I mean really?: Socrates the absolute Bitch.

Sokrates Was Pathetic

  • yes
  • no
0 voters

Have you ever, in your life, except in the New York Times or other badly made toilet paper, read such pathetic pedantic hypocritical lack of self-knowledge as in the opening of the Apology?

I have often been moved by admirators of Plato to re-read some of his work but always, always I am astonished at how low, how dumb, how ill-conceived, how utterly infantile it is.

Change my mind.

Socrates was a moral nihilist, he used rhetoric to say nothing is true. Plato believed slavery was necessary.

Everyone let me down.

If someone had just simply stated that consent violating zero sum realities never work.

My whole life, the life of this species would have been the better.

I’m really disappointed in the Buddha, Jesus and all the gods saints and teachers.

They fucked up.

It’s not hard to explain “zero sum consent violating realities” to primitive people.

K: it is not our job to “change your mind”… to point out the obvious,
philosophy isn’t about changing people’s mind, it is about how one arrives
at the “truth”… whatever that truth may be…

when I was younger, many people offered me up their “truths”
but the interesting thing was, I wasn’t ready to hear their “truth”…
but many years later, I was in the right place and mind to “hear” what
they said and actually have it make sense…the “truth” often must
wait for ears to hear it… that was Nietzsche problem, his “truths”,
people weren’t ready to hear his “truths”… he was ahead of his time…
he quite often commented about this fact… how his audience was “yet
to be born” and he was right…

it isn’t about what Plato wrote that is the problem,
do you have ears to hear it? are you ready to hear it?
maybe, maybe not… as I am older then you, my “hearing
truths” is different then your “hearing truths”…

Kropotkin

"Truth is in the eyes of the beholder, while falsehood is in the ears of the beheld. "

Meno_

Truth?

What truth? Regarding what particular behaviors In what particular context out in what particular world construed from what particular point of view?

What do you believe is true?

And, if you believe it is true, how would you go about demonstrating to others that, as rational – virtuous? – human beings, they are obligated to believe it is true as well.

I just make the distinction here between truth in the either/or world and truth in the world of value judgments. The is/ought world that “I” construe and encompass given the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

What is demonstrably true at these existential junctures?

Let’s note a context and explore it.

And, sure, by all means, consult with God or “the stars”. :wink:

In the syllogism : the good, bad and the ugly, -what is the odd member out?

Naturally the aesthetic qualifier ’ ugly’

That is the only recorded idea of Plato. The other 2 are simulated concepts, to avoid missedconceptions

Now the above does appear as if written in code:

But it is really difficult to put into proper usage…

Biggy says,

"And, if you believe it is true, how would you go about demonstrating to others that, as rational – virtuous? – human beings, they are obligated to believe it is true as well.

I just make the distinction here between truth in the either/or world and truth in the world of value judgments. The is/ought world that “I” construe and encompass given the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

What is demonstrably true at these existential junctures?

Let’s note a context and explore it.

And, sure, by all means, consult with God or “the stars”. :

Yes, in the either or world.

But how can the odd member, ugly, which is a prejoritive ’ ugly’ fit ?

The true and the ugly and the false can associate on the level of primary or try and false differention on that level.

But, on the level of inducing higher order resemblances, the literal substitution for an aesthetic interpretation- it takes a sort of poetic licence to justify a transposition of the odd ’ ugly’ since that aesthetic is not prevy for evaluation on the same level.

Treatment on the either/or level begs the question it’s self.

A required choice has to be made which has been fortunately predetermined, with an objective criteria that could connect an ontological certainty, via, a Platinic retro-synthesis, (in our estimation), that is STILL ful of doubt, like this question we are on.

The doubt can not overcome the self identifiable begging the question, because its like the obsessional need to open the box to see the state the cat is in.

All that so we can think outside the box, which is like the cave Plato found ourselves to be in.

The leap against the fear of falling, into the Heat, is the one that has to be taken, somewhere along the spatial temporal divide, and like Icarus, leap into the hot coldrin.

The policing of divides, can not at this point in a spectral color tested differentiation, because like a …fire, all non essential is burned away.

“But who may abide the day of His coming, and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire. —Malachi 3:3”

It would be hard to describe ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ as anything less than an absolute masterpiece. It details how we are powerless to withstand the indoctrination to which we are subjected from an early age. Given it is an ongoing process, we are necessarily unaware that we have been put to sleep. Switched off. In order to re-awaken - to once again see the world, “As It Is,” one must undergo the most arduous battle one will ever face. It is a process that could easily be described as Holy Jihad. Very few have the courage to undertake the struggle. It’s a bit of a Catch 22 situation. We don’t realise we are asleep, so why on Earth would we give any consideration to the struggle? That’s one view! :slight_smile:

Yeah , if you look into it, it stares back.

Meno, this is Plato. The Nietzsche thread is over there! :slight_smile:

K: =D> Mr. Derley strikes again…

Kropotkin

Well, a cave is deep, right?

  • Reports suggest an extremely steep ascent! :slight_smile:

Everybody has their place and use in a particular historical time and context, but that doesn’t make them relevant forever…

Ancient thought and doctrines lose their utility over X amount of time, and so become an archive for our reference and curiosity.

But it is also kind of obvious, don’t you think?
Without offering concrete ways of getting out from under our limitations- and Plato never offers concrete means.

What of the Apology, derleydoo, if you would - is it not a pompous address, aimed clearly at the not so bright?
Who in his right mind would not laugh at Socrates for assuming to not be a rhetoric genius but rather a simple man telling such a simple thing as “the truth”?

No I don’t find that - if not for ancient thought I would find very little to respect in this world. I don’t find that there has been much of worth since before Plato, until Nietzsche who thought the same, and brought back a healthy, sane way of thinking.

But what is it you are doing here now if not trying to change my mind? Of course philosophy is about changing peoples minds; but slowly, and not the small tendentious mind of opinions but the deep, oceanic mind of a priori assumptions.
Changing the inner images.

Plato certainly did such a thing but not all change has to be lauded just for being prominent.

Yes. He said he would be first understood by my generation.

Or perhaps I am one of the few to ares to see the folly in his words. There is no shortage of people who deeply admire him and they come in all ages. But why? Surely not because he plays a real role in peoples lives. It is a thing of renown and fame, he is being judged in a very favourable light, people don’t really dare to criticize him.

The cave allegory is sort of creative, but doesn’t illuminate. And what else has he accomplished?
Would someone who speaks in the way of the Apology, be capable of speaking honest thoughts?

Be honest. Would you trust someone who talks like that now?

Of course I would. This whole deep business appears to undermine itself , meaning the millennia of created knowledge by a parallel mode, that uses the hypothetical depth of measurement to gradually unfold its true depth.

Coming up too fast, does create insurmountable problems, but had these been not laid out totally, can not be invalidate either, the core, or the periphery of a necessary relation.

Contingency has to meet necessity, even in the most abstract formulation.

Fixed wrote;

"What of the Apology, derleydoo, if you would - is it not a pompous address, aimed clearly at the not so bright?
Who in his right mind would not laugh at Socrates for assuming to not be a rhetoric genius but rather a simple man telling such a simple thing as "the truth "

This comment not only disclaims the relevance of Platonic thought , but disqualifies the idea that the simplest things are substantial in the history of thought, which after all gave rise to the complexities that were built upon it.

If there ever was an insubstantial argument, this is it.

If the sort of argument like this is disqualified, then may as well dismiss any reason to claim any value to academic lead ing based on essential learning from intuitive-a priori sources.

William James could be eliminated, Husserl, most of the great Jewish minor and major prophets, the Catholic mystics, core oriented psychologists, the list is long and in my opinion corresponding a shadow world that has mostly been ignored and neglected, and in many cases suppressed.

Thinkers of all sorts map the array of the science of philosophy, many has built upon the universal principles that built application on hypothesis.

The wisdom of the general supposition of universal principles augment wisdom in particular ways.

To wit;

"So Meno has defined the general concept of virtue by identifying it with one specific kind of virtue. Socrates then clarifies what he wants with an analogy. … Socrates’ response: Everyone desires what they think is good (an idea one encounters in many of Plato’s dialogues)

This explains something though - your trust of Socrates, who to me is sounding as honest and as interesting as a used car salesman, might have to do with your trust of holier-than-thou politicians and newspapers.

I only trust/like the ruggedly honest, those who do not have an “image” to worry about, those who dont spend 57 pages explaining how little they know and how much they should be trusted before they come to a statement. The statement is always empty when it comes. But lauded by the masses because, be fair, they’ve waited for it 57 pages. Sunken cost fallacy.

Re the good comment: that is a tautology. Yes, the good is what we desire. We desire what is good. That is the meaning of the word “good”. Socrates made this into something very “deep” and yet without any substance. What he presumes to reveal has been known since the invention of the word “good”.
This is Plato’s trademark - find the completely obvious, shroud it in fancy words so as to obscure its natural significance, and pretend that one needs a pompous liar like Socrates to be enlightened to it. Which then even doesn’t work, as the concept of Good was entirely lost after these dirty bastards had their way with it.

Value ontology finally breaks into the “good” concept and shows how it can be operated philosophically, restoring the possibility of it.

— Neither of the writers you mention have even a trace of the self-unaware deceitfulness of Socrates.
The deceit is staring you in the face, and you wish to see only dignity. I know how that is, I used to have the same vice in my social circle. I want them to be less shitty than they are so I overlook the obvious. I never had it before philosophers.

—-