How significant was Socrates?

[tonyrey]

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?

My recent questions are intended to focus attention on the Greek philosophers who are often unjustly neglected or even belittled. By discussing their ideas we reveal their value, originality and significance.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

**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? **

Because, as Jesus says, all the laws are subsumed in this one law of love.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

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

Let’s not rewrite history, as you might say.

Before Christianity rose to become a world power, slavery was commonplace in every land, including the Golden Age of Greece during the time of Socrates.

Where is it common place today? When found, it is generally found only in non-Christian countries. That should tell you something about history.

What Martin Luther King decried was the fact that certain Christians were indeed bigots. That does not mean that Christianity is bigoted. It means only that certain Christians (and Jews, who were instrumental in the slave trade) have failed to live up to the admonition of Christ to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Is there slavery in America today? No. Why? Because many Christians saw the evil and worked to undo it, not only here but around the world. I don’t know any Christians who own slaves. Do you? How would slavery be consistent with the view of Jesus that we should do unto others as we’d have them do unto us?

Would you like to be a slave? I wouldn’t either. I don’t know anybody who would.

 

[inocente]

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?

Sorry, I thought it was implied by the way I put it - her answer would be simply “to stay alive”, since otherwise she wouldn’t be there to give an answer.

You asked for a strong argument, so there was no question of murder or of eating for any reason other than the absolute necessity of keeping body and soul together. Paul says nothing is unclean in itself, although of course there’s a taboo on human flesh even in this scenario (perhaps in terms of adaptation for the same reason it was a bad idea to feed cows to cows, it creates nasty diseases like BSE).

The Hopi hold that everything is sacred. They would only kill a cow or deer out of necessity, and then apologize to its soul. Our tradition is that only people can be sacred, sometimes not even that, silly to apologize to the soul of a burger, it’s just fast food is all. Our tradition may just be a bit weird, perhaps the Hopi know better.

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?

I think it’s a helpful goal, basically stoicism, don’t let emotion ruin our judgment, go with the flow, stay cool, work out the options, is it better to die or to live knowing what we did to live, to be or not to be.

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!

I like the rhyming of ideas in the highlighted sentences, but good always triumphs over evil in the end, which is perhaps how we ultimately define good, good is what is everlasting.

Humans have survived for a long time without ever agreeing on the ultimate answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Which raises a few questions: Is it even possible for everyone to agree on one answer? And given if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, is it such a good idea to experiment with a monoculture based on one answer anyway?

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.

Knew you’d like it.

But no, Romans 14 is a wonderful piece of logic. When it comes to disputable matters even diametrically opposed answers are all correct! But only as long as they come from faith (“for everything that does not come from faith is sin”).

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?

Please see my sig.

 

[inocente]

Let’s not rewrite history, as you might say.

And did.

*Before Christianity rose to become a world power, slavery was commonplace in every land, including the Golden Age of Greece during the time of Socrates.

Where is it common place today? When found, it is generally found only in non-Christian countries. That should tell you something about history.

What Martin Luther King decried was the fact that certain Christians were indeed bigots. That does not mean that Christianity is bigoted. It means only that certain Christians (and Jews, who were instrumental in the slave trade) have failed to live up to the admonition of Christ to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Is there slavery in America today? No. Why? Because many Christians saw the evil and worked to undo it, not only here but around the world. I don’t know any Christians who own slaves. Do you? How would slavery be consistent with the view of Jesus that we should do unto others as we’d have them do unto us?

Would you like to be a slave? I wouldn’t either. I don’t know anybody who would.*

Nope, he decried institutionalized segregation, in which the institutions were the churches. And when looking at reports of the anniversary of I Have A Dream the other day, many were saying discrimination is still a problem in the US.

As for slavery, it didn’t go away, it just changed its name to human trafficking.

fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/july/operation-cross-country-recovering-victims-of-child-sex-trafficking
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
As for slavery, it didn’t go away, it just changed its name to human trafficking.**

And what is your evidence that Christians are doing that according to the teaching of Jesus?

Nope, he decried institutionalized segregation, in which the institutions were the churches.

No doubt in many communities they certainly were. Last week a Mass was celebrated in my largely white/hispanic parish by a black priest. How does that fit in your model of bigoted Christians?

Do you believe there are any Christians other than yourself who are not bigoted?

 

[spockrates]

My recent questions are intended to focus attention on the Greek philosophers who are often unjustly neglected or even belittled. By discussing their ideas we reveal their value, originality and significance.

Please tell me what one idea of Socrates you find most reveals his value?

 

[inocente]

And what is your evidence that Christians are doing that according to the teaching of Jesus?

The linked FBI report says the “operation serves as a reminder that these abhorrent crimes can happen anywhere”. A quick google shows that in the US, 77% Identify as Christian. Make of that what you will.

Not sure Christ is pleased you’re protecting His brand image, or sad you never mentioned the welfare of the 105 sexually exploited children the operation recovered. Which do you think is more important to Christ?

*No doubt in many communities they certainly were. Last week a Mass was celebrated in my largely white/hispanic parish by a black priest. How does that fit in your model of bigoted Christians?

Do you believe there are any Christians other than yourself who are not bigoted? *

I only quoted facts to correct your one-sided story. We cannot serve Christ by sweeping the past under a rug and pretending it didn’t happen, that just allows injustices to be perpetuated.

Let us keep calm and carry on.

 

[spockrates]

spock

**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? **

Because, as Jesus says, all the laws are subsumed in this one law of love.

Indeed!

35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"

(Matthew 22)

So would you say the greatest commandment is the one goal to which all other goals must submit? If so, then we can put it to the test to see if loving God gives us the one answer to every moral question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

The linked FBI report says the “operation serves as a reminder that these abhorrent crimes can happen anywhere”. A quick google shows that in the US, 77% Identify as Christian. Make of that what you will.

That the 77% of Christians are involved in human trafficking? I don’t make much of that nor of the logical connection you are trying to feed us.

Not sure Christ is pleased you’re protecting His brand image, or sad you never mentioned the welfare of the 105 sexually exploited children the operation recovered. Which do you think is more important to Christ?

A truly silly question! Get a grip on your reasoning powers.

I only quoted facts to correct your one-sided story. We cannot serve Christ by sweeping the past under a rug and pretending it didn’t happen, that just allows injustices to be perpetuated.

I don’t have a one-sided story. What’s one-sided about admitting that slavery survived through the Christian era, but that it gradually declined and finally was eliminated in all Christian countries?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

So would you say the greatest commandment is the one goal to which all other goals must submit? If so, then we can put it to the test to see if loving God gives us the one answer to every moral question.

Your test will be interesting, to be sure. I believe Jesus will pass it.

 

[tonyrey]

Please tell me what one idea of Socrates you find most reveals his value?

“Know thyself”. He wasn’t the first to think of the idea but he used it to highlight the reality and importance of the mind in stark contrast to the crude materialism of the Atomists. In other words he brought the moral and spiritual realm down to earth!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**“Know thyself”. He wasn’t the first to think of the idea but he used it to highlight the reality and importance of the mind in stark contrast to the crude materialism of the Atomists. In other words he brought the moral and spiritual realm down to earth! **

Agreed.

Socrates elevated the study of mind (psyche) to a higher plateau than it had ever enjoyed.

It is no accident that the early church found a fertile field to sow in when the missionaries brought Jesus to Greece. Socrates and Plato were still riding high, and here was a new philosopher (Saint Paul) bringing hope and comfort and common sense and an even grander spirituality to a civilization in decline.

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/paul-the-new-socrates-in-athens-paul-as-philosopher-part-iii/

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

**“Know thyself”. He wasn’t the first to think of the idea but he used it to highlight the reality and importance of the mind in stark contrast to the crude materialism of the Atomists. In other words he brought the moral and spiritual realm down to earth! **

Agreed.

Socrates elevated the study of mind (psyche) to a higher plateau than it had ever enjoyed.

It is no accident that the early church found a fertile field to sow in when the missionaries brought Jesus to Greece. Socrates and Plato were still riding high, and here was a new philosopher (Saint Paul) bringing hope and comfort and common sense and an even grander spirituality to a civilization in decline.

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/paul-the-new-socrates-in-athens-paul-as-philosopher-part-iii/

Thanks for that fascinating reference, Charlie. These ideas are sorely needed in the spiritual desert of secular society…

 

[inocente]

inocente

The linked FBI report says the “operation serves as a reminder that these abhorrent crimes can happen anywhere”. A quick google shows that in the US, 77% Identify as Christian. Make of that what you will.

That the 77% of Christians are involved in human trafficking? I don’t make much of that nor of the logical connection you are trying to feed us.

What logical connection? I don’t want to get into crime stats but it’s a fact that Christians are no less imperfect than anyone else.

Not sure Christ is pleased you’re protecting His brand image, or sad you never mentioned the welfare of the 105 sexually exploited children the operation recovered. Which do you think is more important to Christ?

A truly silly question! Get a grip on your reasoning powers.

Good, then we’re agreed that the priority is the victims rather than attributing blame.

I don’t have a one-sided story. What’s one-sided about admitting that slavery survived through the Christian era, but that it gradually declined and finally was eliminated in all Christian countries?

Except that it didn’t, it’s a myth.

“there are 27 million slaves worldwide, more than in 1860, when there were 25 million.” - bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/global-slavery-by-the-numbers/?_r=0

*"In 2001 the United States State Department estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 women and girls are trafficked each year into the United States.

In Netherlands, the Bureau of the Dutch Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings in 2005 estimated that there are from 1,000 to 7,000 trafficking victims a year.

In Switzerland, the police estimated in 2006 that there may be between 1,500 and 3,000 victims of all types of human trafficking.

In Spain, in 2007, officials identified 1,035 sex trafficking victims and 445 labor trafficking victims." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

"there are 27 million slaves worldwide, more than in 1860, when there were 25 million."

The population of the world has grown exponentially since 1860. Surely you know that!

**"In 2001 the United States State Department estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 women and girls are trafficked each year into the United States.

In Netherlands, the Bureau of the Dutch Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings in 2005 estimated that there are from 1,000 to 7,000 trafficking victims a year.

In Switzerland, the police estimated in 2006 that there may be between 1,500 and 3,000 victims of all types of human trafficking.
**
**In Spain, in 2007, officials identified 1,035 sex trafficking victims and 445 labor trafficking victims." **

There’s a huge difference between slavery and sex trafficking. Surely you know that. Why are you changing the subject from slavery to sex trafficking?

How much of this sex trafficking is conducted by Christians? Please show the statistics. There are none. You seem eager in your argument to show that Christianity does nothing for anybody. That Christians are just as wicked as everybody else. What farcical logic is this from a Baptist? You can do better than that.

Now can you please get back to the subject of this thread?

 

[inocente]

"there are 27 million slaves worldwide, more than in 1860, when there were 25 million."

The population of the world has grown exponentially since 1860. Surely you know that!

So 27,000,000 people are just a drop in the ocean and there’s no need to worry about them? What proportion of the world population would be cause for concern?

***"In 2001 the United States State Department estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 women and girls are trafficked each year into the United States.

In Netherlands, the Bureau of the Dutch Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings in 2005 estimated that there are from 1,000 to 7,000 trafficking victims a year.

In Switzerland, the police estimated in 2006 that there may be between 1,500 and 3,000 victims of all types of human trafficking.

---

**In Spain, in 2007, officials identified 1,035 sex trafficking victims and 445 labor trafficking victims." **

There’s a huge difference between slavery and sex trafficking. Surely you know that. Why are you changing the subject from slavery to sex trafficking?

How much of this sex trafficking is conducted by Christians? Please show the statistics. There are none. You seem eager in your argument to show that Christianity does nothing for anybody. That Christians are just as wicked as everybody else. What farcical logic is this from a Baptist? You can do better than that.

I think the priority for us as Christians isn’t terminology, but rather the fate of 27,000,000 people. If you don’t like calling the trafficked victims sex slaves, what term is acceptable to you?

I gave statistics, all for countries where the prevailing religion is Christianity. It seems unlikely that all Christians are squeaky clean, but imho Heaven cares naught for brand image compared with 27,000,000 slaves worldwide.


sumall.org/slave-labor

Now can you please get back to the subject of this thread?

We could have been done with this some time ago, when I said keep calm and carry on, but instead you keep making your insinuations, and I keep having to answer them.

In any event we are on-topic:

“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil” - Socrates, Phædo 91

Which could be called the ad man’s lament, for facts are facts whatever we choose to call them and facts remain whether or not we choose to acknowledge them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
So 27,000,000 people are just a drop in the ocean and there’s no need to worry about them? What proportion of the world population would be cause for concern?**

Of course this is a matter of concern. You lost sight of the original dispute. I said Christianity had done much to eliminate the slavery of the old world. You brought out that there are more sex slaves today than slaves existing in the Civil War era. I retorted that the world’s population has increased exponentially. You brush that aside as if it does not matter that the amount of slavery today in the world is considerably less than it was 150 years ago.

Where, when, or did you ever take an introduction to logic course?

Did Christ advocate slavery? Sex slavery or any other kind of slavery? Be careful how you answer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente: Slavery is as bad as it ever was, even in Christian countries.

charlemagne: How so?

inocente: Look at all the sex slave trafficking.

charlemagne: How is that comparable to ancient slavery, where people were bought and sold and it was legal and approved by the populace?

inocente: er … um … well it’s there anyway.

charlemagne: Really? Sex slave trafficking is legal in Christian countries? Would you like to name a few?

inocente: er … um … let me do some more research and see if I can discredit the influence of Jesus since the bad old days of the Roman Empire. Get back to you later.

charlemagne: I look forward to that!

inocente: Me too!

 

[spockrates]

Sorry, I thought it was implied by the way I put it - her answer would be simply “to stay alive”, since otherwise she wouldn’t be there to give an answer.

You asked for a strong argument, so there was no question of murder or of eating for any reason other than the absolute necessity of keeping body and soul together. Paul says nothing is unclean in itself, although of course there’s a taboo on human flesh even in this scenario (perhaps in terms of adaptation for the same reason it was a bad idea to feed cows to cows, it creates nasty diseases like BSE).

The Hopi hold that everything is sacred. They would only kill a cow or deer out of necessity, and then apologize to its soul. Our tradition is that only people can be sacred, sometimes not even that, silly to apologize to the soul of a burger, it’s just fast food is all. Our tradition may just be a bit weird, perhaps the Hopi know better.

So why is there not a Canible King or Mc Ghouls or Kentucky Fried Flesh in every city?

I think it’s a helpful goal, basically stoicism, don’t let emotion ruin our judgment, go with the flow, stay cool, work out the options, is it better to die or to live knowing what we did to live, to be or not to be.

True, but in what way does it help one to choose whether it is right or wrong to eat one’s neighbor?

I like the rhyming of ideas in the highlighted sentences, but good always triumphs over evil in the end, which is perhaps how we ultimately define good, good is what is everlasting.

I like the phrase, “Good is what is everlasting.” There is a great deal of wisdom within those few words.



Why not try this idea on for size to see how it fits us? Our goal is to do whatever has everlasting benefit for us and others.

Humans have survived for a long time without ever agreeing on the ultimate answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Which raises a few questions: Is it even possible for everyone to agree on one answer? And given if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, is it such a good idea to experiment with a monoculture based on one answer anyway?

Perhaps, but as Socrates puts it, “If we ourselves find the truth, will it matter what others think?”

Knew you’d like it.

But no, Romans 14 is a wonderful piece of logic. When it comes to disputable matters even diametrically opposed answers are all correct! But only as long as they come from faith (“for everything that does not come from faith is sin”).

Please see my sig.

Yes, but is Paul saying the end is what we should not dispute, or is he saying the means we use to achieve the end is what we should not dispute? For grins, let us put 2 and 2 together and say our end is to love one another in ways that have everlasting benefit for us. Would Paul say we should not dispute with others who choose instead to hate in ways that have everlasting detriment?