Started by Shiranu, August 18, 2018, 01:43:15 AM
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2018, 09:55:29 PMMy aren't you ambitious. I have been re-reading The Republic and some others, these past couple years. Don't forget Xenophon's version ... his Apology and his Symposium. They have a contrast to the versions by Plato.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 12, 2018, 11:18:21 PMI am forgetting Xenophon's version. I'm interested in the common theme of Plato's Socrates.If I'm going to branch out, I might as well include Aristophanes' version.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 13, 2018, 01:51:13 PMThere's a lot of questions in there that, even though I've read through them before, I'm not ready to answer. I will give this much. Plato's Socrates was a metaphysical essentialist. I'm an epistemological essentialist. I do not agree that Plato's forms are real.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 31, 2020, 10:01:47 PMSo ... I said I was looking for a common theme in Plato's Socratic writings. I think I have found it."Why do you think you can think?"
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on May 31, 2020, 11:13:53 PMI'm not talking epistemology. I think Socrates encouraged questioning so that he could convince people they don't actually know anything and should just leave the thinking to the philosopher kings."Why do you think you can think? You can't think. Let me demonstrate. Don't you feel silly thinking you know anything?"
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 01, 2020, 08:22:42 AMYou guys should check the doxographic texts on this specific literature, if you haven't done it. I believe you will enjoy it more intensely. Infact, another dimension about this universe will open. It's amazing fun. There are doxographic enycylopedias with sections on these philosophers. I understand the interest on Socrates which I share, but I'd reccomend to go back around a hundred years and read on Parmenides to start. Esp. if you want to dive in Plato.
QuoteShall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves whatought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in theorganization of a State, â€"what is the greatest good, and what isthe greatest evil, and then consider whether our previousdescription has the stamp of the good or of the evil? ...Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction andplurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than thebond of unity? ...And there is unity where there is community of pleasures andpains â€"where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the sameoccasions of joy and sorrow? ...Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a Stateis disorganized â€"when you have one half of the world triumphingand the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to thecity or the citizens? ...Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about theuse of the terms â€˜mineâ€™ and â€˜not mine,â€™ â€˜hisâ€™ and â€˜not his.â€™ ...And is not that the best-ordered State in which the greatest numberof persons apply the terms â€˜mineâ€™ and â€˜not mineâ€™ in the same wayto the same thing?Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of theindividual â€"as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt,the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a center and formingone kingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt andsympathizes all together with the part affected, and we say that theman has a pain in his finger; and the same expression is used aboutany other part of the body, which has a sensation of pain atsuffering or of pleasure at the alleviation of suffering.
QuoteIn my own case this disrespectful thought, that the great sages aredeclining types, first occurred to me precisely in regard to an instancewhere learned and unlearned prejudice most strongly opposes it: I recognized Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decay, as instruments of theGreek dissolution, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (Birth of Tragedy,1872). That consensus sapientiumâ€"this I grasped better and betterâ€"dem--onstrates least of all that they were right about what they agreed on.Instead, it demonstrates that they themselves, these wisest ones, weresomehow in physiological agreement, so that they took the same negativestance toward lifeâ€"and had to take it.Judgments, value judgments about life, for or against, can in the finalanalysis never be true; they have value only as symptoms, they can be considered only as symptomsâ€"in themselves, such judgments are stupidities. One absolutely must reach out and try to grasp this astoundingfinesse, that the value of life cannot be assessed. Not by the living, since theyare parties to the dispute; in fact, they are the objects of contention, andnot the judgesâ€"and not by the dead, for another reason.â€"Thus, whenphilosophers see a problem in the value of life, this even amounts to anobjection to them, a question mark attached to their wisdom, an unwisdom.â€"What? And all these great sagesâ€"are we saying they werenâ€™t onlydÃ©cadents, but they werenâ€™t even wise to begin with?â€"But here I comeback to the problem of Socrates.