The name Thrasymachus may refer to war (mache), and his famous blush may be, as is sometimes said, a flush of glowing rage swimming over his face. What I had in mind is not the scrutiny of a Socrates, but rather that the ad hominem (to the human being himself) of the friends and enemies of Socrates, their form (morphe, German: sorge, sorrow, werden, will) or soul (psuke), is not the same as their intellect (episteme). Thrasymachus baldly and perfectly understands the Socratic definition of Justice (Dike), but he has another definition in his soul. We would speak here of sincerity, but that is not the issue. Only Sophists slip away from the ad hominem (and, at length, pass of their own souls as a offence against logic), and Thrasymachus is not a sophist. When he thumbs through the minute stirrings of his heart, finding everything in its depths, he says: Justice is the advantage of the stronger.
We have an intelligible statement, justice is what improves the human being, but the soul is not moved to be in its region. To experience this way. The secret man, the divine heart of radical character, is neither the intelligence nor the animal man.
This goes also in clearer things, one understands: assertion: there is a Pegasus, one is not moved to grant the premise.
Here we have a matrix of black difficulties in our reach, one has never before seen such a black.
This is what is said above. In a few dialogues Socrates says, now, say what you “really think”, if he speaks to a sophist, they will say, no Socrates, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Look to the “argument”. The birth of formal-logical sterility = symbolic logic = math as mere rules. A flight from human being into the legibility of a logos that is itself literate and reads itself amidst illiterate humans. The hideous thing, technological essence.
In a political debate, nicht? Not in dialogic (philisophic) practise. Or, Medieval recherche collective de la vérité (the proper, and only useful, place for the full résumé of “logical” fallacies).
Because the word has at least four distinct meanings. The first is simply a caution against rudeness, as in the rules in the US Senate designed to maintain comity and likewise consideration for other in colleges and so on. The second is a distortion of a “genetic fallacy”, misunderstood and conflated with the first. This is the most usal why the obstruction to philosophy happens in vulgar, almost all, atrocious discussions.
This is a pre-philosophical issue. When we have domesticated, intelligent persons (though, perhaps in no way gentle or kind), only then can we do philosophy. One should remember Socrates almost always spoke to professional speakers and young nobles, and never as the ubiquitous hideous phonies have it, with people in the ”market place” (ironically, these fakes, are mislead by Socrates himself in the Apology, or, more likely what they read about that on the older equivalents of Wiki, such as classrooms with mediocre professors [true, there is some argument against this, rather distant, however, from the general throng and its philistine doings]).
The civilization bloc of the philosophers is not inclusive of everyone, only the scrutinizing life, says Socrates, is human.
It is mentioned above. As to the gods and fate, this means that reason is focused not on entities, a chimera, and huge beast or titan, but on being. Being is in each being, yet, it is difficult, at first to say anything but what draws away from it, for example, that beings are actual or potential. And then to some detail. Such as whether when the Dodo is extinct, is the Dodo in its power to be, in being, are Dodo’s still a possibility as a now being actual potential. On the other hand, we have reason humming about us as something over and against authority, and there the bee or drone of reason tends to dissolve into logistics.
It’s the reverse. Only in seeing one is part of each one, the same as each, can speak to each one from one’s solitude, does one first become individual amidst the extreme loneliness of the each one and each friend who understands just and only so much of the bowles of one’s being which is as each other. Otherwise one plays at individuality in the same way each other does. And that is a kind of collective game, like being part of a dissident social movment.
There are a few types of thinking, and though some peculiarity comes in, it is very little. There are types more than irregular traits of fate or character. Most of all, what is “individual”, is what wholly lacks fate or character, namely reason. Only if, in reason, there is discovered the abyss, is there Kantian Reich of causes. The rest is posing and romanticism of the enjoyment of the variety of beings = the “cultures”, most of all, the culture of one. One must then with clarity see: culture is the concept of one modern culture, as though a bolt from the blue for the globe, the Northern European West of the late (post-Hegelian) Enlightenment.
that being said, I agree, if you mean each one has their own character (personality), ergo, their own peculiar fate. Except, perhaps, the great ones who epitomize all things, all works and peoples relativizing them and thrusting them under their ideas as they cast shadows. Husserl says here: the idea is stronger than any empirical force.
It’s analogous in a large way to the degeneration of our sense of culture. A cultured person once meant someone more perfectly human, more civilized. But now there is no such thing as a person without culture. Same extermination of thought and being has occurred with the conception of personality in Goethe.
Something to do with what is said above (especially in response one on Thrasymachus and with respect to the premise drawn from the soul or ad hominem in the proper sense).