or they couldn't stand him, but people always gathered to listen to his dialogues with various townspeople.

So what about a modern day Socrates?

The question is twofold:

First, since only loonies wander the streets in rags asking weird questions to strangers now days, the best forum for being a modern Socrates seems like it would be on the internet. So, in a place where there are a hundred million voices coming from all over the place, how could someone become a modern day Socrates? Facebook? Blogging? Writing a book or getting a talk show might not be viable ideas, as the idea of a modern day Socrates would be someone who interacts with his/her audience. So how could someone go about reaching the level of a modern day Socrates? How would you do it? Is this even a possibility in this day and age?

Second, is there anyone you would consider a modern day Socrates? If so, who are they and why? What have they done to open your mind, or show you the error of your ways? How have they contributed to (or perhaps even been a thorn in the side of) society?

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Modern day socrates? He's the one writing this post right now.

I reach my audience through youtube. If i could find a video editor that can succesfully fucking edit HD files, youd see what im talking about.

Modern day society is as stupid as fuck, so noone would really know who a modern day socrates is, because of the media. Stupid people are more entertaining to watch and listen to. Not modern day philosiphizers like myself. The world is due for another enlightenment period, thats fo sho.

 

[snafupants]

^ you can be the one to usher that epoch in in grand style desertsmeagle

 

[Thaklaar]

For one thing, you're overstating the image of Socrates as the filthy bum. He may not have spent much time chasing wealth or power, but he was a full citizen of the city. He had sufficient wealth and means to equip himself as a hoplite and provision himself on a military campaign. He almost certainly owned slaves. He was poor for a citizen, but the citizens were the top ten percent of the population of the city. And the people he hung around arguing with and teaching were, themselves, wealthy citizens. The slaves and landless freemen were too busy feeding themselves (and their citizen employers) to slouch around arguing about the nature of reality.

Socrates was more akin to a wealthy intellectual who hangs around rich folks' cocktail parties arguing about politics and religion. I don't think there's a shortage of them.

 

[Words]

I find this specific coincidence---and my thoughts often coincide situationally with many threads here---cosmically strange.

First, since only loonies wander the streets in rags asking weird questions to strangers now days..

I stop with this. Not so sure about my reasoning but I look at this medium as the "ultimate" medium. How is it comparably inferior to the rest of the options?

Second, is there anyone you would consider a modern day Socrates? If so, who are they and why? What have they done to open your mind, or show you the error of your ways? How have they contributed to (or perhaps even been a thorn in the side of) society?

None yet, but some are close though they remain focused on that "relish" of life. Family, Debt, Dreams, Property...all sorts of things prevent casual yet analytical inquiries.

Modern day socrates? He's the one writing this post right now.

Well, Good luck.

----

If I become less constrained by youth and family, I'd probably wander around as said idea of "mad man".

----

This reminds me of this video...I don't know if it contains any significant elements or if its rubbish but the aesthetics of the idea is there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB8BdRNVnEI

the citizens were the top ten percent of the population of the city. And the people he hung around arguing with and teaching were, themselves, wealthy citizens. The slaves and landless freemen were too busy feeding themselves (and their citizen employers) to slouch around arguing about the nature of reality.

Socrates was more akin to a wealthy intellectual who hangs around rich folks' cocktail parties arguing about politics and religion. I don't think there's a shortage of them.

Though I've read differently, this does make a good point. Then again, it connects to today. There are so many more "important" things to do than venture on free-spirited conversational thinking. we should all just starve...

 

[DesertSmeagle]

I bet socrates never existed. Maybe he represented a team of intellectuals.

 

[BigApplePi]

AI. I know this man. He is quite able and has called me "friend."
http://www.socratesway.com/

Does this answer your question?

 

[merzbau]

i'd regard john ralston saul as one individual who is carrying on the intellectual ideals of socrates.
chomsky perhaps?

as for the medium for a modern-day socrates, how about.. stand-up comedy?

 

[Agent Intellect]

For one thing, you're overstating the image of Socrates as the filthy bum. He may not have spent much time chasing wealth or power, but he was a full citizen of the city. He had sufficient wealth and means to equip himself as a hoplite and provision himself on a military campaign. He almost certainly owned slaves. He was poor for a citizen, but the citizens were the top ten percent of the population of the city. And the people he hung around arguing with and teaching were, themselves, wealthy citizens. The slaves and landless freemen were too busy feeding themselves (and their citizen employers) to slouch around arguing about the nature of reality.

Socrates was more akin to a wealthy intellectual who hangs around rich folks' cocktail parties arguing about politics and religion. I don't think there's a shortage of them.

That sounds reasonable, I'm just going off the account I read from my school textbook.

I find this specific coincidence---and my thoughts often coincide situationally with many threads here---cosmically strange.

What coincidence is that?

I stop with this. Not so sure about my reasoning but I look at this medium as the "ultimate" medium. How is it comparably inferior to the rest of the options?

I think it would be interesting to philosophize from the streets, but I don't think anyone would take you seriously. Most people passing by are probably late for an appointment, on their cellphone, or will just pass you off as a crazy person.

None yet, but some are close though they remain focused on that "relish" of life. Family, Debt, Dreams, Property...all sorts of things prevent casual yet analytical inquiries.

So the problem is that they don't live their philosophy? This is certainly a problem in this day and age. It's rare to find a philosopher who will truly live what they think. Socrates (as far as I know) was one; Sartre perhaps to an extent.

as for the medium for a modern-day socrates, how about.. stand-up comedy?

That's sort of what I was thinking. I could maybe even see Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as semi-Socratic figures in the way they call people out on their bullshit, and seem to keep the invitation open to anyone that wants to come on their show.

 

[Da Blob]

Me... Socratic?

No, I have been told I am Diongenes, but he was something in the mold of Socrates as far as weirdness.

Socrates was too social to be a true philosopher, he always had to be talking to someone - if it wasn't for Plato doing the real work, i doubt Socrates would even be remembered....

 

[Words]

AI. I know this man. He is quite able and has called me "friend."
http://www.socratesway.com/

So you talked with this person? Were "tangents" "allowed"?

What coincidence is that?

I had the same general idea recently. Is the thread related to a "work" for school?

I think it would be interesting to philosophize from the streets, but I don't think anyone would take you seriously. Most people passing by are probably late for an appointment, on their cellphone, or will just pass you off as a crazy person.

Have you tried it? It's not so bad. Each person gives a better understanding of the(your) "polis". Depending on your society, the majority will probably be "busy". Though, personally, I see more positives than negatives. Direct communication, preferences, and the sorts..

So the problem is that they don't live their philosophy?

well this confuses me. How do you "live your philosophy"? Can you have a philosophy you don't "live"? Can all 'philosophies' be lived?

seem to keep the invitation open to anyone that wants to come on their show.

When you mention "show", do you mean a one - way format of interaction? For you, this is "Socratic"?

Socrates was too social to be a true philosopher, he always had to be talking to someone.

There are people who are mainly stimulated by the combination of thought and conversation(interaction). Can't cooperative analysis be considered as "true philosophy"? Why is independence important?

if it wasn't for Plato doing the real work, i doubt Socrates would even be remembered....

Why does "being remembered" matter?

----

I think Socrates methods mainly originated from a specific preference of cognitive analysis. On the other hand, my position is slightly sourced from my own wishful thinking. My own preferred methods of learning is similarly linked to talking to random strangers and endless inquiry stemming from a crave of understanding. Interaction: listen, create, publish, listen etc. It's not just the idea themselves, it's the "medium" used to transfer or create the ideas. Without these "nourished food of input", depression is inevitable.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I had the same general idea recently. Is the thread related to a "work" for school?

This thread was inspired by my reading in the textbook, but doesn't have anything to do with my school work.

well this confuses me. How do you "live your philosophy"? Can you have a philosophy you don't "live"? Can all 'philosophies' be lived?

A lot of people (on this forum, included) make claims like "morality doesn't exist" yet they usually live under the social mores of wherever they live. A lot of people here argue about whether religious or non religious people do more good for society, yet they don't seem to participate in it themselves (they're just good people by association, I guess). I know several people who idealize nature and talk about how bad technology is, and how we should get back to our natural roots, and then pull out their iPhone to check their facebook. I'd say most people (and yes, this very much includes me) are armchair philosophers, who espouse grand ideas and talk about how the world should be and how people should act, but don't actually practice what they preach.

When you mention "show", do you mean a one - way format of interaction? For you, this is "Socratic"?

Well, I said semi-Socratic, but they tend to get people on their show and expose them on their bullshit (like in the link I posted in my other response). Check this one out, too.

 

[Words]

A lot of people (on this forum, included) make claims like "morality doesn't exist" yet they usually live under the social mores of wherever they live. A lot of people here argue about whether religious or non religious people do more good for society, yet they don't seem to participate in it themselves (they're just good people by association, I guess). I know several people who idealize nature and talk about how bad technology is, and how we should get back to our natural roots, and then pull out their iPhone to check their facebook. I'd say most people (and yes, this very much includes me) are armchair philosophers, who espouse grand ideas and talk about how the world should be and how people should act, but don't actually practice what they preach.

Well, I said semi-Socratic, but they tend to get people on their show and expose them on their bullshit (like in the link I posted in my other response). Check this one out, too.

I guess I misunderstood your banner.

Consistent advocacy meaning a consistent self. You are against dishonesty and you see this specific preferred attitude" in Socrates? Or are you focusing directly on "labor manifestation"(non-armchair) attitudes? Is it the 'true meaning' or is it the active attitude?

 

[Beat Mango]

There was a small play here in Sydney a couple of years ago about what Socrates would look like and how he would fit into the modern world. I really regret missing it.