The Socrates question: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » The Socrates question » The Socrates question

The Socrates question

Page: 1 2 3

The Socrates question

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 07/17/04 - 03:52 AM:	#11
So much romantic twaddle and splitting of semantic hairs. Plato himself wrote that, like many sentenced to death, Socrates was given a chance to flee and live in exile. He chose to kill himself instead in order to make a point.

Lao_Tzu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 139

Posted 07/17/04 - 05:35 AM:	#12
He chose to kill himself instead in order to make a point and did his point change anything? I suppose this is why societies tend to focus on such issues as crime and war. The politicians are trying to emphasis the good society does (fight bad men) and ignore the bad it does (oppress creativity, goodness, genius, ect) I feel it’s a misconception for society to blame crooks for the state of the world, if every crook was banged up, would the world be a better place? would you sleep easy, or find something else to worry about? The truth is "The rise and fall of nations lies on the shoulders of each individual", we see pollution on beeches as a bad thing, if you don't clear it up your just as wrong as the person who dropped it. Why do you see creativity, genius, etc as good things? all eggheads do is throw spanners in the works, and creativity only sparks controversy We would have a better society if no one challenged it.
I am stupid. How well to I hide it? – shinidoki -

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 07/17/04 - 05:59 AM:	#13
Lao_Tzu wrote: and did his point change anything? The truth is "The rise and fall of nations lies on the shoulders of each individual", we see pollution on beeches as a bad thing, if you don't clear it up your just as wrong as the person who dropped it. You have answered your own question, clearly indicating it just as rhetorical and sarchastic as any Socrates asked. Who can say if Socrates actually changed anything for the better by commiting suicide? Any theories about such things fall into the catagory of Social Darwinism, that is, highly speculative with little or no scientific evidence to back it up. To assert that he did change society for the better is to take the position of the "Great Man" theory. The rugged individualistic idea that great changes are made by great individuals. The opposite theory is that of "Many Great Men." The idea being that for every Socrates, Jesus, or whoever there are countless others who are lost in obscurity. Rather than the successful Great Men changing society, they are merely the figureheads that societies choose in order to rationalize the inevitable social changes growth and progress bring with them. Whether either view is more correct than the other is anyone's guess as far as I am concerned. Either way, I will live my own life as it unfolds. Whether I see my actions as a personal choice, simply a reaction to circumstances, or some mixture of the two-- only the future can tell.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 07/17/04 - 06:10 AM:	#14
Some historians suggestion that Plato 'doctored' the account of Socrates trial, playing down the prosecutions' 'anti-democracy & associations to treason' charges, whilst pushing the impiety charge. My understanding of ancient Athens makes me question whether anyone (let alone Socrates) would have been sentenced to death over mere theological issues. More likely, the olde goat was publically expressing a little bit too much of his well known sympathy for the Spartan model of society.
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

darsunt
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Location: California, USA
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 85

Posted 07/17/04 - 08:02 AM:	#15
If you are pro-establishment, then certainly Socrates would seem annoying. His continual active questioning of many of Athen's beliefs and mores would seem wasteful and unneccessary. Why question, when one can fit in and make more money? However, with hindsight one could see objectively that Athen's society did have a great deal to criticize. The serious political situation that caused Socrates to be brought to trial was brought about by Athen's defeat in the Pelopponesian War, at the hands of Sparta. This defeat was brought about by a mixture of hubris, greed, and hypocrisy. Overconfidence and greed caused the Athenians to attempt to conquer Sicily while Sparta remained intact. Hypocrisy in that Athens maintained an empire by brute force while sponsoring democracy at home. The Athenian society could not honestly criticize itself for its failings and continue to function. So it needed to find scapegoats such as Socrates, who certainly was not to blame for government policy. He may have not encouraged faith in the governments actions, but no amount of faith or patriotism could have overcome the policy mistakes that lead to Athens defeat. Socrates was also probably the first 'anti-establishment' intellectual in recorded history. This was an especially remarkable intellectual feat in those ancient days where to step outside of your society and question its fundamental mores must have been unthinkable. Nowadays, since there is a intellectual tradition of rebellion and anti-establishmentism, it is much easier. In that alone he was a remarkable man, and this, couple with his many other intellectual exercises, certainly qualities him as one of the 'best men'.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 07/17/04 - 11:41 AM:	#16
darsunt wrote: From what little we actually do know about the man, he was no saint by any means. Again, he was a bit of an old curmudgeon. A retired career soldier. The kind of guy who likes to hang out in bars, tell dirty jokes, and get really obnoxiously sarchastic when he's drunk. That is again, painting a glorified picture of the man. Exactly the same one Plato attempted to paint. From what little we actually know about the man, he was no saint by any means. Again he was a bit of an old curmugeon. A retired career soldier. The kind of guy that likes to hang around in bars, tell dirty jokes, and get generally obnoxiously sarcastic when he is drunk. Such colourful characters were common in Athenian democracy. In fact their motto for democracy was, "Strike if must, but hear me first" In Socrates case, I guess he just offended one too many people and they decided they had heard enough.

Nihilistic Locomotive
Coprophagic coprophobic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 27, 2003
Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 1583

Posted 07/17/04 - 12:36 PM:	#17
wuli wrote: From what little we actually do know about the man, he was no saint by any means. Again, he was a bit of an old curmudgeon. A retired career soldier. The kind of guy who likes to hang out in bars, tell dirty jokes, and get really obnoxiously sarcastic when he's drunk. What is interesting that most heroic idols and such are uprooted from historical context. The impetus for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was politics and had less to do with the moral virtue of freedom than with political strategem; I think slavery was retained in certain Nothern sates or so I've heard something to that effect. But none the less because what happened happened, and the modern man and even those of the time may project and revise character. The most well known expression surrounding Socrates is that he was 'the corrupter of Athenian youth,' as so well propounded in the Nietzsche BOT, accordingly responsible too for the decline of tragedy and the submergence of the Dionysian force. There are some strange connections too the N. makes, between the erotic drive behind the virtue of knowledge with spreading of the Socratic fire through Athenian youths. Like the uncursed curser, or the most comendable or contemptible Nihilist, Socrates was the base progenitor of the self-denied, or the will??? He was the forshadow of Christiandom, the turn of the play of the mythic hub? Its all so weird. There is a terrible cynicism surrounding the image of Socrates playing music.
Be outrageous but don't be an ass.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 07/17/04 - 03:54 PM:	#18
Nihilistic Locomotive wrote: Like the uncursed curser, or the most comendable or contemptible Nihilist, Socrates was the base progenitor of the self-denied, or the will??? He was the forshadow of Christiandom, the turn of the play of the mythic hub? Its all so weird. Socrates was a man of his times. Greek philosophy originated at least in part as the only socially acceptable way of covertly criticizing the increasingly bizarre pantheon of gods in their religion. Using metaphysical speculation and entertaining reductio ad absurdium arguments, these heratics managed to challange the statis quo. That Socrates then took this a step further in the newly founded institution of democracy only makes sense. The Athenians did not shout, "Strike if you must, but hear me first" for nothing. Democracy cannot survive without freedom of speach. Much of what has been surpressed for centuries by stifling tradition began to surface as the public empowered themselves. Two steps forward, one step back. The fact that this old curmudgeon was quickly placed on a pedestal and kept there, even by the dictators of Rome, shows that the public was simply ready for this change. That Rome, the country which crucified Jesus, then became the first christian nation comes as no surprise either. Christianity has proven over two thousand years to be the single religion most compatable with capitalistic democracy.

darsunt
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Location: California, USA
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 85

Posted 07/17/04 - 10:16 PM:	#19
Who history decides should be remembered as great is always suspect. However the case for Socrate's greatness is fairly strong. Most of the material about Socrates comes from Plato, true. But two other contemporaries, Aristophanes and Xenophon, always paint a picture of a remarkable man. The philosopher Aristotle also confirms Socrate's achievements. One can consider also the extent of Socrate's influence. He was friend and mentor to Plato, who is considered the most influential philosopher in Western civilization, who was in turn teacher to Aristotle, the inventor of formal logic and the scientific method. Since his influence extended to the 2 most famous philosophers in Western history, it is probable Socrates was not a mind to be taken lightly. But again the point is that Athens sentenced to death one of its best men (although certainly not the most politically savvy one). The death was unjust because the real cause of Athen's defeat were bad decisions and poor policies, not morale. So why do societies destroy their best men?

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 07/18/04 - 04:09 AM:	#20
darsunt wrote: But again the point is that Athens sentenced to death one of its best men (although certainly not the most politically savvy one). The death was unjust because the real cause of Athen's defeat were bad decisions and poor policies, not morale. So why do societies destroy their best men? Sure, Socrates had something on the ball, but then so did countless others. What distinguishes him from other remarkable philosophers is his politics. Societies don't just destroy all their great men, but it's open hunting season year round on politicians for obvious reasons.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.