How significant was Socrates?

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

**But the question remains: Since I should treat others the way I want to be treated, how should I want to be treated? The son and father had different ideas about how they themselves wanted to be treated. How should we determine who was wise, and who was the fool? **

Be pro life.

The father is the fool and the son is the wise man. This often happens in real life.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

As another example, every so often there’s a sad news report of a man so clinically depressed that before committing suicide, he kills his children and spouse out of love to save them from suffering as he has suffered, doing unto his family as he would have them do unto him.

Two problems here.

Morality is not often correctly applied by people who are clinically depressed. But clinical depression does not cancel out the wise moral choice.

Also, he did not do as he would have others do to him when he killed his family. He did as he would do to himself.

 

[spockrates]

Yikes. You take no prisoners then.

Killing the captured is not my goal, unless the captured are the false ideas rather than the one who sincerely suggests them. But then, it is not me who pulls the trigger, but the thinker himself. The death is more humane, then.

Sitting here eating popcorn it’s easy to say cannibalism is categorically wrong. But suppose a stranded group can’t reach a place with food until many days after they know they will die from hunger. Then one of them is killed in an accident. Suddenly there’s an opportunity for the others to live. Not such an easy decision then.

Why not easy?

The dictionary defines a dilemma as a situation in which a choice has to be made between possibilities that will all have results we do not want. Is it better to die needlessly or to live knowing what we did to stay alive?

But what *do *we want. I’m not asking what we want in specific, but in general. What is the one goal of our lives that should determine all other goals we set for ourselves?

When we’re between a rock and a hard place I think Jesus looks at us and thinks “what would Jesus do?” And if He sees us wrestling with it, trying our very best, our thoughts sometimes accusing us and at other times even defending us, He thinks yes, well done, that’s what Jesus would do.

Yes, but once one knows the one want he wants all his wants to accomplish, then is there still any reason to wrestle? When God touches the wrestler with this revelation, does he not–like Jacob–cease wrestling and realize that the one with whom he struggled was not himself, but God?

 

[spockrates]

spock

**But the question remains: Since I should treat others the way I want to be treated, how should I want to be treated? The son and father had different ideas about how they themselves wanted to be treated. How should we determine who was wise, and who was the fool? **

Be pro life.

The father is the fool and the son is the wise man. This often happens in real life.

And why is pro-life wiser than anti-suffering?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

**And why is pro-life wiser than anti-suffering? **

Why is death preferable to suffering?

 

[spockrates]

spock

**And why is pro-life wiser than anti-suffering? **

Why is death preferable to suffering?

It would be most unfair of me to not answer your question, after you’ve answered so many of mine! So let me try: I suppose one who is in great pain would be tempted to choose death instead of suffering. But one is tempted to do wrong rather than right. It seems to me not choosing life is often wrong.

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live…

(Deuteronomy 30:19)

So the father in The Road choosing death so that he and his child would cease to live certainly seems contrary to God’s command, here. Yet, there are times when death is preferable to one’s own life.

12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this–to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.

(John 15)

It would seem, then that dying to save the life of another is preferable, and the act of which true heroes are made and which may make them much like Christ, who both suffered and died so that you and I and Inocente might live.

What do you think of my answer?

 

[inocente]

Be pro life.

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. - John 15:13

The father is the fool and the son is the wise man. This often happens in real life.

Then you’ve added a clause to the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you unless you think they are wiser than you, in which case do unto them what you think they would do unto you.

 

[inocente]

Two problems here.

Morality is not often correctly applied by people who are clinically depressed. But clinical depression does not cancel out the wise moral choice.

Also, he did not do as he would have others do to him when he killed his family. He did as he would do to himself.

Then you’ve added another clause to the golden rule, which now reads: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you unless you think they are wiser than you, in which case do unto them what you think they would do unto you, but, and this is very important, it can’t be stressed how important this is, never do anything until you’ve first visited a psychiatrist to make certain you are of sound mind.

And we’re not done yet. Kant observed that the golden rule means no judge can ever send someone to prison without also putting himself in prison, because if the judge doesn’t want to go to prison then he shouldn’t do it unto others.

 

[inocente]

Why not easy?

People make strong arguments both for and against.

*But what *do **we want. I’m not asking what we want in specific, but in general. What is the one goal of our lives that should determine all other goals we set for ourselves?

I question whether there needs to be such a goal, but if necessary I’ll go with:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On

Yes, but once one knows the one want he wants all his wants to accomplish, then is there still any reason to wrestle? When God touches the wrestler with this revelation, does he not–like Jacob–cease wrestling and realize that the one with whom he struggled was not himself, but God?

Yes, there’s no point wrestling something already wrestled just for the sake of repetition.

But suppose we were brought up in times of slavery, and told that the bible authorizes slavery, for instance Leviticus 25:44-46, and raised to believe this is revelation and not to be wrestled with, then slavery would perpetuate for ever and ever.

That’s why the young have a tendency to rebel against those elders who think they know the absolute best. Only by wrestling anew can anything change, for better or for worse. This is the way of the Lord.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock
**
It would seem, then that dying to save the life of another is preferable, and the act of which true heroes are made and which may make them much like Christ, who both suffered and died so that you and I and Inocente might live.**

Those who died, died fighting. They didn’t kill themselves to avoid pain. Get a grip, please!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Then you’ve added another clause to the golden rule, which now reads: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you unless you think they are wiser than you, in which case do unto them what you think they would do unto you, but, and this is very important, it can’t be stressed how important this is, never do anything until you’ve first visited a psychiatrist to make certain you are of sound mind.

There’s a reason the state does not hold insane people accountable for their acts. You apparently do. Grief causes insanity and irrational acts, which should never be an excuse for the view that the suicide is as justified as the normal person who is willing to live no matter how difficult the circumstances of life may be. An ethic grounded in a deeply wwowunded psyche, as the basis for a sound morality?

You advocate a cowardly ethic?

 

[spockrates]

People make strong arguments both for and against.

Please briefly give a strong argument for becoming a man eater.

I question whether there needs to be such a goal, but if necessary I’ll go with:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On

Then let us investigate your reasons for questioning, or at least consider the meaning of life you have proposed. If the one purpose of life is to not panic and not give up, then will this philosophy be any help in deciding whether or not you should become a cannable? To eat or not to eat is the question we are trying to answer at the moment. Is it not possible for you to eat and still be calm and carry on? Is not also equally possible for you to not eat and still be calm and carry on? If it is, then you have not given me that for which I’ve asked–the one goal in life that will empower you to decide the one right action in every given situation. So let me ask again: What one goal should we choose?

Yes, there’s no point wrestling something already wrestled just for the sake of repetition.

But suppose we were brought up in times of slavery, and told that the bible authorizes slavery, for instance Leviticus 25:44-46, and raised to believe this is revelation and not to be wrestled with, then slavery would perpetuate for ever and ever.

That’s why the young have a tendency to rebel against those elders who think they know the absolute best. Only by wrestling anew can anything change, for better or for worse. This is the way of the Lord.

You might be onto something. Let us consider the ethics of slavery after we have finished considering the ethics of canablism. Specifically, let us see if there is any life goal one might adopt that would assist him in deciding whether to eat or not eat.

 

[spockrates]

spock
**
It would seem, then that dying to save the life of another is preferable, and the act of which true heroes are made and which may make them much like Christ, who both suffered and died so that you and I and Inocente might live.**

Those who died, died fighting. They didn’t kill themselves to avoid pain. Get a grip, please!

Yes, sorry for being unclear. I was trying to convey that if choosing life over death is our goal in life, then we would not achieve that goal by committing suicide (so we would say suicide is never right) but we would achieve that goal by sacrificing ourselves for others. For Jesus gave up living so that you and I might live as a result of what he did.



Moreover, the life’s goal of the cannable would be the opposite of Christ’s goal for us. For rather than dying so that others might live, the people eater lives so that others might die!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

But suppose we were brought up in times of slavery, and told that the bible authorizes slavery, for instance Leviticus 25:44-46, and raised to believe this is revelation and not to be wrestled with, then slavery would perpetuate for ever and ever.

Not necessarily.Enslavement of fellow Jews was forbidden in Deuteronomy.

The ancient world was a harsh place in which to live. As Jesus said, much was allowed to the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts. However, Jesus came as the leaven of freedom and love that would ultimately spread throughout the world. Christian countries gradually abolished slavery over the centuries, while pagan countries held fast to it. Some Christian countries were slow to shed their slaves. In the U.S. Thomas Jefferson, by no means a Catholic, held slaves until forty years before the Civil War that ended slavery. Much of the energy that went into the Abolition Movement resided in the Christian Churches. As late as Martin Luther King much of the energy behind the Civil Rights movement originated in both black and white churches. Martin Luther King was an ordained minister of the Gospel.

The ultimate argument against slavery comes from the mouth of Jesus.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

No person in his right mind would want to be enslaved, and so the admonition against slavery.

But how we got from the significance of Socrates to slavery baffles me.

 

[inocente]

inocente

Then you’ve added another clause to the golden rule, which now reads: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you unless you think they are wiser than you, in which case do unto them what you think they would do unto you, but, and this is very important, it can’t be stressed how important this is, never do anything until you’ve first visited a psychiatrist to make certain you are of sound mind.

There’s a reason the state does not hold insane people accountable for their acts. You apparently do. Grief causes insanity and irrational acts, which should never be an excuse for the view that the suicide is as justified as the normal person who is willing to live no matter how difficult the circumstances of life may be. An ethic grounded in a deeply wwowunded psyche, as the basis for a sound morality?

You advocate a cowardly ethic?

I don’t see how you got to that rather perverse meaning, but you prove my point that people interpret differently, in extreme getting things totally backwards, and so there can be no absolute ethical rule.

 

[inocente]

Please briefly give a strong argument for becoming a man eater.

We are in a lifeboat with no means of signalling for rescue and no food or water. One of us, against strong advice, has been drinking salt water and dies as a consequence. His soul has gone, leaving his body behind. The body isn’t him, just a lump of meat. We will die unless we eat soon, and die needlessly.

Which from memory is very roughly the infamous tale of Regina v Dudley and Stephens

*Then let us investigate your reasons for questioning, or at least consider the meaning of life you have proposed. If the one purpose of life is to not panic and not give up, then will this philosophy be any help in deciding whether or not you should become a cannable? To eat or not to eat is the question we are trying to answer at the moment. Is it not possible for you to eat and still be calm and carry on? Is not also equally possible for you to not eat and still be calm and carry on? If it is, then you have not given me that for which I’ve asked–the one goal in life that will empower you to decide the one right action in every given situation. So let me ask again: What one goal should we choose?
*

I think keep calm and carry on is a fine goal, a social goal, heard often in conversation in Spain using one word, tranquilo.

But I still question how come you got divine right to dictate that we must have one goal.

Come to that, is such an animal something which can necessarily be put into words? If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. Love isn’t readily expressed in words, in many ways rule books destroy love. So out of rebellion my integrity shall be in zero or more undefinable goals.

You might be onto something. Let us consider the ethics of slavery after we have finished considering the ethics of canablism. Specifically, let us see if there is any life goal one might adopt that would assist him in deciding whether to eat or not eat.

Paul wasn’t speaking of cannibals here of course, but if he were would his conclusion change?

*"I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."*

 

[inocente]

inocente

But suppose we were brought up in times of slavery, and told that the bible authorizes slavery, for instance Leviticus 25:44-46, and raised to believe this is revelation and not to be wrestled with, then slavery would perpetuate for ever and ever.

Not necessarily.Enslavement of fellow Jews was forbidden in Deuteronomy.

Yes, many times thoughout history one group of people have chosen to say no one outside their nation deserves to be called human in order to oppress or slaughter them with a moral gloss.

The ancient world was a harsh place in which to live. As Jesus said, much was allowed to the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts. However, Jesus came as the leaven of freedom and love that would ultimately spread throughout the world. Christian countries gradually abolished slavery over the centuries, while pagan countries held fast to it. Some Christian countries were slow to shed their slaves. In the U.S. Thomas Jefferson, by no means a Catholic, held slaves until forty years before the Civil War that ended slavery. Much of the energy that went into the Abolition Movement resided in the Christian Churches. As late as Martin Luther King much of the energy behind the Civil Rights movement originated in both black and white churches. Martin Luther King was an ordained minister of the Gospel.

Let’s not rewrite history, sadly it was Christian countries which ruled the slave trade, and as for churches:

*"King also charged in a paper on preaching that the Christian church was “the greatest preserver of the status quo” and, thereby, “one of the chief exponents of racial bigotry.” King wrote: “I can conclude that the church, in its present state, is not the hope of the world. I believe that nothing has so persistently and effectively blocked the way of salvation as the church.”

In an early sermon preached in 1953 while associate pastor at his father’s church, Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, King spoke out against the acceptance of segregation in churches, declaring, “I am [ashamed] and appalled that Eleven O’ Clock on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in Christian America.” - stanford.edu/group/King/news/vol6announcement.htm*

*The ultimate argument against slavery comes from the mouth of Jesus.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

No person in his right mind would want to be enslaved, and so the admonition against slavery.*

The golden rule is easily circumvented, just define other ethnic groups as sub-human, racialists do it all the time.

But how we got from the significance of Socrates to slavery baffles me.

Twas used as an example of how rules prevent any change to the status quo. I know little of Socrates but think he liked people to use their noggins rather than blindly follow rules.

 

[tonyrey]

Was his contribution to human thought worthless? If so why? If not why not?

I certainly don’t think the (217) replies are worthless!

 

[spockrates]

We are in a lifeboat with no means of signalling for rescue and no food or water. One of us, against strong advice, has been drinking salt water and dies as a consequence. His soul has gone, leaving his body behind. The body isn’t him, just a lump of meat. We will die unless we eat soon, and die needlessly.

Yes, that’s certainly a situation where one would be tempted to taste the forbidden flesh, but it’s a situation, not a reason. What I’m asking is why someone would decide it is morally right to eat and morally wrong to not eat in that situation. If on the day of her rescue the last surviving cannable was asked why she ate, what should be her answer?

I think keep calm and carry on is a fine goal, a social goal, heard often in conversation in Spain using one word, tranquilo.

Yes, but is it a helpful goal when it comes to providing the best, most moral and wisest decision to make every situation? If it does not assist you or I with even deciding whether or not to eat another human being, then I question it’s worth as a moral compas. However, likely has great worth as a method to help one in reaching the one goal she adopts for her life. In that way, it is like the Socratic Method. Both are useful as a means, but are either the ends one seeks?

But I still question how come you got divine right to dictate that we must have one goal.

Yes, indeed! What right have I to insist there is one goal for life that should give us the wisdom we need to make every moral decision?



If there were not such a goal, and every goal you suggested was found to be–like “keep calm and carry on”–more a means than an end, then it would waste a great deal of our time. We might be looking for a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow with great anticipation of finally finding the meaning or purpose of life only to find our hope devoured by the leprechaun of despair! If there are only many, but never one goal for life, then there is no meaning or purpose to life that is best for all. Love your neighbor. Eat your neighbor. Choose life. Commit suicide. Take from the weak. Turn the other cheek. It matters not what you do as long if it gives life meaning to you!

Come to that, is such an animal something which can necessarily be put into words? If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. Love isn’t readily expressed in words, in many ways rule books destroy love. So out of rebellion my integrity shall be in zero or more undefinable goals.

Paul wasn’t speaking of cannibals here of course, but if he were would his conclusion change?

*"I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."*

You joker! You’ve been toying with me! You begin by rebuking me for suggesting there be one goal to guide every goal we set for ourselves, then you laugh at my embarrassment by suggesting the goal yourself. You’re a sadist, you are! But I suppose I deserve it for asking so many simple questions, but offering no wise answers if my own.



Very well, then. Let us consider the goal you and Paul suggest. Let us consider love. Why should I choose this as the one goal of all goals for my life?

 

[spockrates]

I certainly don’t think the (217) replies are worthless!

Yes, I suppose Socrates’ description of us rings true, as we “care not whether our words are many or few, so long as we acquire the truth!” (Theaetetus).



And what is your opinion of the Socratic Method so clumsily employed by this amateure disciple of Socrates? Do you think it a good method to determine the truth about the worth of Socrates, or do you think debate would serve to defend him better?