T
tonyrey
Guest
You’re a true philosopher!
- Status
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, he is one of my favorites, too. Do you have a favorite Socratic dialog, or do you like all of Plato’s works about the same? I enjoy reading Phaedrus the most.
S
spockrates
Guest
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTARrymzqv_q89eI5hBR-xnfB1phXFksV2fO1xzlGyMX8jFYQCr5Q
Well, Tony. The conflict, it seems is over what I believe Socrates believed and what Saint Aquinas believed Socrates believed. It’s possible I’m misunderstanding, but I do not think I am. The reason is that Aquinas believes that Socrates believed sin is impossible for the one who truly knows the difference between right and wrong. I believe, after considering Socrates’ analogy of a person being like a charioteer holding the reigns of two winged horses, that Socrates believed it is not only possible but also probable that a man who truly knows the difference between right and wrong will sometimes do the wrong.
You see, the charioteer is the soul of the man, the noble steed is his wisdom, and the ignoble steed is his his tendency toward sinful desire. Although the noble steed (which we may name Wisdom) knows what the charioteer should not do, the ignoble steed (which we may call Desire) does the oposite. The example of the ignoble steed making the charioteer act like a lustful fool is one in which a man knowing he should show self-control loses control and does what he knows he should not.
Therefore, it is likely that Socrates belived–contrary to what Aquinas thinks he believed–that it is indeed possible to do what is wrong even when one knows it is wrong. But do you disagree and believe, as Aquinas did, that Socrates belived it is impossible for a wise man to sin? If so, I may have misunderstood the meaning of Socrates analogy of the flying chariot. If I’ve misunderstood, then please explain how the analogy actually supports Aquinas’ view of Socrates’ belief, instead.
S
Skadi
Guest
I love both Euthyphro and Crito. Crito especialy, as it gets into very very deep stuf where as Eurhyphro is a demonstration of Socratic method.
I must say though my favorite philosophy book may have to be Miyomoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings.
S
spockrates
Guest
I suppose Crito is in a way like the Bible–on one level, so shallow a child can jump right in and playfully grasp it’s meaning, on another level so deep the wisest philosopher will nearly drown in it! I like this quote from Crito:
But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened.
Reminds me of these words of Socrates:
If we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care about the opinions of others?
(Phaedrus)
But what, specifically do you find deep about Crito, for it has been awhile since I’ve read it thoughtfully, and I cannot at the moment recall.
Also please tell me about the Book of Five Rings.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I entirely agree with you. St Thomas was often inspired but he wasn’t infallible - as you have demonstrated.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
spock
**But do you disagree and believe, as Aquinas did, that Socrates believed it is impossible for a wise man to sin? **
It is certainly possible for a wise man to sin, and Aquinas would have known this. He would have been able to cite King Solomon as full of wisdom but also full of sin in his quest for many wives and vast wealth.
**But do you disagree and believe, as Aquinas did, that Socrates believed it is impossible for a wise man to sin? **
It is certainly possible for a wise man to sin, and Aquinas would have known this. He would have been able to cite King Solomon as full of wisdom but also full of sin in his quest for many wives and vast wealth.
S
Skadi
Guest
I’m a history major and a avid romantic (though I find that it is necisary to cast romanticism aside in favor of logic when the time for a major decision comes). Crito is both epic in Socrates facing his impending death firmly and very rational in the ways he explains his reasons. While in escape he may have taught a few more minds and lived a few more years he understood that it would undermine his whole argument. And in his death he resonated through history greater than he ever could have with his few remaining years. Socrates understood this.
The book of five rings was written in the 17th century by the famed Samurai Miyomoto Musashi, a man who I have no reservations calling the greatest swordsman to ever live. Musashi was born to a samurai in Japan durring the Sengoku Jidai, the age of the nation at war. He ran away as a boy and grew up as a ronin (wandering samurai). In his life he won over 60 duels without defeat, fought in four of he most important battles in Japanese history, and created his own distinct sword fighting style called Niten-Ichi-Ryu, famous for using two swords. Musashi was renowned for using psychological warfare in his duels, and several of them have become legendary events in Japanese history.
However once the Tokegawa clan had secured the Shogunate and Japan became peaceful he began to contemplate his life and read heavily into Budhist philosophy. Shortly before he died he traveled to a cave and dictated to one of his students the book of five rings, which is both the training manual of Niten-Ichi-Ryu and a book of Budhist philosophy. The book has five scrolls named for the elements of Budhist cosmology;
The Earth scroll discusses what martial arts is, and the manner of self discipline and commitment required of a martial artist.
The Water scroll contains the techniques of Musashi’s fighting style.
The Fire scroll contains matters of battle psycology and tactics.
The Air scroll contains the faults Musashi finds in contemporary fighting styles.
And the Void scroll contains Budhist philosophy in which he speeks deeply on how one must try and grasp that which is incomprehensible and be at inner peace.
Throughout the book Musashi states that while one must be of utmost dedication to their craft, they should work to be of broad knowledge and interest as well. Musashi himself was a poet, painter, and philosopher as well as a swordsman and encourages people to be multi dimensional.
S
spockrates
Guest
http://www.gregkelley.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/jesus-and-children.jpegI entirely agree with you. St Thomas was often inspired but he wasn’t infallible - as you have demonstrated.
Yes, but I think we should avoid the temptation of thinking we are somehow more wise than the revered saint. We should instead be humbled and even amazed by the truth of Jesus’ revealing prayer:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."
(Luke 10:21)
For although our wisdom might be that of a child compared to the brilliant saint, I think we do have a distinct advantage over Aquinas, which makes us, perhaps more blessed but in no way more wise! You see, I wondered why such a wise servant of the only wise God would make such an obvious mistake. Then the idea occurred to me: A man knows what he perceives, and what he conceives is greatly influenced by what he perceives with his senses.
There are, perhaps only a dozen or so extant ancient manuscript copies of Plato’s dialogs in existence, today. All modern translations we read have only these few to thank for their being. Over the centuries we have discovered these ancient works of Plato, but it is possible Aquinas was unaware of some of them. If the saint never read Phaedrus, should we misjudge him for not knowing of Socrates depiction of the charioteer, the noble Pegasus Wisdom and the ignoble Pegasus Desire?
S
spockrates
Guest
Or so it seems. For Jesus himself said none was wiser than Solomon. But what if things are not as the seem? What if Saint Aquinas looks down from Heaven on us little ignorant ones, smiles and gently laughs over our ignorance?
For the awful question just entered my mind–one that prompts me to hide my face in the dust at his feet and say, “Woe to me for my irrevent doubt of God’s servant! Aquinas, pray that I be shown mercy!” And the terrifying question that drives me to repent is this: Is wisdom what one knows, or what one does? Or if neither of these, then what is wisdom?
What do you think the answer is, my friend? Answer carefully, for the truth about what Socrates truly believed and the state of our own knowledge of wisdom depends upon it.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
You can be knowledgeable without being wise. For example if a person learnt all of Wikipedia by heart, he would have a lot of knowledge. But would he be wise?
A totally uneducated person, might still be able to offer you wisdom.
So the two do not necessarily go hand in hand.
S
spockrates
Guest
Welcome, Cirdan to Tony’s discussion thread. Would you say, then that all wisdom is knowledge, but not all knowledge is wisdom?
S
spockrates
Guest
I’m glad you’re here, Skadi. For the question for which I’m currently seeking an answer is whether Socrates was unwise, as Saint Aquinas seems to suggest. It seems it is unwise to believe Virtue is a matter of mere cognition and not volition. But I’m wondering if this is really what Socrates believed. Perhaps Crito will give us the wisdom I seek?
Please tell me: If Socrates did choose to flee in a ship rather than drink the poison in compliance with his death sentance, would this escaping death be wise?
Fascinating! Reminds me of the Greek Stohic philosophers who were looking for the Divine in the “elements” of earth, wind, fire and water. They debated vigorously over many, many years over what element was superior and so the stuff of which the Divine is made. The debate ended in a stalemate. Each element was found to be greater than some (for example, fire in a jar consumes air) but none was greater than all (for example, water can extinguish a flame). But one ingenuous group of them proposed an idea that many accepted: The one thing superior to all things is the thing that comprehends them all–the *Logos *, or Word, or thought. They agreed that the Divine, which surpasses all else, must be the Word.
But please tell me about the fifth ring. Is the Void similar to, or different from the Word?
S
Skadi
Guest
Socrates tells us himself many times how unwise he is. He was mortified when the oracle at Delphi told him he was the wisest man in Athens. But we must look at it in reletive context. Humans are by nature imperfect, and in this life we are hindered both by the fact that there are physical limitations to the human mind and that it has a predisposition for some decidedly unwise traits such as excessive pride and ego. I would make the following claim: In comparison to the whole sum of wisdom in the universe and to beings not bound by material limitations Socrates was unwise, but he was much wiser than his contemporaries and as such can be considered wise.
While some wisdom seams to be universal there are many various areas one may be wise in. One who is wise in the art of debate may be unwise in the art of war, and one wise in the art of war may be unwise in the way of the farmer, ect. In adition the wise action for a man to take is very dependent on his goals. If a man walks down a road on a long journey but is not in haste to reach his destination it is wise of him to rest. But a man who travels the same road on a matter of urgency may be wise to continue on lest his erand be done to late.
In this instance I believe Socrates makes the wise choice. If his goal was survival it would have certainly been wise, but it was not. Throughout Crito he seems to imply his goal is to make a martyr of himself, and understands that to flee Athens would undermine all his work. Personaly I believe it was a wise choice, but that may be colored by my own romanticism and religious views on death.
Well, from what I have read of Buddhism void is more of a state of having no essence. It is associated with the mind in that it is connected to meditation, but Its exact meaning varying from tradition to tradition. I don’t think it is very comporable to Logos in that it void is the absence of thought.
I think what the message of Musashi’s void scroll is to move from thinking to simply doing. To perfect ones art to the point where it does not require thought.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A very good point! Even now there is uncertainty about the exact extent of Plato’s contribution.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
spock
** Is wisdom what one knows, or what one does? Or if neither of these, then what is wisdom?**
Shouldn’t it be both? Wisdom is thinking and doing the will of God in this world. However, wisdom does not exist in a vacuum. One can hardly exercise wisdom fully without the practice of ancillary virtues such as faith, hope, love, courage, humility, etc. This is why Solomon, for all the wisdom in his head, lacked the wisdom in his heart when he craved many wives and vast wealth.
** Is wisdom what one knows, or what one does? Or if neither of these, then what is wisdom?**
Shouldn’t it be both? Wisdom is thinking and doing the will of God in this world. However, wisdom does not exist in a vacuum. One can hardly exercise wisdom fully without the practice of ancillary virtues such as faith, hope, love, courage, humility, etc. This is why Solomon, for all the wisdom in his head, lacked the wisdom in his heart when he craved many wives and vast wealth.
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, it sounds wise to say wisdom is *both *cognition and volition. For one who does not do what he knows he ought to do is not wise, but a fool!
So then, let’s test this idea against Solomon, since you mentioned him. Would you say he was wise, or foolish to marry many wives and greedily horde great wealth for himself?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
spock
**So then, let’s test this idea against Solomon, since you mentioned him. Would you say he was wise, or foolish to marry many wives and greedily horde great wealth for himself? **
Foolish. He was wise in many ways but foolish in these!
**So then, let’s test this idea against Solomon, since you mentioned him. Would you say he was wise, or foolish to marry many wives and greedily horde great wealth for himself? **
Foolish. He was wise in many ways but foolish in these!
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes. How much Plato contributed to Saint Aquinas’ view of Socrates we do not know. What we do know is that Aristotle did contribute to his view, as he quotes Aristotle’s *Ethics *in his Summa Theologica.
Shall we then put Aristotle on the witness stand and ask him why he believed Socrates held this belief? That is, shall we examine Aristotle’s reference to Socrates in *Ethics *?
S
spockrates
Guest
4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.
10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil.
11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.
– Solomon (Ecclesiastes 2)
Charlemagne:
Do you mean to say he was wise in being able to comprehend the will of God, but foolish in being unwilling to obey the will of God?
- Status