Socrates is the Man!

[dark]

I just had the most excitable discovery I've had in a while!

While reading "Republic," on book II Glaucon details an old Greek story about a shepherd, I found where J.R.R. Tolkien got the entire idea of the ring and the entire morality surrounding it. My philosophy professor did tell me that all thought can be traced back to either Plato or Aristotle, so far that seems true, which is absolutely amazing.

The events that happen when Smeagle takes the ring from his friend is merely a flowery picture of what Plato detailed. According to the common thought, which soon Socrates is probably going to refute because he is the man, there isn't a person that wouldn't do exactly what Smeagle did.

 

[Jesse]

I like Socrates, I really dislike Plato

 

[ApostateAbe]

That is a great story that can serve a practical purpose in life. You can tell it to all of the unattractive women whom you don't want to be around, and nobody's feelings will get hurt. I wish I had a story like that. There are some women who I just can't shake off.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Socrates just happens to be my hero, but more for Euthyphro and The Apology.

 

[Jordan~]

I met Socrates last weekend at a summer camp. Or at least, a man called Socrates.

 

[Lostwitheal]

Bruce's Philosophers Song - YouTube

 

[dark]

Holy shit, that is Bruce Dickinson's work from when he worked with the makers of Monty Python?

I agree SpaceYeti, Socrates has been my hero since I read the Apology and Crito.

 

[Anthrocide]

I like Socrates, I really dislike Plato

Why do you dislike Plato?

 

[dark]

Why do you dislike Plato?

What Anthrocide said.

 

[Anthrocide]

What Anthrocide said.

We are probably biased though, having been exposed to his sexiness via sexiness (books; we nerds love them). Seduction sort of does that.

 

[digital angel]

Socrates is pretty cool. There are some other brilliant people, too.

 

[dark]

Socrates is pretty cool. There are some other brilliant people, too.

Like Plato. And Aristotle, Nietzsche, Kant and maybe a few more .

 

[Sanctum]

Socrates Is the man he made me proud to be INTP. Plato on the other hand to me was the Douche of his time period.

 

[Words]

One of those who illuminated the significance of questioning, especially in court. In my culture, questioning is still regarded as a form of insult and personal offense, so this dude is pretty cool to me. This book isn't written by him though.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Socrates Is the man he made me proud to be INTP. Plato on the other hand to me was the Douche of his time period.

How do you figure? Most if not all of our knowledge of Socrates comes from the writings of Plato. How can you possibly separate the two in any meaningful way? Hell, it's possible Socrates is a fabrication, a fictitious character representing Plato's ideal philosopher, or something. Separating the two, as philosophers, is meaningless.

 

[Minuend]

Why, look who's back.

 

[snafupants]

Most philosophical notions and systems can definitely be traced back to the big three: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Schopenhauer basically cribbed Plato's theory of forms. Bastard. I still want to know more about what went on at Eleusis. Make ready the time machine Cog!

 

[ElvenVeil]

I always found Socrates rather redundant.. The real amazing and impressive people are mainly found in physics and mathematics Newton is the hero of heroes.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Why, look who's back.

Kickin' names and takin' ass.

 

[~~~]

What Anthrocide said.

Do we have some philosopher kings amongst us?

 

[Words]

How do you figure? Most if not all of our knowledge of Socrates comes from the writings of Plato. How can you possibly separate the two in any meaningful way? Hell, it's possible Socrates is a fabrication, a fictitious character representing Plato's ideal philosopher, or something. Separating the two, as philosophers, is meaningless.

Nope. Xenophon and Aristophanes also wrote about Socrates. Take the common denominator of the three, and you get Socrates.

 

[snafupants]

I always found Socrates rather redundant.. The real amazing and impressive people are mainly found in physics and mathematics Newton is the hero of heroes.

The competition between domains of knowledge is absurd. Science, especially, seems to possess this implacable desire to scoot away the competition and retake the throne as consensus reality king.

I suppose science is an advance from thirteenth century clerical rule, but it's still radically incomplete and self-congratulating. No other area is as hostile to alternative points of view as science, save religion.

The hero of heroes: you can get off of your knees and wipe off your chin and squeegee your forehead now.


Edit: Ironically Newton was a highly religious man.

 

[ElvenVeil]

The competition between domains of knowledge is absurd. Science, especially, seems to possess this implacable desire to scoot away the competition and retake the throne as consensus reality king.

I suppose science is an advance from thirteenth century clerical rule, but it's still radically incomplete and self-congratulating. No other area is as hostile to alternative points of view as science, save religion.

The hero of heroes: you can get off of your knees and wipe off your chin and squeegee your forehead now.


Edit: Ironically Newton was a highly religious man.

I wouldn't call it absurd (as you noticed). It would be absurd to believe that there can be a universal 'coolest guy to have ever lived', but mine is simply a statement of my preference. Nothing absurd there

Newton, as many other rational people from the old days, were religious.. I guess that's what happen when you lack a better explanation for life.

Now as for the critique of science, I fully disagree. There has never been a better tool for understanding the real world, as science. I don't see what makes it incomplete.. But then again, I don't know what you think scinece should encompass to make it whole.

I can imagine that the 'self-congratulating' and 'opposed to other views' are linked. In some sciences (physics for instance) we believe that we can observe something that is universal, and that it will not change just because you look at it two days later. In other words, we believe that there are general rules and that these rules can be found through science. It takes on an assumption that our senses alone are flawed, and therefore need tests and checks, to see if we got it right. This is self congratulation, and likely the only thing is within science that fits this critique.
You can claim that world needs to be 'felt' and that we can never be sure of anything - That reality is an ever changing thing, with no rules or boundaries.. That you perhaps wake up being able fly tomorrow. I would then in turn call you insane, but it would lead to 'science being opposed to different views'. If there have not been given any reason or indication that would support a belief (or remove support from an original helt belief) , then you should not believe it. This is the building block for all scientific thought, and if you agree with this way of regarding the world, then the critique of science being opposed to alternative ways is misplaced.

So ask yourself, what is the purpose of science, and what questions does it allow us to answer. These questions are necessary to answer, if critique is to work.

(I hope that my answer to a question not posed, is acceptable .. I appologize for perhaps leading the thread in an originally unintended direction.)

 

[SpaceYeti]

Nope. Xenophon and Aristophanes also wrote about Socrates. Take the common denominator of the three, and you get Socrates.

Both of whom painted a different picture. So while there may have certainly been a real Socrates of whom they wrote, we could not say for sure who's picture was most accurate. Plato's mouthpiece Socrates may be far different than the man Socrates may have actually been.

 

[snafupants]

I wouldn't call it absurd (as you noticed). It would be absurd to believe that there can be a universal 'coolest guy to have ever lived', but mine is simply a statement of my preference. Nothing absurd there

Newton, as many other rational people from the old days, were religious.. I guess that's what happen when you lack a better explanation for life.

Now as for the critique of science, I fully disagree. There has never been a better tool for understanding the real world, as science. I don't see what makes it incomplete.. But then again, I don't know what you think scinece should encompass to make it whole.

I can imagine that the 'self-congratulating' and 'opposed to other views' are linked. In some sciences (physics for instance) we believe that we can observe something that is universal, and that it will not change just because you look at it two days later. In other words, we believe that there are general rules and that these rules can be found through science. It takes on an assumption that our senses alone are flawed, and therefore need tests and checks, to see if we got it right. This is self congratulation, and likely the only thing is within science that fits this critique.
You can claim that world needs to be 'felt' and that we can never be sure of anything - That reality is an ever changing thing, with no rules or boundaries.. That you perhaps wake up being able fly tomorrow. I would then in turn call you insane, but it would lead to 'science being opposed to different views'. If there have not been given any reason or indication that would support a belief (or remove support from an original helt belief) , then you should not believe it. This is the building block for all scientific thought, and if you agree with this way of regarding the world, then the critique of science being opposed to alternative ways is misplaced.

So ask yourself, what is the purpose of science, and what questions does it allow us to answer. These questions are necessary to answer, if critique is to work.

(I hope that my answer to a question not posed, is acceptable .. I appologize for perhaps leading the thread in an originally unintended direction.)

Are you aware of the tenets of quantum mechanics?

 

[Systems]

Are you aware of the tenets of quantum mechanics?

Are you suggesting that universal gravity might not be there tomorrow? Or that the laws of thermodynamics suddenly won't apply?

Also, way to disregard a detailed reply and just focus on one single line.

Edit: To clarify, before it becomes a necessity, yes we do affect the world by observing it at a quantum level. That does not, however, have any real bearing on our day-to-day existance.

 

[snafupants]

Are you suggesting that universal gravity might not be there tomorrow? Or that the laws of thermodynamics suddenly won't apply?

Also, way to disregard a detailed reply and just focus on one single line.

Edit: To clarify, before it becomes a necessity, yes we do affect the world by observing it at a quantum level. That does not, however, have any real bearing on our day-to-day existance.

The part I highlighted did not pertain to Newton's law of universal gravitation. Well, depending on your stance on M-Theory, a contention that radical could reasonably be upheld.

I read every part of the post. I felt some parts were meant to insult or rankle, but they did neither. I may comment more tomorrow on that particular post, I may not. Nice spelling of existence, by the way. Just kidding.

Who can say what bearing that holds on the fabric of our reality? Anyway, I never quite argued that it does have a tremendous import on one's perception of reality.

I merely alluded to research within the physics community which runs directly counter to a drunkenly dogmatic claim. That's all.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I too am fond of Socrates. I also happen to enjoy Plato (and Aristotle).

However, Nietzsche's critique of Socrates, in his Twilight of the Idols is fantastic.

http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect2

Dave

 

[Words]

Both of whom painted a different picture. So while there may have certainly been a real Socrates of whom they wrote, we could not say for sure who's picture was most accurate. Plato's mouthpiece Socrates may be far different than the man Socrates may have actually been.

I'd wager that the more mystical/theoretical things that come out of Plato's Socrates is pure Plato. The more critical and analytical aspects would be Socrates himself. This is because I find the two attitudes quite contradictory and opposing, and interestingly in harmony with type. Socrates is xNTP and Plato is INxJ. One seeks to filter the bucket(hence lessening it's contents) and the other seeks to fill the bucket. One questions, the other answers. Course, I'm really just appealing to speculation and personal assumptions.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Socrates's type is based on Plato's writings of him, not something that's forgone and from which we determine what aspects of him are true to the man. Basically, you just used circular logic.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Ah... how refreshing to know that other humans actually care two shits about philosophy from time to time, if not in much of their spare time. Only INTPs (and perhaps INTJs). Few other types would find any of this even remotely stimulating/fruitful.

Very nice posts, Yeti and Snafupants.

 

[Words]

Socrates's type is based on Plato's writings of him, not something that's forgone and from which we determine what aspects of him are true to the man. Basically, you just used circular logic.

I don't understand why you don't understand.

1. Socrates's type can only be based on the people who wrote about him---one of which happens to be Plato.

2. If Plato was just using Socrates to deliver his own ideas, then it wouldn't matter who Socrates was for Plato. Therefore, other types would've equally work if not better. In addition, his type(assumingly INxJ) would allow his message to be delivered more naturally and, therefore, effectively.

3. Just like Xenophon, Plato was an admirer of Socrates. For which of Socrates' traits? I don't know, but most likely his critical and moral reasoning. It is, therefore, not difficult to conclude that his admiration would translate into the presence, moreso the exaggeration, of Socrates' true traits in his book.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I don't understand what you don't understand. Socrates was Plato's mouthpiece in basically everything he ever wrote, so separating them as philosophers is meaningless to me. Sure, they were probably different people, but that's irrelevant. If we discovered that Socrates was a complete fabrication, I wouldn't care. Plato made no philosophical points without Socrates.

 

[Ptah]

Aristotle ftw.

Although Socrates had his moments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvYRqsRZ7vE

 

[Words]

I don't understand what you don't understand. Socrates was Plato's mouthpiece in basically everything he ever wrote, so separating them as philosophers is meaningless to me.

Mouthpiece in terms of solid concepts, but not in terms of the means of achieving those concepts---which is a concept itself, the Socratic Method. And must i repeat that Plato was not the only one who wrote/described Socrates? No, Separating them is not meaningless, it is categorically logical. Saying Plato is Socrates is like saying 1=2. They are also different in philosophy, even opposites. The idea of "I know nothing" cannot conform with the Theory of Forms or "knowing the true reality." The former is humble, the latter is ambitious.

Sure, they were probably different people, but that's irrelevant. If we discovered that Socrates was a complete fabrication, I wouldn't care. Plato made no philosophical points without Socrates.

How can you conclude that one needed the other to create one or the other's philosophy? The two have distinct styles of reasoning.

 

[Words]

Ah... how refreshing to know that other humans actually care two shits about philosophy from time to time, if not in much of their spare time.

and course we all know that talking about people who talked about a topic is the equivalent of directly talking about that topic!

Only INTPs (and perhaps INTJs). Few other types would find any of this even remotely stimulating.

Nope, celebrity gossiping is not type-dependent.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Mouthpiece in terms of solid concepts, but not in terms of the means of achieving those concepts---which is a concept itself, the Socratic Method. And must i repeat that Plato was not the only one who wrote/described Socrates? No, Separating them is not meaningless, it is categorically logical. Saying Plato is Socrates is like saying 1=2. They are also different in philosophy, even opposites. The idea of "I know nothing" cannot conform with the Theory of Forms or "knowing the true reality." The former is humble, the latter is ambitious.

You still don't get what I'm saying. They were different people, yes, but all of Plato's contribution to philosophy uses Socrates as it's mouthpiece. Where and how you get their differences I don't know, but those differences are irrelevant. Sure, other people wrote about Socrates. So what? I still think separating Plato and Socrates as philosophers is silly.

How can you conclude that one needed the other to create one or the other's philosophy? The two have distinct styles of reasoning.

As illustrated by?

 

[Words]

You still don't get what I'm saying. They were different people, yes, but all of Plato's contribution to philosophy uses Socrates as it's mouthpiece. Where and how you get their differences I don't know, but those differences are irrelevant.

How would it be irrelevant? We are talking about the rationality behind separating Plato and Socrates as philosophers, and yet you think that their [possible] differences would, even then, remain irrelevant? [Logical] Separation is made because of difference. Things are different because they have difference. Also, Different people > different personality > different philosophies.

And how does using a character as a mouthpiece immediately imply being one with that character? Not all authors imagine their characters as themselves.

Sure, other people wrote about Socrates. So what? I still think separating Plato and Socrates as philosophers is silly.

Uh...it means that there are actually 2 people? 1 =/= 2? And therefore 2 distinct real philosophies?

Sure, under the assumption that 2 individuals' philosophies are impossible to distinguish, it would appear pragmatically reasonable to treat the two as one individual. That is, if it is truly impossible to distinguish the philosophies of the two.

What is real is different from what one can work with. Different people work with their own unique set of knowledge, tools and context, offering different conclusions to different questions. You work with your own limits, I work with mine, and let someone in the future with some freakishly advance technology work with hir limit. It is not reasonable for you to think that I or someone else is bound by your own limit. Don't push your own standards of reasoning.

As illustrated by?

Finally, we reach the point of "speculation and personal assumptions." But I think already expanded on this. One digs all possible dig spots, the other chooses the best foreseeable spot and digs deeper. One favors questioning, the other favors answering. You can also see that trait in Xenophon's Socrates. What you can't see in Xenophon's are the theories in Plato's. Link that to type and voila, you can see which concepts in Plato's book would have likely been made by Socrates himself and concepts that would have been likely pure Plato.

 

[SpaceYeti]

How would it be irrelevant? We are talking about the rationality behind separating Plato and Socrates as philosophers, and yet you think that their [possible] differences would, even then, remain irrelevant? [Logical] Separation is made because of difference. Things are different because they have difference. Also, Different people > different personality > different philosophies.

Yes, they are two people, and they had different personalities. I agree. My point is that their contribution to philosophy is a team effort. It's like a law firm with both their names on it. I'm not saying they're the same person, so you can stop arguing the point.

And how does using a character as a mouthpiece immediately imply being one with that character? Not all authors imagine their characters as themselves.

It implies that character is speaking for you. If we assume everything Plato writes Socrates as saying to be an exact quote, then Plato wasn't a philosopher at all (in regards to his writing, the best way we know him), merely a secretary.

Sure, under the assumption that 2 individuals' philosophies are impossible to distinguish, it would appear pragmatically reasonable to treat the two as one individual. That is, if it is truly impossible to distinguish the philosophies of the two.

Or simply not worth distinguishing. Socrates wrote nothing himself, his only contribution to modern thought coming from what other people wrote about him, Plato heavily. Whether or not Socrates even existed, let alone was the man described, does not matter. What matters is the reasoning, the actual philosophical thoughts we get from it. And those thoughts were a team effort.

What is real is different from what one can work with. Different people work with their own unique set of knowledge, tools and context, offering different conclusions to different questions. You work with your own limits, I work with mine, and let someone in the future with some freakishly advance technology work with hir limit. It is not reasonable for you to think that I or someone else is bound by your own limit. Don't push your own standards of reasoning.

So now I'm bullying you to think like me, or something? I don't remember doing that. Further, you are bound by my limits, as we both live in the same reality, which is bound by limits. Your variables may be different, but an objective thing is either true or not, regardless what either of us think about it.

Finally, we reach the point of "speculation and personal assumptions." But I think already expanded on this. One digs all possible dig spots, the other chooses the best foreseeable spot and digs deeper. One favors questioning, the other favors answering. You can also see that trait in Xenophon's Socrates. What you can't see in Xenophon's are the theories in Plato's. Link that to type and voila, you can see which concepts in Plato's book would have likely been made by Socrates himself and concepts that would have been likely pure Plato.

Who wrote a more precise Socrates? How do we know what got left out by Xenophon? By Plato? Xenophon's works are considered worthless by scholars as an informative history for Socrates. Are they right? How do we determine that? Why are we arguing about such worthless points?

 

[Words]

It implies that character is speaking for you. If we assume everything Plato writes Socrates as saying to be an exact quote, then Plato wasn't a philosopher at all (in regards to his writing, the best way we know him), merely a secretary.

Temporal things are generally not absolutes. Plato admires Socrates such that he wouldn't deny his essence entirely, but he also wouldn't just act like a secretary. An author can, at one time, allow the character to have a certain persona at one point, and at another time, make way for a different voice.

Or simply not worth distinguishing. Socrates wrote nothing himself, his only contribution to modern thought coming from what other people wrote about him, Plato heavily. Whether or not Socrates even existed, let alone was the man described, does not matter. What matters is the reasoning, the actual philosophical thoughts we get from it. And those thoughts were a team effort.

Well, it matters to me. One seemingly irrelevant truth may lead to an unexpected powerful discovery.

So now I'm bullying you to think like me, or something?

lolwut?

Further, you are bound by my limits, as we both live in the same reality, which is bound by limits. Your variables may be different, but an objective thing is either true or not, regardless what either of us think about it.

I agree. But my point is that you dismissed the possibility of knowledge about Socrates without clear counter-evidence, at least based on my standards.

Who wrote a more precise Socrates? How do we know what got left out by Xenophon? By Plato? Xenophon's works are considered worthless by scholars as an informative history for Socrates. Are they right? How do we determine that? Why are we arguing about such worthless points?

Xenophon's works is not even my main point and I don't care for supposed "authorities." My point is just the "logical harmony" between type and Plato and Socrates. Between xNTP and IxNJ.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I agree. But my point is that you dismissed the possibility of knowledge about Socrates without clear counter-evidence, at least based on my standards.

No I didn't. I said distinguishing between the two philosophically (as in their contributions to it) aren't worth distinguishing, as it was a group effort.

 

[Raquelio]

You know who's a bigger bastard than Plato? THOMAS EDISON! Nikola Tesla is the man

 

[Zero989]

No one surpasses Tesla.

*no bias*

 

[psion]

No I didn't. I said distinguishing between the two philosophically (as in their contributions to it) aren't worth distinguishing, as it was a group effort.

Well academics who heavily study Plato have separated his writing into different time periods. Since his earlier works do indeed differ drastically in content from his later works (and were written by a younger, more impressionable Plato), the figure of Socrates is considered to have influenced these writings more directly.

"In the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Republic Book I this portrait is probably a close approximation to the historical Socrates. In the Protagoras and Gorgias, the approximation remains fairly close, but the Socrates who appears in the Meno, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic II-X, Parmenides, and other later dialogues is a mouthpiece for Plato's own doctrines."

- Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy from Thales to Aristotle (Cohen et al.)

Is there more to the story than this? Well of course, but there always is with historical figures. I personify Socrates as a Devil's Advocate who's goal it was to make people think and question their beliefs, assigning all the actual concrete philosophical ideals to Plato. I don't think I would come right out of the gate and say that Socrates has no identity as a separate figure, especially since I have talked to many people who know far more about the subject than I.

I would encourage further study into the time period and to read the arguments of historians and philosophers discussing whether or not Plato and Socrates can be separated (if you haven't already, of course), it's definitely interesting stuff.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Socrates: the original troll.