14edf1 No.420
Hello /philosophy/, great board you guys have here. I've recently begun reading a collection of texts from some of the most relevant western philosophers in history, and I was wondering if you guys could give me a hand.
So let me tell you what I understood from reading "Socrates' Defense" by Plato, and "Memorabilia" by Xenophon.
The first and most obvious point in Socrates' philosophy is the importance of recognizing one's own ignorance. Although some people (mostly craftsmen) have actual knowledge of very specific things, most individuals live in a state of delusion regarding how much they really know. This is demonstrated by the philosopher on his quest to break down knowledge and statements to their most basic level, and sometimes completely "destroying" them. Could this be called a "reductionist dialectic"?
He gives great importance to temperance, basing this stance on two arguments. The first is that there is no difference between "an intemperate man and the most stupid of beasts", meaning that temperance is a requirement to being an actual human being. The second point is that one who is used to being deprived of things will not suffer when this deprivation is imposed, e.g. one who eats little will not suffer during times of scarcity.
Friends are the most valued things to have, and are worth the effort of spending time and money for keeping them, not necessarily because one enjoys their company but because they might be useful to you in the future. Is this a harsh understanding of his statements on this subject?
It is best to live a just life and die than to life an unjust life and live a lot. Being "just" means following the laws and following the will of the gods, which makes itself known to men through oracles and daemons. Death should not be feared because it is either the simple cessation of being or and opportunity to meet all those famous dead people and leave the pricks who killed you behind.
He also gives advice on some general things, like respecting your parents, becoming a good public speaker, being a good officer and so on.
Did I get the main idea behind those works?
64c9ff No.505
Hello.
I would like to point something out. Reading the words of Socrates, one discovers that his thoughts seem to fall into two mutually exclusive categories: Humanism and anti-humanism. For example:
One one hand, he demonstrates that even barbaric slaves can discover simple geometric truths. On the other hand, he argues that education should be reserved for the aristocratic elite.
On one hand, he claims that he is the wisest of the Greek because he knows that he knows nothing. On the other, he claims that the state should be ruled by philosopher kings, which are elevated above the profane masses.
Karl Popper gives an explaination in this book (pic). He argues that the "real" Socrates is the humanist one, while the anti-humanist one is actually Plato in disguise.
The Greek philosophers were the first people in Europe (perhaps even the world) to discover, that social norms aren't natural or god given, but man made. Their discovery of rational criticism combined with the Athenian trade empire fueled an infant humanist movement, which was despised by the aristocrats. Plato saw the disagreements and conflict that arose from this movement and decided to fight against it- using the none too sober method of putting his words in the greatest humanist mouth of them all.
If you've read Plato/Socrates before and thought you'd understood it, this book will shock you as much as it shocked me.
93c6ec No.509
>>505>on one hand>on the other handI see no such conflict between those ideas.
ffe5f7 No.510
>>505Yeah but how do you read the words of Socrates? Isn't through Plato (Mostly)?
Plato was violently against the dêmos, without the democracy he'd probably have been much closer to real power, Critias (plato's cousin) and Charmides (plato's uncle) were members of the thirty tyrants and if plato wouldn't have been minor he'd probably have been there too. Plato is famous for using poetic licenses when describing events. Plato isn't a good source but he's still consider to be even today. You wanna know what Socrates was really saying you gotta get rid of the plato part first. Plato ≠ Socrates and many of the contemporary followers of the Socratic principles weren't agreeing with plato on many many things.
4c669f No.1383
if you want to know Socrates, study Jesus and replace religion believe with philosophy.
Jesus is the roman makeover of Socrates. Jesus never wrote one word, and there is no work of Socrates to be found.
Start to understand philosophy by seeing their spin-offs, christianity, islam, and modern science. They are all the same, except christianity aims on keeping people stupid, thus covering up all the wisdom and make steatements about taking things out of proportian (a.k.a. neglect poetry and take it as facts)
067f47 No.1386
>>505This book has been criticized to hell and back for Popper being, well, just plain ignorant of the actual history of the philosophies/ers he criticized and doing exactly what he claims to be against: putting words in others' mouths.
5266bb No.1400
I learned from David Humes on his wiev of epistemology. He has established that our minds start on a blank blackboard. Humans gains impressions and ideas through the senses, outer, as well as inner.
Gonna read some Kant to check their comparison over eachother.
067f47 No.1401
>>1400Pyrrhonian skepticism > Humean skepticism